Slashdot Mirror
Apple is Porting iTunes to Windows
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that Apple is indeed porting its new iTunes software to Windows as evidenced by a posting on its job board (No. 1949938) This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable? Will this have any effect on P2P networks?" Sure enough, I go there and it says, " Looking for a Senior Software Engineer to desing (sic) and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows." Heh.
After all, there are plenty of free and nearly-free music players for Windows, how could they make money by charging for it?
Clear, Dark Skies
That's just a regional accent. As in, "Defeat of dee cat went over defense before detail."
I cannot imagine Apple giving away their crowing jewel of consumer software so that some PC user who has never given them a dime can use it with the RealJukebox - But If the new digital music store takes off on the mac side than maybe Apple would use a Windows iTunes (and/or AOL version) as a content portal/revenue stream. This would also be a great way to get Quicktime back into the media race. Porting osx to wintel == suicide, porting iTunes just might work.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Hopefully they'll let existing iPod for Windows users use it as well - MusicMatch Jukebox (the software they bundle with the Windows versions) is a buggy, bloated, slow, unstable, unintuitive and unfunctional piece of crap. And EphPod keeps corrupting itself.
This space intentionally left blank.
Every time someone suggests that, God kills a pygmy marmoset. Please, for the sake of the marmosets, stop.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
That would certainly be my "Ted/Neo" style reaction to being hired at Apple. Or to even having a job after being without one for a long time.
I've been wanting iTunes for Windows for sometime now, but at the same time not wanting it, because it's a good program that makes the mac platform special. I think it will be good for both music and ipod sales, but will it have Rendezvous built in? That would greatly increase music sharing on my campus, and since it would work only within the lan it wouldn't count against upload/download restrictions.
I still don't think apple will move much more to X86, and esp. they will not be using X86 CPU's anytime soon.
Yup, that is just the app I needed ported to Windows to cause me to switch. Oh, wait, there's still iDVD, iPhoto, Safari, Aqua, etc, etc. (rolls eyes)
Come on, its *one* freakin app, and the point is to drive sales of the iPod and their online music store.
Right now windows support is via a thrid party software. If Apple releases iTunes for windows they would have more control on the feature set and user interface issues.
.mac subscription on windows users.
Of course how much it will resemble the Mac version would be debatable.
Also this would also mean Windows users would get access to the music catalog for purchase. Wonder if they would force
If this will allow for the same level of syncing between iPods on Windows as there is on Macs, this would be great. I think that's one of the best features of the iPod on Mac. It really becomes an extension of your computer musci collection, not just another copy of your collection.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
This wont require iPods, but it will sell them and more Apple hardware in the long run. The best way ive found to show off how great the mac platform is is to show people iTunes, and then tell them that almost all Apple apps are that clean and intuitive (almost =iCal). Right now its not about the 'next killer app' thats being brewed in some R&D lab, the killer app is right here - an iPod + iTunes is a reason to buy a computer. For Apple that means making big margins (read: iPod) on a commercial for their other "digital hub" services.
And to think that when I bought my first mac in '99 Apple was the worst plaform for digital media, thank god for Steve Jobs. Oh wait, he is god, my bad.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Or more specifically, low-level, annoyance DRM versus heavy-handed, we-own-your-machine DRM. If the consumer has a choice between Apple-style music management and the music-rental style Microsoft and the RIAA want, which one do you think they'll choose?
Yeah, I know, "the one that's pre-installed". We may still be globally screwed, but at least Apple's trying...
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable?
It's one app, man. And the motive, as has been said
elsewhere here, is to push the music store. That's
it, that's all. The only implications are how much
money Apple's gonna make selling 99 cent songs to
'doze users. That and possibly an answer to why it
was so hard for other online music vendors to make
a Mac client.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Of course how much it will resemble the Mac version would be debatable.
I'm guessing it would look awfully similar to QuickTime for Windows.
I'm not so much surprised by this announcement as I am surprised that it's taken Apple this long just to get around to hiring someone to start porting iTunes to Windows. MusicMatch must've been doing a pretty good job for them in the interim.
