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.
That's just a regional accent. As in, "Defeat of dee cat went over defense before detail."
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.
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.
iTunes will surely be bundled with the iPods. But they can still make money by distributing it freely with the iTunes Music Store. Songs ($.99) and albums ($9.99). iTunes is now more than a simple player, but a mechanism to buy music as well.
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.
Knowing Apple, I would guess it will greatly resemble the Mac version.
.mac subscriptions on Mac users for the Music Store, so I wouldn't expect it (if it's even an option) on the Windows side.
They aren't forcing
This is all about the Music Store. Windows iPods have been available for some time now without iTunes.
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.
AOL could be the 'Trojan Horse' Apple needs to ferret their way in.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
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...
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.
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.
As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site
That will inevitably change as more and more web designers and developers realize that it is not about MS compatibility but about standards. Make your pages XHML compliant and you will not have to worry about Mac or Windows, IE or Safari.
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.
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!
Two responses that don't really answer you. I'll try.
Let's say you have a 5 GB iPod and a 4 GB music collection. You can set up iTunes so that the iPod syncs to your music collection every time you plug it in. The first time you plug it in, all of your music and playlists will be downloaded to it. Buzz buzz, the iPod will get hot while the FireWire cable sparkles.
You unplug your iPod. You go do something. You come home, and shop on the iTunes Music Store. You buy three songs. You plug your iPod in, and poof! Quick as can be, those songs are now on your iPod. You make a couple of playlists, and those are on your iPod, too. You rip a new CD, and those songs are on your iPod too.
There's more. When you plug in you iPod, iSync automatically launches and downloads your address book and calendar items (including alarms) to it. So now your iPod is a simple PDA as well as a music player.
All of this happened without your having to actually do anything beyond the initial set-up. It's all automatic as soon as you plug the iPod in. And because we're talking about FireWire here, it's all fast, fast. In fact, the limiting factor on the iPod's transfer speed is the internal hard drive itself, not the connection to the computer.
There's more to it than that. iTunes has support for smart playlists, which means (for example) that you can have a playlist that randomly picks 10 songs you've listened to at least once but haven't heard in a week or more. Very handy.
All in all, the iPod is both the most expensive and the most popular music player on the market, and that ought to tell you something.
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.
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.
*****
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!