Slashdot Mirror


iTunes Disables MusicMatch

spooza writes "If you own an iPod and use it with MusicMatch on a Windows machine and then install iTunes, strange things happen: after the installation, MusicMatch is unable to communicate or even find the iPod anymore. Of course this might be a coincidence or bad programming on the Apple side, but since MusicMatch also introduced a pay-per-download service it seems not too farfetched to suspect that Apple simply took the opportunity to knock out an opponent. The funny thing is, Apple and MusicMatch cooperated before, because Apple wanted to have software that was able to work with iPod and thus not lose potential customers that want to buy an iPod but have only Windows." MusicMatch recommends deleting, then downloading and reinstalling, the MusicMatch software to reenable it.

582 comments

  1. sounds like the usual. by adosoda · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i don't know why geeks rally behind apple at every turn, they seem to be like any other large software coporation out there, in it for the benjamins, and nothing else.

    1. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You have spoken ill of Apple.

      Comment at -1 in 10... 9 ... 8...

    2. Re:sounds like the usual. by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's because their hate for MS completely biases them - to them, anyone who takes marketshare from Microsoft is a hero. I imagine that there will be lots of people defending Apple here, but could you imagine the reaction here if Microsoft pulled the same stunt?

    3. Re:sounds like the usual. by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      i don't know why geeks rally behind apple at every turn

      What is your alternative in the computer industry?

      Apple is looking good mostly by comparison with it's peers.

      they seem to be like any other large software coporation out there, in it for the benjamins, and nothing else.

      I presume you mean "like any other large software and hardware corporation".

      Just in case you weren't aware, the primary responsibility of every public for-profit company (Apple is one) is to make a profit for the shareholders. So, yes, "the benjamins". That is not a bad thing - without the profit motive very few cool new things would be produced.

      Regardless of Apple's profit motive (which as I pointed out every other company has as well) it produces some of the coolest, fastest and best engineered gear out there. Apple also had the wisdom to adopt a Unix-like OS, along with many other well-chosen hardware and software standards.

      All of this is more than enough reason for any self-respecting geek to salivate heavily! :-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    4. Re:sounds like the usual. by adosoda · · Score: 1

      right. i'm just going to spend the rest of my day pretending you were being sarcastic. good luck mate.

    5. Re:sounds like the usual. by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Funny
      could you imagine the reaction here if Microsoft pulled the same stunt?

      Yeah, just imagine if Internet Explorer disabled Netscape when it was installed...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    6. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not communism if it's not mandated by government. If it's voluntary, it's called CHARITY, and it's what will get people like you into Heaven.

      Yours in Christ,
      Doctor Scooby
      Slashdot Trolling Academy

    7. Re:sounds like the usual. by blanks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its great, Apple does bad business practices and people look away, a company like Microsoft does something simular and people start whining about how their evil and mean.

      Apple should not have done this, and I hope affects them in a bad way, either loss of revenue, or loss of customers.

    8. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear this all the time and it really bothers me!

      NO! There is nothing wrong with making money. But, YES, there is something wrong with the current methods of making money! If the only way you can make money is by disabling your competitor's products then, NO, you don't deserve to make money!

      Now, I am not sure Apple deserves a bad rap for this stunt. Just as I am not sure that M$ deserves every hit they get. What is that old saying:

      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence.

    9. Re:sounds like the usual. by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Its great, Apple does bad business practices and people look away, a company like Microsoft does something simular and people start whining about how their evil and mean.

      Let's say Apple makes a word processor called AppleWorks. Let's say it has a proprietary file format that changes frequently to prevent anybody from ever cloning it well. Who cares? Even if all Mac owners use AppleWorks (and they most emphatically do not), that's 5% or so if you're optimistic.

      Let's say Microsoft makes a word processor called Word...

      Do you understand now? You can choose not to use or be influenced by Apple. This is also why the laws of acceptable business practices are literally different depending on whether you are a monopoly.

    10. Re:sounds like the usual. by Gerdia · · Score: 1

      And maybe the problem is on music match's side. Maybe the apple software is working correctly with the device and music match isn't.

      And I suppose, "working correctly with an ipod" is whatever Apple says it is...

    11. Re:sounds like the usual. by peachawat · · Score: 1

      The practices are NOT similar. Apple does not force you to use iTunes. But if you CHOOSE to use iTunes, Apple warns you BEFORE you install that MM will no longer function properly. If you are not happy with this, you don't have to use iTunes.

      On the other hand, Microsoft integrates IE into Windows and make sure you CANNOT remove it. It's not your choice not to install IE with Windows. So if IE breaks Netscape or something, you have NO choice to not to use IE.

      Clearer now?

    12. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You zealots are slipping. It took you way too long to mod that post down. You are going to have to do better, or else Steve is going to have to find some new minions.

    13. Re:sounds like the usual. by archen · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if this came back and bit them in the ass. I have an ibook, and I'm quite happy with the apple software on it ( although 'console' is pretty weak in many respects ), but I will not install any Apple software on my PC. I hate quicktime with a passion - slow, buggy, crash prone, and plain annoying at times.

      It's like the cloning rights problem starting all over again. IBM sells the rights and PCs spread like the plauge, Apple refuses to allow people to clone Macs and ends up a nich player at best. Apple might be on top now, but this market has hardly even emerged. It's one thing when you're Microsoft sitting on top for years and people have no alternatives, it's another when competing products are comming out high and low with your seat by no means secure. Playing nice with everyone is in Apple's best interest, but lets face it - in many respects the company is a bigger control freak than MS.

    14. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But IE doesn't break Netscape, at least not in Windows XP.

    15. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just Music Match that this happens to - Xplay, Media Center 9 (which I highly reccomend) have the same issue - I believe part of it is due to the fact that iTunes uses a different database format on the iPod.

      I was able to solve the problem by shutting down the iPod Service, and reiniting the iPod using MC9

      Take a gander at the forums on ipodlounge.com and you'll see all sorts of issues and solutions

      mike

    16. Re:sounds like the usual. by Kentamanos · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the way it used to be?

      You can uninstall IE and you can make another browser (Mozilla in my case) the default browser.

      The only reason I don't uninstall it is a few sites I am required to use that still use ActiveX controls.

    17. Re:sounds like the usual. by peebeejay · · Score: 1

      Can I ask you what you think Apple should have done? The iPod can only be synched to one program. By downloading iTunes, the user expects to use it with his/her iPod. iTunes switched the iPod synch to iTunes. Musicmatch continues to exist on the user's computer, just without iPod connectivity (and it never had the ability to copy its DRM files to the iPod anyway.)