I believe that the sole reason for porting iTunes is so that they can get the iTunes Music Store for Windows users.
The whole point of the iTunes Music Store is that Apple has control of the whole process: You buy the music from Apple with iTunes, load it up to your iPod or burn it to a CD using iTunes. That's what makes it special from the numerous websites selling music downloads.
Apple already has iPod for Windows, but it ships with a 3rd party jukebox software. iTunes for Windows is the missing piece which will enable Apple to create a similar music purchasing experience for Windows users as it has for Mac users.
That's only my opinion, but I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows.
Considering that at the presentation Monday Jobs said that the Music Store would be available to Windows users by the end of the year- yes, they'll be porting the Music Store along with it.
AOL could be the 'Trojan Horse' Apple needs to ferret their way in.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
MusicMatch does suck, but there are a couple of other apps that make life a little easier.
EphPod, free IRC
XPlay, not free.
Enjoy.
If it is, will they port webcore too or will they rely on internet explorer for HTML rendering??
John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware.
I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes or Mail. They all bought a Mac for the overall user experience of the apps and OS X. It's great that WinXP will get iTunes. It still won't have Safari, iDVD, iPhoto, Mail, Terminal, Fire, etc.... And it definitely won't have the BSD layer of OS X.
There are still fundamental differences between OS X and WinXP that will attract people to OS X. One or two ports of favorite apps won't change that.
Web Objects Application
My other sig is extremely clever...
in this article
it's how their going to get the store on windows- I think it will give people a taste of apple and want one- that's what their betting on, so I'm also willing to bet it won't be a half-assed port.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
I read somewhere [reputable] that Apple makes almost as much profit off of an iPod as an iMac. When you think about it, it makes sense. Thanks to all the $599 P.O.S. machines Dell keeps putting out, the lower end desktop market has rather thin profit margins. On the other hand, the cheapest iPod is 300 @#$@#$ dollars (but god do I want one ;)). So, if they can port iTunes to Windows and instead of requiring people to change their entire way of life and buying a mac, all they have to do is buy an iPod, then they've made almost as much money PLUS revenues from the music store, which selection aside (give it some time), is one of the easiest things in the world to use. They can't lose.
While Apple has not commited to porting Safari to the Windows platorm, I think it would have a major positive impact on Apple.
Many web sites are still being designed for Intenet Explorer for Windows only. If you aren't using the most popular platform, your not admitted. Microsoft has been winning the browser battles but not the war. The OSS community and Apple have clearly shown that that can innovate in this space. However only Apple has the marketing muscle to try and battle IE.
IE for Windows accounts for 90-95% of the hits for most of the web sites that I am involved with. For some developers those #s justify developing for a single platform. If Apple can get 100% of Mac users to adopt Safari we may see a 1% shift. However if Apple can get 25% of IE for Windows users to switch to Safari for Windows, the playing field will quickly level.
As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site and not have plugins available for non IE browsers. Apple can help their long term position by leveling the internet playing field and thus making migration to a non Windows platform that much smoother.
Choice is good.
To anyone who cares, here's the damned link
QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning. It can literally do anything (I used to joke that the cure for cancer was in QT if you knew the right keyboard shortcut.) I've seen people juggle dozens of disparate codecs, publish automated PDF spreadsheets, and control remote cameras and robots w/QT. (Okay, I like QT.)
Now, QT on Windows I've always regarded as a sort of Apple Secret Weapon. The original QT-Win port actually contained a really significant chunk of the Mac Toolbox API out of necessity. Don't know if that's still true. What my friends were discussing all that time ago was whether or not Apple could use this installed base of what amounts to a mini-OS against Microsoft, if the media wars every truly got nasty.
Think about it - you hook everyone on something like, say, movie trailers, get everyone to install it.
Now you roll out iTunes, which everyone loves, which relies on QT for many functions, not the least of which your new DRM (FairPlay - good name) for the Music Store you just launched. Hmm.
