Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases iTunes for Windows
Billy_D_Goat writes "Today at a special media event, Apple Computer released their acclaimed iTunes Music Store and stand alone player for Windows XP and 2000. They also announced a partnership to sell music on AOL and give away songs with special bottles of Pepsi. You can learn more and download it from here. "
From the iTunes 4 download page for Win2K/XP:
128 MB RAM minimum/256 RAM recommended
OK, I know RAM is cheap these days, and most people should have at least 128MB on modern machines, but I just have to ask--why would a simple network file retrieving application (let's face it, that's all this is with a little security thrown in) need that much memory? Damn...
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
I guess I don't understand your complaint... you can burn these into a CD ALL YOU WANT and from there you can do anything you want to them (mp3, record them onto a *cough* tape player, whatever).
or maybe you're just upset that there's a resonable compromise between DRM and free use rights. Come on, if you want legit digital downloads, there's going to have to be some restrictions.
Yes, the typical front end interface looks a lot like iTunes on the Mac, except they use more Windows-centric fonts. However, I give them kudos that the menus and configuration dialog boxes are all standard looking Windows dialog boxes rather than the crummy half Windows/half Mac dialog boxes from their Quicktime players.
Is there anywhere you can view their music selection without having to download and install the application?
This is just one reason why iTunes will likely kick the ass of its competitors for the Windows market--name one other player that has a promo even a tenth as big as this one. Apple is playing hardball, and there aren't many companies out there that can compete with an Apple/Pepsi combination, to say nothing of their partnership with AOL...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I've been playing around with the Windows version for the past half hour or so. It's very well done -- and feature complete:
1) The Rendezvous stuff for sharing the tunes works well. I can now share 80GB of music with my wife's IBM Thinkpad.
2) My CD drive was recognized without any problems. I can rip and burn without any problems at all. Goodbye CDex, et. al.
3) The response time on the store seems to be pretty good. The uptake on the new Windows version will probably be a lot slower than it was for the Mac version (hundreds of thousands of the Windows faithful are NOT waiting anxiously for Steve to say "it's available today".)
4) It's kinda weird seeing the Aqua UI controls and metal skins in a Windows app, but it supports my theory that iTunes is a lead in for both iPods & regular hardware. Get them used to the way things are in the Mac world, and then get them to switch.
Well done Apple. I'm impressed!
As a long time Linux geek (Debian all the way), I switched to a PowerBook this spring and have never looked back. iTunes is a big part of that experience; having it available for my Windows machines at work is even better. Plus, it means Apple has a huge chance at continuing to be viable in the marketplace. After all, this is about selling iPods--not music.
Anyway, having followed the launch even this afternoon and downloading immediately, I can tell you fidelity of the experience on Windows is good: everything is the same as Mac OS X. The look and feel will be recognizable as similar to QuickTime--the brushed metal look so often reviled among older Mac die-hards. Interestingly, I entered the same account information I use on my Mac at home, but that does not allow me to re-download music already purchased onto this machine at the office; if I want it here again (outside of my home network), I need to buy it again.
The Music Store itself appears inside iTunes; it's just another bookmark, like your playlists, your purchased music, any CD you have in your drive, and any other computers on your local network sharing music through Rendezvous. You can play music off another computer with Rendezvous, but you can't add those songs to one of your own playlists, or download / copy them to your machine.
The experience of using the Music Store inside iTunes is a little like a browsere experience, but on steriods: the interface is more sophisticated, but still based on following links for navigation, backward and forward buttons, a home page, etc. On many pages, lists of highlighted albums appear in scrollable horizontal strips of album cover thumbnails. Definitely more than a browser, more than a website.
If you spend time with iTunes, you discover that more and more music arrives everyday. Things you didn't see when you did a search last week are now there. Over time, it starts to have the same jaw-dropping effect as Napster did in it's heyday: all the music you ever wanted, right there.
Reading this comment reminds me of exactly why Apple has such great mind share with average home users and Linux doesn't. In a word: innovation.
Now, before you start flaming me, please listen to my intent:
Apple: puts out uber-cool, lickin' your chops iPod, but makes it only available on Macs (to start). Puts out actually workable online music service and makes is only available on Macs (to start). People love both of these things and buy them in hoards. Mac users have status and coolness as they're the only ones that can get this awesome stuff... at least for little while.
Linux: Can we run this on WINE? In other words, can we take this cool stuff from another platform and try to make it work on ours. You probably can and probably will, but meanwhile you have to wait for some point in time AFTER everyone else has it. Let's face it, cool is very often about being first... about having something others don't have.