    18. Re:sounds like the usual. by sl3xd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Love to tell you this...

      I have an iPod, love the thing.

      I have MMJB, and its iPod plugin. I've seen better software in a 1st semester Visual Basic course. MMJB is so horrid, I cannot imagine anyone ever wanting to use it to begin with (whether to play/orgaze MP3's on your computer, or just for syncing with the iPod. I originally used MM to sync with my iPod. It was a miserable experience to say the least. It froze more often than it worked.

      So, I got XPlay. XPlay was wonderful; but to no suprise, it didn't play well with MM. Espescially if you mac-formatted your iPod and used it that way. But even if it was Fat32 formatted, it was still a bad experience BECAUSE of MM if I tried to use both. Either wanted to sync the iPod to its internal database of MP3's and playlists, which to no suprise, aren't always the same. And neither were capable of noticing that 99% of the songs were the exact same. Nooo. They had to transfer each an every MP3, even if it already existed on the ipod, if you switched between MMJB and XPlay (or ephpod, etc).

      So, along comes iTunes, which frankly blows all the other iPod/Windows softawre out of the water. Syncing is faster than any other suite I've used, and overall more painless.

      I don't care that I can't use 'competing' music stores with iTunes, because iTunes was meant for use with the iPod. I get far more freedom with the purchased music than I do with any of the competitors, and it costs less too. I've tried the competition before-- and hated all of them. I actually like the iTunes Music Store.

      I don't care what Microsoft's marketing division says: WMA is not the standard format. There is only one company that makes a WMA encoder, and one company that makes a decoder, and it's Microsoft. The format and method of compression used are not published. It's closed in every possible way. There is no "free" or even "open" WMA encoders or decoders. (You can play WMA on Linux -- but it is using the same WMA .dll (closed binary) that Windows uses; there is no native implementation, no open or free implementation of WMA to be had.)

      AAC, on the other hand, is an open format. Don't mistake this with a 'Free' format, as the Cult of Stallman is so happy to point out. But it is Open -- in the same way OpenGL is. AAC is well documented, and there are many encoders and decoders available from many different companies, as well as many different implementations of AAC by itself. There are patent fees-- but this doesn't change the fact that the codec is published. The unprotected AAC files generated by iTunes (when ripping from CD's) is of the exact same format. I'm sure the protected ones use the same audio encoding as the AAC standard, but has added DRM. It still uses AAC encoding.

      For an example of how protected AAC differs from 'normal' AAC: There is even a project to make a DRM extension of Ogg Vorbis. It still uses the Vorbis encoding format, but it's got DRM. There is just no story about Apple's AAC being 'closed'.

      Disabling the other methods of updating the iPod was in my opinion a good idea, as it instantly removed the problems involved with using multiple sync problems. Making these little annoyances go away seems to be "The Apple Way," and it's not lost on me.

      iTunes is meant for users who have the iPod. If you don't have an iPod, then you're not Apple's target audience for iTunes, although they certainly won't stop you from trying things 'The Apple Way', which in my opinion, is considerably better in the case of iTunes than any other way to play music on Windows. Maybe it'll convince some customers to get an iPod. Apple is interested in supporting its OWN hardware, not other companies hardware. MusicMatch failed so miserably in its iPod support that I don't blame Apple for cutting them off. That's an instant 90% reduction in tech support to Windows iPod owners. A 'no-brainer' from a business perspective.

      Besides, the

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    19. Re:sounds like the usual. by BayAreaRefugee · · Score: 1

      I have MMJB, and its iPod plugin. I've seen better software in a 1st semester Visual Basic course. MMJB is so horrid, I cannot imagine anyone ever wanting to use it to begin with (whether to play/orgaze MP3's on your computer, or just for syncing with the iPod. I originally used MM to sync with my iPod. It was a miserable experience to say the least. It froze more often than it worked.

      Aside from it's interface with the iPod were there other problems that MMJB had? How do you know it wasn't a problem with an API that Apple provided MM and that it was Apple's driver software that was slow and not MMJB itself?

      AAC, on the other hand, is an open format. Don't mistake this with a 'Free' format, as the Cult of Stallman is so happy to point out. But it is Open -- in the same way OpenGL is. AAC is well documented, and there are many encoders and decoders available from many different companies, as well as many different implementations of AAC by itself. There are patent fees-- but this doesn't change the fact that the codec is published. The unprotected AAC files generated by iTunes (when ripping from CD's) is of the exact same format. I'm sure the protected ones use the same audio encoding as the AAC standard, but has added DRM. It still uses AAC encoding.

      The issue isn't about iTunes support of AAC, but of the Fairplay DRM that Itunes AAC files are encoded with, which makes them completely unopen. More unopen than WMA DRM, since at least other competitors are able to license this DRM and use it on other hardware and software players, unlike the FairPlay DRM that Apples' download files are using which is more closed and hasn't been licensed by others and appears to be used to drive sales to the iPod.

      If you are chanting about AAC's openness and not looking at the DRM, other players on the market aren't limited to WMA files either. They also play other competitive formats to AAC such as Ogg Vorbis and MP3Pro that provide similar advantages and openness. Apple picked AAC. Other players picked other formats as well, depending on what their business and licensing arrangements were as well as what their market for those formats were. AAC doesn't have a monopoly on being a standard format just yet.

      Be happy with your iPod and iTunes. Just don't expect others to bow to you if they have a different player and like the fact that they have more choices of switching to another player or other players/services and keep using their existing download files when you're stuck on the iPod to keep playing Apple's download files, if and when the iPod becomes second to a newer more innovative player that might come out later.

    20. Re:sounds like the usual. by Zimm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just imagine if Internet Explorer disabled Netscape when it was installed...

      Yes, well i guess apple and microsoft are birds of a feather then aren't they.

    21. Re:sounds like the usual. by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, well i guess apple and microsoft are birds of a feather then aren't they.

      Yes, except Apple understands software and hardware engineering. Plus Apple has released a large portion of it's OS and compiler technology to the Open Source community.

      Microsoft's stuff has the simple elegance of an elephant...with gout.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    22. Re:sounds like the usual. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Aside from it's interface with the iPod were there other problems that MMJB had? How do you know it wasn't a problem with an API that Apple provided MM and that it was Apple's driver software that was slow and not MMJB itself?