Nothing really insightful here but QuickTime could pose some major problems for Windows hegemony in media dominance. It's already captured the format for the MPEG4 spec (MS just howled bloody murder over that). It's been around since the dawn of time. iTunes for Windows is just the head of the spear. Apple has been playing defence for a long time but this is really significant, especially of consumers really glom onto Apple's method of DRM. Palladium, anyone? (I know its not the same, but do you think any typical users know that?)
Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback. That's so fucking funny to me now, it hurts. Helloooo, iMovie. Slightly OT: Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux. The port alone, while earning them no money, would be very strategic.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Okay, am I the only person who's wondering why Apple is posting this job ad at all? I would have believed that iTunes for Windows would have been started months ago...
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Fourtune reported Apple makes as much ecomonic profit on an iPod as an iMac. If this is true, then selling a million 'Pods gets Apple the same cash as a million iMacs. (Future profits be dammed)
If there are a 10 million Windoz users that will never switch, but will buy an iPod -- Why not sell it to them?
Apple Computer is looking for a Senior Software Engineer to design and build one of our newest Consumer Applications, iTunes for Windows.
Must be possess strong skills in the areas of application design, solid API design principles, user interface engineering, and have a strong understanding of customer and workflow issues. Experience with Windows logo certification preferred. Candidate should have a history of successful large volume consumer product shipment.
A B.S. or better in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science is preferred. Required skills include C, C++, UI, MFC, Win32, COM, DirectX, Installshield and application engineering. Exposure to networking and device drivers a plus. Minimum of 10 years of directly related experience.
They're probably looking for a veteran Win32 bug-hunter.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Actually, I heard that, contrary to the rumors of Apple porting OS X to the X86 platform, they have secretly been porting Windows to PowerPC architechture. They've been doing it via old-fashioned reverse engineering methods. Why would they do this, you may ask?
It's simple; they knew they were going to have to port some of their apps to Windows eventually, and this way, they can do it without actually buying a single Windows license!
I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows
I wonder if it would be free. The Quicktime player is, but the functionality from QT vs. iTunes is miles apart (IMO). It wouldn't surprise me if iTunes comes as a $29 or so piece of software for Windows users.
If it's been mentioned somewhere that iTunes for Windows will be free, then I'll stand corrected.
The other reason, just as with the iPods, is to give all the innovations to Mac (OS X) users first. (The reason should be obvious.) If you meant OS 9 as opposed to OS X, Jobs has said a long time ago that OS 9 is dead.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
Actually, it just lets you view the playlists and play them. I'm almost certain you can't swap the files.
Pooty tweet
I, sir, am shocked - SHOCKED - that your entire post came and went without a single mention of Ogg or Vorbis.
Do you actually call yourself a true Linux User? I laugh at this assertion!
No, it's not bad marketing. It's brilliant marketing. I'm sure Apple hopes that the Music Store will be independently profitable, but I can guarantee you it's going to take a SHITLOAD of 99 downloads to reach that point. For now, the Music Store will drive iPod sales and, to a lesser extent, Mac sales. That's good marketing, not bad marketing.
Now, let's talk about the assertion that the Music Store is a "web based app."
Yesterday I bought "Birdhouse in your Soul" by They Might Be Giants. I clicked Music Store. I typed "Birdhouse in your Soul" in the search box and hit enter. I clicked "Buy Song." I typed my password and hit enter. I clicked "Buy" to confirm. I went and got a drink of water. When I came back, the song was sitting in my "Purchased Music" playlist and it was on my iPod, because I had it plugged in and I had auto-sync turned on.
Total cost to me: 99. (I already had the Mac, the Internet access, and the iPod.) Total time required, not counting the trip to the kitchen: about thirty seconds.
Try doing THAT with a cross-platform "web based app." It just ain't gonna happen.
[Motherboard T] + [CPU U] + [Video Card V] + [Audio Card W] + [RAM X] + [HDD Y] + [Power Supply Z]
(where variables T --> Z are a wide array of possibilities)
You no longer have a series of machines that 'just work' - instead you have "that other OS thingie that flakes-out almost as much as Windows - and has the window buttons on the wrong side - but sure looks and acts nice!"