What Linux needs is innovation. They need something that only they have (at least for a little while) that everyone else wants. That is how it will build mind share, not by saying "look, we can do it too (if you're only willing to wait a while)"
TW
So? It doesn't make sense for Apple, when coming out with a new piece of software, to support versions that Microsoft doesn't even support. All the 9x series are legacy now, except perhaps 98/98SE which is in "extended support" or something for a few more months.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
need i go on with the list of things that apple has boosted from the free-n-open *nix community?
First of all, quit saying "*nix." One: it's incredibly lame. Life is not a command line. Wildcards do not parse in English. Two: it perpetuates the legitimacy of TOG's trademark. Do we say "*eenex" for facial tissue or "*-tip" for cotton swab or "*erox" for photocopy? No. Don't say "*nix." Just say "UNIX."
Now, with that out of the way, Apple never "boosted" anything. They've used a lot of open source stuff in their OS and applications, and they've played by the rules. They honor the licenses under which that stuff is released and they release their own stuff back in. (Go download Rendezvous sometime. It's out there, man.)
Yes, there's a ton of innovation going on in the hobbyist community. (That's what we're talking about here; let's call a spade a spade.) But the problem is that the innovation that's going on is vastly outweighed by the sheer amount of bullshit that's also going on. Apple, on the other hand, chooses its targets wisely (usually) and fires with both barrels, dedicating money and engineering talent to coming up with excellent solutions. "Just good enough" isn't.
Don't bother trying to compare what Apple does to what the hobbyist community does. The hobbyist community is--no offense--a million monkeys. Apple is Shakespeare.
What is the point of having RAM if you can't use it? Or do you just like to see that you have 800MB free? Heck then shut the whole box down, then it will ALL be free!
The original poster had a very good point. Why does the 'best' mp3 player on linux have to be a WinAMP clone? I would LOVE to have iTunes on my linux boxes - even without the Music Store. I can't, so I use iTunes on my Mac.
The Linux architecture and concepts should foster experimental and new designs for software. Why do people have to duplicate existing apps? Apple didn't when they created iTunes.
iTunes is DEAD simple to use, manages a database of your music easily, rips cd's asynchronously, burns audio and mp3 cd's super easily, and makes it easy to build playlists and browse your library, AND allows you to tweak each individual song. Did I mention it is DEAD simple to use?
The magic, is not actually in the code, the magic is in the usability features and concepts.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
The Mac OS and the QuickTime APIs have no concept of a "Multiple Document Interface" as Microsoft calls it. MDI is a Microsoft Windows exclusive concept that how MS originally got around some of Apple's early "look and feel" litigation. There is also some historical reasons for why Apple never adopted this kind of interface.
When Multifinder was introduced to an earlier Mac OS, it was considered desirable for a user to see content from windows between applications. Macs previously used "desk accessories" to approximate multitasking before, and this UI decision helped smooth the transition. Letting applications only have window scale control, rather than the full screen, eventually allowed Apple to discontinue the DA concept in favor of microapplications.
In addition, as the Mac OS developed, Apple started advocating drag-and-drop data manipulation. This requires that both the source window and destination window be visible for a drag operation to occur; this continued emphasis is why OS X now has the trash can in the Dock and Panther includes an "Expose" feature to make all windows visible at once.
Mac users are accustomed to bouncing between applications readily while most Windows apps seem to be designed for exclusive, one at a time use. Other interface quirks, like floating verses anchored toolbars and the global menubar, are extensions of this differing emphasis in multitasking.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Please tell me - what experimental innovative software is there available for Linux? What does innovative software mean to you?
BTW, I've been running Linux since kernel version 0.99pl15, and am running servers with RedHat 7.3/8/9, debian, and embedded linux-ppc based on YellowDog linux.
All I see now are me-too web browsers, me-too developer IDE's, me-too office applications, me-too games, and me-too multimedia apps. Yes I know there is value in making a word processor that feels like Microsoft Word, but where are the experimental word processors that go beyond Word, GUI and functionality-wise? Word is not and never was a good GUI design. It makes me really want to write up my own...
The innovative software that I have I've seen running on Linux was not written with Linux in mind but was originally written for Unix/X11 before Linux existed.
Back to the iTunes topic, I installed iTunes on a WIn2000 machine. On my Mac, I ran iTunes and clicked 'Share Library'. On the Win2000 machine my Mac's music library automatically appeared in the left panel. No complex setup either. It is these little things and attention to detail that make iTunes more innovative than any music player on Linux.