      You haven't ever used MMJB, have you? ;)

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    23. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, except Apple understands software and hardware engineering

      Pardon me? It took Apple *how long* to get a fully preemptive operating system with protected memory? It's only now that anyone can dare do anything serious with Macs. Previously they've completely lacked suitability for use as serious workstations.

      Apple has released a large portion of it's OS and compiler

      Huh? You have that completely backwards. Their kernel, OS and web browser (Safari) were all open source to begin with (BSD, GCC and Konqueror). In some cases they were *forced* to release code by the GPL.

      Microsoft's stuff has the simple elegance of an elephant...with gout

      The Windows world has been laughing at Mac OS since NT 4 came out. It's only since OSX was released that they have managed to catch up on most fronts. And I'm of the opinion that Windows 2000 is the best industrial-strength desktop operating system on any platform to date. It has some security problems in the default install, but nothing else comes close in terms of the balance of compatibility (runs all Windows games brilliantly), performance (no bloat like XP) and usability (efficient business casual compared to the OSX 60's disco monstrosity of a UI).

      And don't you *dare* pretend that Apple hardware has always "just worked". It works if you don't actually want to do anything with it - Mac hardware is famous for breaking the second you have a slightly complicated setup. The average Mac user doesn't realise this because they're computer illiterate and get someone else to fix it for them.

      Case in point: I tried to help a friend troubleshoot a network card in his Mac a couple of years back - there were no options to tweak, no settings exposed to the end user for fear that they might break something. If it conflicted with an existing piece of hardware - you were screwed. In the end, he had to simply return it and try another brand.

    24. Re:sounds like the usual. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      You haven't ever used MMJB, have you? ;)

      I've used it on several occasions. It has never lasted more than about an hour on my computer before being deleted. I couldn't believe that Apple, a company so well known for UI design, had chosen MMJB for their Windows iPod. The only reason I could think of for this was that they wanted Windows users to have such a bad experience that they'd all buy Macs. My view is that disabling (or indeed uninstalling) MMJB is a feature - if it didn't do it automatically, you'd want to do it manually anyway.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:sounds like the usual. by kyrre · · Score: 1

      The thing is that for no apperant reason Apple didn't give the user a choice in this matter. Some people zealously support Music Match. I do not know why, and I do not care why, its their choice. Now Apple upon installing iTunes disable Music Match. Thats not a nice thing to do regardless all the good things they do in different matters.

      They could ask the user, or even warn him.

      And I don't even OWN a Mac!!!

      I do.
    26. Re:sounds like the usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? On that? I think you just proved the pro-Apple bias point even better. You suck.

    27. Re:sounds like the usual. by steeviant · · Score: 1

      Case in point: I tried to help a friend troubleshoot a network card in his Mac a couple of years back - there were no options to tweak, no settings exposed to the end user for fear that they might break something. If it conflicted with an existing piece of hardware - you were screwed. In the end, he had to simply return it and try another brand.

      Firstly, all this proves is that you're a PC guy and don't have a clue about debugging hardware issues on Macs, If you're talking about OS X, you'd need to pass any settings to the kernel as you load the kext to change IO settings, and most other settings (duplex etc) can be changed via ifconfig. On the other hand, if you're talking about OS 9, then you're just being a troll, because you mentioned above that you know everything is different in OS X.

      If I put a supported network card into a Linux box and it doesn't work, I don't automatically think "Jeez, there must be some options I have to tweak", I think "Fucked". The same goes for Windows once the driver is installed.

      If that happens, I take it back and swap it for the next least expensive card that should work with Linux for my purposes. That's because in the modern world of PCI, the card and BIOS should work out between themselves what Memory and IRQ settings they are going to use, so as not to stomp on any other PCI or PnP devices. All this happens before the OS even starts.

      The lesson to be learned from your experience is that you don't automatically know everything about every computer in existence simply because you know a lot about PCs and Windows, and that if a network card doesn't work when you plug it in, you might as well find another one straight away.

    28. Re:sounds like the usual. by steeviant · · Score: 1

      You CAN'T uninstall IE.

      You can use another browser instead, but the majority of IE continues to be loaded into memory at startup in the form of DLLs, Just in case you want to fire up IE for some reason.

      Also, unless you don't like upgrading your software, you won't try to disable IE, because if you do, you can say goodbye to Windows Update if you use any browser but IE.

      Back to the original point though, there is no way to uninstall IE from any version of windows without downgrading libraries to a previous version of windows that didn't integrate IE into the operating system.

      Caveat:
      Although it is technically possible to remove IE using software from litePC.net, that option barely qualifies because it requires a level of knowledge that goes far beyond being intelligent enough to select a different browser, it also breaks compatibility with some software, only removes IE from Windows 98, and reintruduces some bugs from Windows 95.

    29. Re:sounds like the usual. by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Pardon me? It took Apple *how long* to get a fully preemptive operating system with protected memory? It's only now that anyone can dare do anything serious with Macs. Previously they've completely lacked suitability for use as serious workstations.

      Sorry it took a bit to reply, I've been busy (plus your post was so silly I had trouble working up motivation).

      What does it matter how long it took for Apple to decide to buy NeXT and get back on track? It happened several years ago. What does matter now is whether or not Apple's OS, other software and hardware is better than the competition's. Most impartial observers agree that it is. Look at the difference between Safari and IE for one example.

      The G5s are also smoking the fastest PCs in real world tests. That is icing on the cake on top of running a clearly superior OS. Apple's laptops are also regarded as top examples of PC design. (I was sorry to see the quality control issues with the new 15" Powerbook...hope they get that worked out quickly.)

      I hope that clears things up...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    30. Re:sounds like the usual. by eurleif · · Score: 0

      I don't like Apple doing this, but I also know that they've done many good things. Nearly any large company will have a moron somewhere who will do bad things, but Microsoft is made up of such morons.

  2. Feature? by spankalee · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought this was a feature...

    1. Re:Feature? by Magus424 · · Score: 1

      Damn straight, who would actually want to use MusicMatch over iTunes?

      --
      -- Gone Crazy, Back Later
    2. Re:Feature? by hpavc · · Score: 1

      Correct, music match (crippled) is ... so ... slow. Although the pro version is as fast as they could make it its still a dog.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    3. Re:Feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MusicMatch recommends
      1) deleting,
      2) then downloading
      3) and reinstalling,
      the MusicMatch software to reenable it.