To release OS X for non-vertically-integrated x86/AMD64 would be to evaporate the Mac platform's strongest selling point.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
iTunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford
No, it's like BMW making car stereos for Ford. You bought a Mac because you wanted the best driving experience. Nothing has changed there.
But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product.
For an Mac user, you don't seem to have much of a concept of the 'ease of use' advantage!
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
Why do people always say things like this? Computers have been networked for a lot longer than P2P apps have been around. If someone emailed you an MP3, would you immediately start rushing about getting excited about email being the Next Big P2P Thing?!
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I read in the Forbes article that Apple makes about $0.33 for each song that's sold. It makes perfect sense for them to get as many people to buy songs using their service, using their software, as possible, without having to split the proceeds with MusicMatch or some other company.
Toon toon! Black and white army!
I think Apple uses some special kind of session tracking system or something. That link does not work anymore.
This link should be persistent.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
My main point was that rather than having the URL actually contain the query, it was storing information about the session, so someone coming in later to that link wouldn't get anything at all.
I use session ids all the time in sites I design, but unless the data needs to be kept secure, I go ahead and make URLs work for queries even when the session has expired.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
iTunes (well, most of it anyway) is Carbon, not Cocoa.
I'm sorry.. the what?
the Windows GUI guidelines
The what?!?
the Windows GUI guidelines
I can hear and understand the words, but I can find no meaning in them.
Joking aside, if you're looking for interface consistency then you are using the wrong OS. Windows is many things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I mean, Microsoft's own media player looks absolutely crazy-like. Same with WinAmp, same with nearly every media player.
Yes I know about the classic skins. Besides, interface consistency is kind of a weak argument in this instance. I could understand that for something that needed you to do more than poke 'Play' and maybe adjust the volume.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
The crack pipe is always free
music lover since 1969
Perhaps it is. I've re-installed Windows something like 5 times on this machine. First 2000, and I had no problems. Then, xp Pro and it started doing some of the strangest things.
Really, I didn't notice the skipping until recently. Perhaps it was some Windows update that I installed? I haven't done anything else system related since I installed xp, so I wonder what it could be.
Anyway, my point was that I've had some really bad experiences with my Athlon. Windows doesn't 'just work' the way that it should. I've got processing power and RAM to spare and it doesn't allocate it such that my MP3s don't skip. Meanwhile, my friend's iBook with one third the processor speed (I know, I know, unfair compairison) and half the RAM running at less than one quarter the speed doesn't have any problems whatsoever.
As far as being outraged to the point of not using the music store, that's ridiculous. These two groups at apple have VERY LITTLE, if ANYTHING to do with each other. Also, I highly doubt that you complaining on /. is going to help out. Go to Apple's site and fill out a feedback form.
While doing this, however, try to remember if Apple Reps have ever promised updates for life for the iPod... be thrilled you got AAC, because that's what the iPod is about, audio... right?
My opinion remains firm on the game issue though... Different controls are meant for different jobs. Imagine playing "Brickles/Breakout/Brickout" on a device with vertical buttons :-)
-braxton
The source code to Apple's Rendezvous implementation is already available for download. It includes implementations for Windows, Mac OS X, Mac OS 9 (yes, they're different stacks) and Posix.
I've only tried the Windows implementation (I'm only interested in Windows and Mac OS X, and I think it's a safe bet that Mac OS X works). It seemed to work perfectly.
Write to Apple. Bitch about Linux support (Quicktime / iTunes) 24/7. Eventually they might listen.
I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About OS X. About the iPod. About iTunes. You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. No kidding. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. It's there. I asked for a "queue" playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way.
Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc...) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there is a demand from this platform. It's worth trying, anyway.
But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
*****
how about making it work with Linux!?
Write to Apple. Bitch about Linux support (Quicktime / iTunes) 24/7. Eventually they might listen.
I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About OS X. About the iPod. About iTunes. You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. No kidding. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. It's there. I asked for a "queue" playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way.
Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc...) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there are opportunities to fight back Microsoft.