I myself am guilty of promoting complexities. Since I know how to set up NFS and Samba and Apache and Shoutcast, I would just use one of these tools on my own Linux boxes to accomplish the same thing with XMMS or X11AMP or even mpg321 with a cgi php4 script front-end with apache and the mp3 meta-data extracted into a PostgreSQL table for faster searches. All the tools are there, and as a programmer, I find it fun to implement these kinds of things - and I HAVE spent time doing this for my own system.
Because I did it myself like this, I forget about the fact that there would be a much easier way for the end user who maybe does not have these tools or does not know how to use these tools, or does not care - he just wants his music on one computer to be played back on another computer without having to think about file sharing or audio streaming software or DNS issues or IP addresses or IP ports or protocols.
Click on 'Share Music' on computer A.
Click on shared music on computer B.
Press 'Play'
Brilliant Idea!
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
You don't understand at all. It's not "Mac versus non-Mac." It's "good versus non-good." If Microsoft released an MSN Messenger version that wasn't good, they'd get abuse for it.
Now, rather than pointing out that iTunes looks funny compared to... what, WinAmp? That last bastion of UI standards compliance? Anyway, rather than just saying that it looks funny, feel free to critique it on its merits. Say that it's ugly. (Most will disagree.) Say that it's hard to use. (All will disagree.) Say that it's buggy. (Too early to tell, but don't bet on it.) But don't say that it's bad just because it's different from what you're accustomed to. That's a bad mistake.
Unfortunately you are 100% correct.
Why does linux need iTunes when Linux already has mpg321, postgresql, cdparanoia, sox, LAME, cdrecord, samba, and php with apache? Just connect them up and you have an even MORE powerful system than iTunes! Amaze your computer-illiterate friends with your knowledge of arcane things!
Meanwhile, I run iTunes and now I have more time available to post to slashdot.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
You are 100% correct. Since launch the iTMS has been biased toward the music that the majority of those who are on-line purchase and listen to. You can apply the 80/20 rule to this in all probability; 80% of the people will tend to listen to about 20% of the music available.
Hence, when you launch a service, you make the most profit by first including the 20% of content that will encompass most of your sales. You later fill in the remainder to satisfy the others.
In the five or so months since iTMS has been on-line, they have grown from 200,000 songs to 400,000 songs, and this isn't the BuyMusic method of accounting, you can purchase each and every song Apple counts.
They've just started getting the indie labels on board and set up to submit tracks, 200 according to Steve's presentation. The indies were tripping over themselves to sign up when the meeting was held a few months back. Why wouldn't they? Apple provdides the hardware, submission is free, Apple handles all billing. Since each music company is apparently responsible for encoding and submitting the tracks, the rate of increase should be greater in the future. The next 200,000 tracks may well be added within the next two months.
There's plenty of "obscure stuff" on the store, or do you perhaps consider Andy Griffith's 'Fishin' Hole' to be main stream music?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Nope, in the mini version of the window on Mac OS X there is no time slider. It sounds like it is exactly the same on Windows as it is on Mac OS X
Send Apple this as a suggestion. Apple has been very receptive to user suggestions. Since it sounds like a good idea and they do similar things in other applications (iPhoto, the Finder) they may add it into a future version of iTunes.
The same goes for the iTunes Music Store. If you see something that should be changed or you want a feature or band added just send in feedback. Like I said, Apple has been very receptive to new ideas and user preferences. They have changed a number of things to suit their users.
Sapere aude!
why not fill up RAM with stuff
:)
So when Windows uses up all available memory, that's "bad", but when OS X does it, that's a "feature".
Damn zealots, get of my lawn (shakes fist).
They're competing with free pretty darn well considering they've sold 13 million songs (with a library of only 250,000) so far.
.99 is too much. Most likely this won't go down until the RIAA method of collecting and distributing monies to artists is changed. With e-music (my preferred service) changing to a 3 cd per month limit (for $10 each month) the Apple Store is looking better to me (except for the rights restrictions)
Personally I agree that
If you're going to buy and entire album, I still consider CDs to be your best bet. It may cost more, but you get quality and all the nice physical medium. BUT, for a song or two off an album, it's no doubt the way to go. Worst case, you buy a couple of songs off the store and later buy the whole CD later. Of course, then it would be nice to be able to sell those two songs you bought to someone else, but whatever.
This is the best move Apple could've made: a truly viral move into the Windows world. Excellent work Apple!
You can have my one-button mouse when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.