      I'd say steps two and three are pure folly.

  3. As well as xplay... by MeanE · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even with the registry patch for xplay almost every time I fire up iTunes afterwards I get a blank xplay folder. EphPod seems to work fine no matter what. I wonder how they are able to overcome this.

    1. Re:As well as xplay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      xplay doesn't put files in the same place as iTunes. Ephpod does. Ephpod rewrites the content database and stores mp3 files in the same manner as itunes, so ephpod and itunes can co-exist. xplay put their own spin on things. xplay and ephpod never co-existed, so it makes sense the xplay can't play with itunes.

  4. They announced this by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple said fairly upfront that if you installed iTunes for windows, iTunes would be the only way to load your iPod anymore.

    I don't even have an iPod and yet i know this.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:They announced this by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Sure they may have told you, but the question is whether it's just that they didn't want to bother fixing something that was broken of if they did it intentionally to lock out the competition. One is just lazy, the other is pretty low.

    2. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gator/Claria has been pretty upfront that their software can be used to track information on the client computer.

      I don't even use Gator and yet I know this.

    3. Re:They announced this by mikolas · · Score: 0, Troll

      Too bad they didn't tell iTunes will "reorganize" your mp3-files. And they also forgot to mention that uninstalling iTunes will break your WMP mp3-codec and also fiddle with your cdrom-drivers so that for example WinDVD is unable to recognize inserted discs and Nero refuses to copy CDs. Maybe they should've tested their product before releasing it out in the wild as it's a bit different here in the Windows world where Apple doesn't own the OS and hardware.

    4. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      - I've had no problems with Nero. Perhaps this is just an isolated incident?
      - Likewise, I've had no problems with WinDVD. Are you leaving iTunes open while doing so?
      - As for "not telling you it will reogranise your mp3-files", that's what 'Copy files to iTunes music folder when adding to library' and 'Keep iTunes Music folder organized' mean. Just because you can't be bothered to check the options doesn't mean it's bug.

    5. Re:They announced this by pheared · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "as it's a bit different here in the Windows world where Apple doesn't own the OS and hardware."

      And soon you won't even own your own hardware in the Windows world.

    6. Re:They announced this by LoadStar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sure they may have told you, but the question is whether it's just that they didn't want to bother fixing something that was broken of if they did it intentionally to lock out the competition. One is just lazy, the other is pretty low.

      Are they really competition? I guess they sort of are... but then again, Apple WAS bundling MusicMatch with the iPod all along until they released iTunes.

      I guess the way I see it - they deliberately disabled what they considered an older version of the iPod software (MusicMatch) in favor of the newer version (iTunes).

    7. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And soon you won't even own your own hardware in the Windows world.

      Don't you think this is a bit of strange angle to attack Windows from in a story regarding a DRM program from Apple, ported from the Mac?

      DRM is DRM is DRM is DRM. Palladium and iTunes are one and the same. When you install iTunes you have already said, "Of course my computer decides what I can and can't do, and I obey." You can't get further from owning your own computer than that.

    8. Re:They announced this by Otter · · Score: 2, Informative
      Too bad they didn't tell iTunes will "reorganize" your mp3-files.

      I don't know about the Windows version but the Mac version asks if you want to reorganize your mp3s when you first run it. If you're talking about ongoing behavior, check your preferences.

    9. Re:They announced this by Tokerat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't you think this is a bit of strange angle to attack Windows from in a story regarding a DRM program from Apple, ported from the Mac?

      DRM is DRM is DRM is DRM. Palladium and iTunes are one and the same. When you install iTunes you have already said, "Of course my computer decides what I can and can't do, and I obey." You can't get further from owning your own computer than that.
      Don't you think this is a bit of strange angle to attack a poster from in a thread regarding a DRM program from Apple, ported from the Mac? I must be feeding a troll...

      That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be. I'm sorry you're upset that you can't copy music for free anymore without fear of legal troubles, but guess what, it's ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL. Now we have a way to get it LEGALLY and at CHEAPER prices at that, and the DRM even allows itself to be LEGALLY cirrcumvented in this age of DMCA....AND YOU STILL FIND A WAY TO COMPLAIN.

      I'm sorry for the flamebait, but that's absolutely pathetic.
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    10. Re:They announced this by mikolas · · Score: 1

      I had no problems whatsoever as long as I had iTunes installed, but _un_installing iTunes caused odd behaviour in WinDVD and WMP. Go figure.

    11. Re:They announced this by wankledot · · Score: 1

      blah blah blah.

      iTunes does not use DRM for anything except for the iTunes music store. Don't buy a song from Apple and you'll never see anything related to DRM whatsoever. There is no DRM in encoding files to either codec (AAC or MP3) and there's no DRM anywhere else. But I guess it's much more exciting to scream and bitch about DRM taking away your rights.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    12. Re:They announced this by corporatemutantninja · · Score: 1

      Um...do you own an iPod and iTunes? Yes, the songs I downloaded from Apple have some sort of DRM, although I haven't actually noticed it getting in my way yet. But more importantly, all the stuff I downloaded from Napster and LimeWire all runs just fine on all 3 of my Macs and on my iPod. So what's the problem? This is hardly my computer deciding what I can and can't do.

      --
      Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
    13. Re:They announced this by MoneyT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are you windows users so hard set in your ways of having to outsmart your system that you can't grasp the concept of when a program asks if you want to have iTunes organize your MP3s and you say yes that it will actualy do what it says?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    14. Re:They announced this by zonker · · Score: 1, Informative

      agreed.

      also, the headline is quite misleading as it really only disables musicmatch's ipod sync functionality. musicmatch still works with itunes installed. hell i both of them and napster on the same machine and they all work fine...

    15. Re:They announced this by mikolas · · Score: 1

      Yes, the nice dialog pops up and tells it will not delete the files. Too bad it just moves files around if the ID3-tags are not up to date (thus destroying manually organized directory structure).

    16. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be.

      Beating people up is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does give people to right to take over my mind and control how I can move my arms.

      Driving too fast is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give people to right to remote control my car.

      Slandering others is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give people the right to control what I can say.

      Copying files with the copyright owner's permission is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give copyright owners the right to take control of my computer and control what I can do with the files.

      We do not practice proactive enforcement of laws in free societies. We have laws, we have a social contract, and we have law enforcement. We DO NOT bind peoples hands until they have committed a crime, and we do not lock people into their houses until they can prove they have a legal reason to step out. That I can use my computer to make a copy a music track does NOT mean that giving up control of it to the copyright owner "is they way it shoudl be."