But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Isn't that feeling of being pissed at Apple just part of being a Mac fan? I remember that feeling very well: 1) Buying a Plus two weeks befor the Clasic came out. 2) Buying a Powerbook 140 only to have it fixed 4 times before it become "discontinued" 3) Bying a LaserWriter NTR for $2,500 back in'91, cuz it was the cheapest way to print postscript - reliably. 4) Bying a PowerPC 6100 (pizza box) only to watch my dad's Perfoma our perform it 6 months later. I had to switch to a PC if for no other reason than to transfer my hostilities to a more worthy villan. So help me God, I'm desperately wanting to by an ipod - bring on the heartache...
Apple is usually a lot better about keeping announcements this big under wraps.
Oh? So Steve Jobs announcing in front of the whole press that the iTunes Music Store will be available to Windows "by the end of the year" (actual quote, with big flashy Windows logo displayed behind him) is the best way to keep the announcement [...] under wraps?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
I agree with you that Windows seems to be a lot more mysterious than OSX, in that if something doesn't work right it's pretty tough to figure out why. I hadn't used Windows since 3.11 until I bought this laptop just recently. XP is a big improvement over that but still far from perfect.
Your problem with skipping sounds to me like maybe your hard drive isn't using DMA properly. If it has to run through interrupts then you can see exactly the symptom you described. You might try poking around in the Device Manager and see if you can spot anything. On mine here, when I look at Properties->Advanced Settings for Primary IDE Channel it says that I'm using Ultra DMA Mode 5, and gives me the opportunity to set it to something else.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Consumer applications does not necessarily mean an application that you have to pay for. QuickTime, iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes are all free -- if you want Pro (prosumer) functionality from QuickTime, you have to pay. If you want your iApps in a neato box, then you pay for iLife.
So now that we got that out of the way...
There's no good reason why Apple would charge for a Windows version of iTunes, but I can think of a couple of really good reasons not to:
1. Sell more iPods. The USB option and a Windows version of iTunes eliminate any other reason (besides the usual "Apple's too expensive") for Windows users not buying one.
2. Get more people to use their Music service.
If you really want to be speculative, the interesting thing is that it's the first consumer app since Steve's return that is being ported to Windows. There's also a .mac disk mounting utility for XP. What's next?
iPhoto would probably be a good next choice, as it would further leverage the .mac service for Windows users, etc. and would be a great opportunity for Steve to stick it to Bill.
I can just picture Jobs announcing iPhoto for Windows at MWSF 2004. Then at MWSF 2005, he can announce that .mac has more paid Windows subscribers then .net
Or not.
- learn to swim.
Just after Apple bought NeXT, I played with their "yellow box" development tools on a windows machine. This was basically a port of the ObjC runtimes and several of the basic NeXT frameworks that now make up the core of the Cocoa APIs. They had versions of TextEdit and Stickies that ran on my Windows NT workstation as part of the developer tools. (Talk about creepy.)
Anyway, my point is, Apple has been thinking for a long time about the day when they would need one of their apps to run on a Microsoft operating system.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
I think this may have been overlooked so far. A lot of people I know (e.g, me) have a Mac at home and a PC at work. So I can't share my iTunes collection from my home Mac with my PC at work. However, if they make iTunes for PCs, then I will be able! Plus, browse for tunes when on a non-Mac, and buy them too. I think iTunes for Windows is a big plus for those of use with one foot in the Mac world, and the other foot in the PC world.
You're confusing the need of record companies to make volume sales with the need of a reseller. I'm sure the record companies will need Apple to sell millions of songs before they start seeing much profit out of it (especially if it steals CD sales). But Apple is a music retailer - they're akting a cut on every song they sell. They don't invest in musicians who never make it big, they don't pay stars for their lavish lifestyles. The only investment they have to recoup is the cost of setting up the store and once that's done (since the running costs will be low), every penny they make will be pure profit. Basically the Apple music store is like Amazon -- but without all the expensive infrastructure (like book warehouses, inventory control). Web sales tied to web delivery really is the holy grail of online profitability.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.