      I would attack you as you attack me, but I see no point. Somebody who has so little respect for his own freedom, already has no respect for himself.

    17. Re:They announced this by bdjohns1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, Apple would be wrong. You can use J River's Media Center v9.1 to manage your iPod (along with other music, photos, etc).

      It actually uses QuickTime's own routines to work with AAC (M4A, M4P) files both on your computer and on the iPod. You just have to send one purchased song to your iPod with iTunes, and then MC will be able to manage any other purchased music (iTunes creates an authorization file once on your iPod).

      All I use iTunes for is buying songs. MC9 handles everything else music-related on my computer.

    18. Re:They announced this by wankledot · · Score: 1

      Your arguement is interesting, and I agree for the most part, but completely unrelated to iTunes in any way.Your comment that iTunes is somehow the same thing as Palladium is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I fail to see any "control" that Apple has over my machine, in any way, with iTunes. Care to address that point?

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    19. Re:They announced this by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be.

      I totally disagree. Copyright is not a natural right; it is a limited privilege extended to works for the purpose of promoting intellectual progress. The copyright holder has limited rights concerning the redistribution of works, but they do not and cannot "decide what you can and can't do." Beyond preventing you from redistributing the work in a manner that impedes intellectual progress, they should have no further legal powers. I believe the DMCA gives copyright holders powers that are not authorized by the Constitution and go completely against the goal of copyright law.

    20. Re:They announced this by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure... iTunes has also been known to eliminate one of your mouse buttons and introduce copying problems for 17M files.

    21. Re:They announced this by lngtones · · Score: 1
      We do not practice proactive enforcement of laws in free societies. We have laws, we have a social contract, and we have law enforcement. We DO NOT bind peoples hands until they have committed a crime, and we do not lock people into their houses until they can prove they have a legal reason to step out. That I can use my computer to make a copy a music track does NOT mean that giving up control of it to the copyright owner "is they way it shoudl be."
      Well if people never attempt to commit a crime why should they care if there "hands are binded." All your examples are lame. For example:
      Beating people up is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does give people to right to take over my mind and control how I can move my arms.
      Right, but if there was a way to prohibit people people from beating other people up that did not restrict anything else they might like to do. What would be so wrong about using it?
      Driving too fast is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give people to right to remote control my car.
      There's no need to remote control your car, just disable your car from going over the speed limit. If you weren't planning on breaking the law, why should you care about driving that fast? Every speed you were planning on driving at is available isn't it?
      Slandering others is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give people the right to control what I can say.
      Same deal as beating people up. I'm not claiming these things are possible, but what would be wrong with them if they were.
      Copying files with the copyright owner's permission is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give copyright owners the right to take control of my computer and control what I can do with the files.
      They aren't taking over your computer. They are just not allowing you to do something you weren't going to do anyways right? I agree that freedom to get away with breaking the law every once in a while is nice, but your arguments don't hold up.
    22. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      iTunes does exactly what Palladium is designed to do: it controls the content that users download by encrypting it and keeping the decryption key from the user. When it runs, it takes control of the computer to make sure that the data is used only in authorized ways.

      iTunes is less effective than Palladium might be for several reasons, but the philosophy is the same. The software is user hostile: it controls rather than enables you.

      (Of course, one gets told over and over: "If you don't like it, don't use it" etc, and of course, I won't. But DRM is an attempt to "put the Internet back in the bottle" as the originally linked article puts it (the person who linked it apparently didn't read it: John Walker seems to agree with me regarding DRM and ITMS), and iTunes is the shining beacon of evidence that people will accept it. Every post I make is simply the futile hope that I can make somebody understand why we should be in control of our computers, not the other way around, and maybe make it a little less lonely out here.)

    23. Re:They announced this by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Too bad they didn't tell iTunes will "reorganize" your mp3-files. And they also forgot to mention that uninstalling iTunes will break your WMP mp3-codec and also fiddle with your cdrom-drivers so that for example WinDVD is unable to recognize inserted discs and Nero refuses to copy CDs.

      I've had no problems doing those things with WinDVD and Nero after installing iTunes. Keep looking for someone else for blame.

    24. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be.


      No, it's not the way that it should be. The LAW determines what PRIVILEGES we temporarily give to copyright holders, and what rights (like Fair Use) we keep even during the copyright period.

      Furthermore, the whole justification for copyright is to increase the amount of stuff that will ultimately be available in full public domain. DRM directly interferes with eventual public domain use -- in return for granting valuable copyrights, the public gets damaged goods.
    25. Re:They announced this by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      >iTunes does exactly what Palladium is designed to do: it
      >controls the content that users download by encrypting it
      >and keeping the decryption key from the user. When it
      >runs, it takes control of the computer to make sure that
      >the data is used only in authorized ways.

      Where the heck do you get your information?

      Any music that you download outside of iTMS iTunes will play without blinking and won't modify (albeit it lacks Ogg support, but you can even add that). It will rip to (unrestricted) AAC, MP3, AIFF, or WAV files without any difficulty.

      The only files that are "restricted" in any way are the ones you purchase from the iTMS. Even with those it doesn't "make sure the data is only being used in authorized ways"--you can burn and rerip it and there won't be a single control in place. Nor does it "take control of the computer" to make sure of anything--QuickTime just happens to be the only mechanism (currently, no word on if they are licensing it) that can play m4p files.

      It's no more "taking control of your computer" than GPG does when you receive an encrypted document.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    26. Re:They announced this by wankledot · · Score: 1

      The iTunes music store does that, which is a very small part of iTunes.

      When you choose to download a song from the iTMS, you understand what rights you have to it. It is not yours to copy. There is no sense of Apple "taking control" of the files, since you bought it with the knowledge of how you can use it. The software is user hostile because that's te balance between the content owners and the vendors (Apple) that had to be reached.

      Does your DVD player "take control" of your TV when you play a DVD? I don't see how this is any different. DVD players have restrictions about what you can do with the content. But based on your attitude toward even the most simple restrictions, I suspect you don't buy DVDs. That would be supporting "them" and the "control" they have over our rights.

      But, back to my original point, iTunes != the iTMS, which I think is a BIG distinction you failed to make. iTunes has no control over anything except for content from Apple's store.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    27. Re:They announced this by OMEGA+Power · · Score: 1
      iTunes would be the only way to load your iPod anymore

      This is not entirely true. I have iTunes for Windows installed in order to use the ITMS and have no problems using Xplay to access my iPod although I did have to reinstall it after installing iTunes

    28. Re:They announced this by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      There's no need to remote control your car, just disable your car from going over the speed limit. If you weren't planning on breaking the law, why should you care about driving that fast? Every speed you were planning on driving at is available isn't it?

      Brilliant idea! Now when that truck next to me decides it absolutely positively has to be in the lane I'm in at this very moment, my car will refuse to apply more gas so that I can get out of the way and my car will be smashed, forced off the road, and perhaps totaled! That says nothing for what happens when you're the only car that has this speed-capping device where the speed limit is set at 55 and everyone else is going 80. I wasn't planning on breaking the law, but I sure was planning on living.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    29. Re:They announced this by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

      The problem with this, is that if you now install Quicktime 6, your are forced to install ITunes, no choice in the matter.

      --
      Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
    30. Re:They announced this by PyromanFO · · Score: 1
      Does your DVD player "take control" of your TV when you play a DVD?

      Ever tried to skip the commercials at the beginning?

      Also, you can unplug your DVD player from your TV. It's not a proper analogy, the DVD takes over the DVD player when you play it.

      When you buy music from iTMS, the music takes over your iTunes. You no longer control iTunes and you can't read your music any other way. Palladium is exactly the same, only applied to the BIOS. iTMS is a lesser Palladium. You can still uninstall it, but it doesn't change what it is simply because you can turn it off.
    31. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE: powers that are not authorized by the Constitution So, instead of fighting for my beliefs in the manner described in said Constitution, I'll just steal what I like, encourage others to do so, and feel mighty smug about it. Until I can't. Then I cry.

    32. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if people never attempt to commit a crime why should they care if there "hands are binded."

      I don't know whether to be happy that you are making my argument for me, or scared that there are actually people in world who think like this...

    33. Re:They announced this by Moofie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of Apple's human interface guidelines is to have an Undo feature whenever the user commands a big change.

      Guess what. No undo. I experimented with a feature of the program (it didn't say what "organize the MP3's" meant, and I was curious) and I couldn't undo what it did.

      If it had SAID "You can't undo this!" I would have read more to figure out what it meant. However, since it was an Apple program, I assumed that they were following their own guidelines.

      And I got fooked.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    34. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't you think this is a bit of strange angle to attack Windows from in a story regarding a DRM program from Apple, ported from the Mac?
      You must be new here. Pathetic moral equivalency arguments are the only way Apple fanboys can defend their shitty company. Rational thought is beyond them.
    35. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 0

      When you choose to download a song from the iTMS, you understand what rights you have to it. It is not yours to copy. There is no sense of Apple "taking control" of the files, since you bought it with the knowledge of how you can use it.

      Please read the post you are responding to. Quoting myself:

      (Of course, one gets told over and over: "If you don't like it, don't use it" etc, and of course, I won't. But DRM is an attempt to "put the Internet back in the bottle" as the originally linked article puts it (the person who linked it apparently didn't read it: John Walker seems to agree with me regarding DRM and ITMS), and iTunes is the shining beacon of evidence that people will accept it. Every post I make is simply the futile hope that I can make somebody understand why we should be in control of our computers, not the other way around, and maybe make it a little less lonely out here.)

      But, back to my original point, iTunes != the iTMS, which I think is a BIG distinction you failed to make. iTunes has no control over anything except for content from Apple's store.

      I was responding to a comment that said that Microsoft are bad compared to Apple because they embrace DRM. I am saying that so do Apple. It was a two paragraph off-topic post that I thought would go unnoticed, but Apple zealots are so touchy about this it becomes a flamewar every time it comes up.

    36. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      The only files that are "restricted" in any way are the ones you purchase from the iTMS. Even with those it doesn't "make sure the data is only being used in authorized ways"--you can burn and rerip it and there won't be a single control in place. Nor does it "take control of the computer" to make sure of anything--QuickTime just happens to be the only mechanism (currently, no word on if they are licensing it) that can play m4p files.

      The fact that iTunes restricts access to the actual music by making inconvenient rather than impossible to convert the files is beside the point. See my earlier responses.

      Here is a good litmus test for whether something is a restriction: would I get sued if I wrote a simple utility to convert the files directly to mp3s or oggs?

    37. Re:They announced this by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      iTunes for windows asks, however in the first release it was checked by default when it really wasn't clear what exactly was going to happen. Personally I have no problem with it organizing my mp3s based on ID3 tags, but I dislike the fact that it renamed all my songs to exclude artist name.

      Latest windows release, its unchecked by default

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    38. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During previews/commercials, even on Disney DVDs, you can ALWAYS press Next Track or Menu to skip them. Very very few DVDs that I own have any commercials or previews at all (maybe rented ones do, I wouldn't know); if a DVD has previews they get stuck in their own menu under Sneak Peaks or similar. I did notice a trend from one distributor which doesn't allow skipping their intro logo, but that's about it. Even most FBI warnings can be skipped with Next Track. And this is on a Sony DVD player, one of the most restrictive you can buy.

    39. Re:They announced this by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      There has never been an undo option for changes to file locations on the drive.

      And how could you not know what it means? It seems pretty clear to me.

      Organize your MP3s means just that. It's simple english, so unless english is your second or third language, I don't see where there could be confusion.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    40. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What do you expect from the homo-fags at Apple? Apple is CRAP. OS-9 was a joke. Not even a real OS. OS-X gives you a decent unix-like OS look and feel but with a PUTRID (cocoa) programming environment.


      I did Apple programming for a while, up to a few months ago, and HATED every minute of it.

    41. Re:They announced this by pmbuko · · Score: 1

      Oh man. You've swallowed the "You're still free as long as you're being good" line hook, line, and sinker.

      The biggest problem with preventing illegal or otherwise bad activities is the people who decide what's illegal and bad. Sure, we normally vote on such things so any restrictions are all our fault anyway, right?

      Think about WWII Japanese concentration camps and present day Guantanamo. In times of crisis (and for undetermined periods thereafter), we are not a democracy.

      Now I'll take your counter arguments and have at them one by one:

      Beating people up is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does give people to right to take over my mind and control how I can move my arms.
      Right, but if there was a way to prohibit people people from beating other people up that did not restrict anything else they might like to do. What would be so wrong about using it?
      Let's say there was some arm-controlling system in place. Somehow a criminal discovered how to circumvent it. he is standing right in front of you asking for your money. You are completely defenseless because you are still bound by this system.
      Driving too fast is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give people to right to remote control my car.
      There's no need to remote control your car, just disable your car from going over the speed limit. If you weren't planning on breaking the law, why should you care about driving that fast? Every speed you were planning on driving at is available isn't it?
      There's a tornado approaching from behind at about 60MPH. You're on a country road. The speed limit is 55MPH. Too bad -- you're dead.
      Slandering others is illegal and considered immoral. If I do it, I can be punished - but that does not give people the right to control what I can say.
      Same deal as beating people up. I'm not claiming these things are possible, but what would be wrong with them if they were.
      Whether or not something is slander is a court-testable case. Courts decide what is slander or not. If you were unable to say certain things because they could possibly be considered slanderous -- that's a serious restriction of freedom.
      ... but your arguments don't hold up.
      Touche, mon frere.
    42. Re:They announced this by spare.dave · · Score: 0

      There seem to be a lot of people who don't like iTunes reorganizing their library. They seem to prefer doing it themselves.

      While i'm not trying to piracy, I'm interested how many of those people are upset because now all their songs are listed under titles like "r1pped by ph34r h4x0r!!!".

      Personally I like to make sure all my albums have proper id3 tags when I rip them. When I first started using iTunes I had no trouble finding any music. It's also nice not to have to worry about organizing the damn files.

    43. Re:They announced this by someguysomewhere · · Score: 2, Informative

      They actually changed the naming format for files on the pod, my guess is that MM just cant handle the new firmware/directory structure. They may have even changed the DB on the iPod as well but I havent checked.

      OTOH I really hate MM, so I never used it and cant attest to the problems you might experience with it.

    44. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPOD communications protocol:

      Start up control ( Initialization Handshake )
      Before communication starts, the link must be established. This is done by executing the handshake sequence. At this time, the handshake sequence involves the client sending then receiving a "portalplayer" string. The connection is not considered to be established until this sequence happens. Before this sequence occurs, the device will not respond to any commands. If a command is sent that does not conform to the frame format, the connection will close and the handshake sequence must be executed again before the device responds to any commands.

      Line Control
      The application protocol is designed specifically for half duplex communication. This is because the protocol is expected to be used over a USB connection that must conform to the USB Master/Slave specification. Although, the application layer protocol should be relieved of any knowledge about the lower layer protocol(USB), the decision to tailor the application protocol for half duplex makes the design of the lower layers easier.
      Command Packet Format

      Command Identifier Field Command Sub Command Version Data Length Data
      2 Bytes 1 Byte 1 Byte 1 Byte 4 Bytes 0 - 8K Bytes
      Command Identifier Field
      This field is used to specify vendor specific fields. All the base command fields will begin with "PP".
      Command
      The command field is used to categorize the type of command.

      Command Value Command Category
      0x00 State Commands
      0x01 Content (file) Operation Commands
      0x02 Transport (record/playback) Control Commands
      0x03 Parameter Storage Operation Commands
      0x80 Reply to State Commands
      0x81 Reply to Content Operation Commands
      0x82 Reply to Transport Control Commands
      0x83 Reply to Parameter Storage Operation Commands
      Sub Command
      The sub command is used to define a specific command within the command category.
      Version
      This field is used to upgrade specific command/sub command sets.
      Error Control
      This field contains information regarding the errors that occurred when a particular command was sent.
      Data Length
      This field is an unsigned value corresponding to the amount of bytes that are to be expected in the data field. This length does not include the Synch, command, sub command or data length fields.
      Data Field
      This field contains all the relevant information that is formatted according to the command and sub command fields.
      Time Out Control
      At this layer, a timeout should be implemented on each command. Depending on which command is being executed, the response time will vary.
      Error Control
      Each command response in the application layer is expected to have an error field in the first 4 bytes of the data field. This field will be defined and generic to all of the command replies.

      Error Value Error Description
      0x0000 0000 Successful ( no error )
      0x0000 0001 General Error
      0x0000 0002 Command/Sub Command Specific Error, check data field for details
      0x0000 0003 Command not defined
      0x0000 0004 Parameter in command not valid

      Sequence(Flow) Control
      The importance of sequencing at this layer depends on the operation that is being performed. The sequence control will be build into each command as needed to carry out a particular operation. An example of where sequencing is important would be during a down/up loading.
      Addressing
      Currently, there is no mechanism for supporting multiple clients. An addressing scheme may be appropriate for command/reply synchronization to occur between multiple clients. This would be equivalent to a session layer and should be implemented at a lower layer and initialized during the start up(handshaking) phase.
      Command Overview
      The commands included at the time of this document are included in this section. Each command will have a response. The value of the response will be the command value + 0x80.
      State Commands
      Command Identifier Command Value Sub- Command Description
      PP 0x00 0x00 Get Messages
      PP 0x00 0x01 Fi

    45. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice for you, but what the fuck does that have to do with fucking ANYTHING this discussion is about? what a fucking moron.

    46. Re:They announced this by DimQuestor · · Score: 1

      I realize that this reply is posted long after the thread has ceased growing, but I have a question (and hopefully you have set your preferences to notify you when replies are posted). Suppose I do agree with you that itunes is indeed equivalent to Palladium in kind if not in scale, then how would you sell music content online? Consider that any sales of a given unencrypted mp3 will soon be swamped by the sharing of said mp3 over P2P networks, effectively grinding any long-term sales to a halt. I assume here that you would agree that this is a bad thing for the creator of the content, in the same sense that large-scale duping and (free or not) distribution of music CD's would be a bad thing. Since the above "kazaaing" of the mp3 is almost certain to happen, do you think it possible to sell content online and still maintain the kind of freedoms you talk about? Please do not interpret this as an attack, I just would like to know how you accommodate these two concepts (internet freedoms and sale of content) in you head.

    47. Re:They announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here is a good litmus test for whether something is a restriction: would I get sued if I wrote a simple utility to convert the files directly to mp3s or oggs?

      No.

      In fact, you can already do so with iTunes, if you first convert to AIFF on a CD-R or CD-R image.

      Looks like Apple passed!

      So, I guess you can just shut the hell up now and admit your wrong, huh?

    48. Re:They announced this by lngtones · · Score: 1

      Yeah I wrote that pretty quickly. I take back what I said. You're right.

    49. Re:They announced this by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      So... Exactly. iTunes Music Store is like a DVD. You can purchase and enjoy it as much as you want, and if you have the patience, you can rip it to another format to protect your inventsment or do with it what you will. The ripping part isn't easy, but it's better than having some company tell you that you have no rights to do anything at all, isn't it?

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    50. Re:They announced this by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      This is the most interesting and probably the best point brought up in this discussion yet. The fact of the matter relates directly to the reason why the half-assed DRM iTMS is such an important thing: Would you get sued?

      My answer is probably yes, knowing Apple's all too paranoid legal team, etc. I think "Why?" is perhaps a valid question at this point.

      What Apple has done is found a soultion though discouragement, almost a valid use for "security through obscurity", if you will. People will still pirate, and some will still take the time to pirate from iTMS. It simply won't, however, happen on the massive scale is was with Napster and is now with <INSERT FILE SHARING NETWORK OF CHOICE HERE>. Piracy of Apple's offerings is no longer a click away, but a legal purchase is simple as ever. 10 minutes to break the law or 5 seconds to do the right thing for cheaper+more convenient than usual?

      Yes, it is control, I do see what you mean there. They are indirectly leading people away from that absolute freedom...but I cite some other posts in this thread which speak of, for example, why installing remote controls in cars to keep people from speeding is bad; suppose you need to speed away from a natural disaster or there is some other emergency, This is true, I would be totally against such a thing. Think of this, however: What emergency is so great you need to play a song from the iTMS?

      If such a thing where to spread beyond pain-in-the-ass restrictions on entertainment, I'd be against it. Honestly, though, making piracy of music a round-about pain doesn't seem that horrific in my eyes. I would still fight if they tried to govern my car and latch my arms back, but "You can't listen to this song now because you haven't paid your one-time $0.99 fee" doesn't seem so awful compared to what could become.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    51. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I don't think that selling music as plaintext files will actually make "kazaaing" any more prolific then it is today. If there is one thing I can tell you about the file sharing networks, it is that availability of the actual recordings is not a limiting factor (availability of upload bandwidth from sharers is). I think that the record companies realize this very well, and that the DRM has very little to do with kazaa and edonkee, but rather with people downloading one copy and then giving it to their friends. (*)

      Secondly, my main point in regards to this is: I don't care. I don't see the possibility of selling music online as a fundamental human right, and is it isn't possible to do in a way that keep people happy - well then boohoo. Publishing information and then claiming that everybody should pay you when the information is copied is like putting on a fireworks display and claiming that everybody should pay you to look up. You can make all sorts of arguments about how you deserve to be paid for your hard work, but it is still stupid.

      I am not sure how to set up a system "to encourage the production of creative works" in the information age - but I am sure that my computer should obey me, and me alone.

      (*) It should be noted that this is somewhat contradictory to the media industry's claim that it is the difference between analog and digital copying that justifies these new restrictions.

    52. Re:They announced this by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      No.

      In fact, you can already do so with iTunes, if you first convert to AIFF on a CD-R or CD-R image.


      You want to make a bet that they would if I made a single click utility to convert m4p into mp4 with no loss in quality? I can do it, but it would take me a while so we need make the bet rather large so as to make it worth my while...

    53. Re:They announced this by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Had I known it was going to move files on the hard drive, I wouldn't have done it.

      I use a program called MP3 Collector, which is a database that allows you to mass-modify ID3 tags according to schemes that you specify. It calls its database a "collection", and it's very clear about when it's doing things to the database (which, of course, contains pointers to files on the HDD) and when it's doing things to your files.

      iTunes was not similarly clear. I can tell, because I'm not the only one who's gotten bitten by this. You didn't...good for you. That doesn't mean it's good user interface.

      Now every "various artist" album that I have, whose ID3 tags I attributed (mostly manually) to the actual artist, instead of having the Artist tag read "various artists", are scattered across 10gb of date, and 6000+ files. This is going to take a long time to fix. All the genres I'd specified (I organized my file structure by Genre, Artist, Album, and my genres are mostly of my own devising and have little to do with the way other people might describe the music) are now gone.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    54. Re:They announced this by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      You know, you could just mass edit the ID3 tags of those files to check the part of compilation flag, in which case then iTunes puts them all together.

      As for MP3 collector, it seems to me that that is renaming common use terms rather than Apple.

      A database is a collection of data, but it isn't a collection. iTunes was quite clear in that it would organize your music collection, and that no files would be deleted in thr process. Again, a simple understanding of the english language would lead one to believe that ORGANIZING (the act of ordering) your music collection, that it would be moving the files to follow a logical hirearchy.

      When you organize your CDs, what are you doing?

      When you organize files on your desk, what are you doing?

      Ineither case, unless you use a different defenition of organize from the rest of the world, you are moving things to logical locations based on attributes, and ordering them to make searching for a particular item more efficient.

      The fact is, you fucked up. You didn't read the dialouge, and if you did, you didn't bother to check if you were confused. In either case, it is your own fault for clicking through a dialouge box and telling a computer to do something when you did not fully understand what you were telling it to do.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    55. Re:They announced this by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't know about the compilation flag until six days ago, so shit! My bad. Guess I'm stupid.

      You might have noticed that physical objects, and computer objects, are not the same thing. I already explained to you the context I thought Apple was using. I was incorrect. Hence my error. Go read "Philosophy of Everyday Things" for more details on this sort of error. Hint: They're pretty fucking common, and good design allows for them.

      OF COURSE I made a mistake. But according to Apple's own user interface guidelines, the system should protect the user from making large, irrevocable mistakes. That's what good user interface DOES.

      I just reinstalled iTunes on a new instance of XP, and I note that they've changed the dialog box, making it much more clear what they're going to do. So I guess I'm not the only one who had this problem, huh Sparky?

      What EXACTLY should I have checked? In the Help file, under "Organizing your music", it doesn't say anything about moving files around on the hard drive. It talks about organizing the data WITHIN ITUNES.

      Was it a mistake? Yes. Was it my mistake? Yes. BUT, it should have been more difficult to make. Apple now agrees with me. I just wish there was a way to undo the damage.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  5. Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by JasonUCF · · Score: 5, Informative

    They go through several lengthy notices when you move to download iTunes, and then to install it, that if you are already on Windows your MusicMatch software will no longer function.

    MusicMatch was a bandaid for Apple when they did not have a Windows software client.

    Game on.

    1. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by ctr2sprt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Warning!
      You are now installing Windows XP. If you have previously installed any third-party Internet browsers or email programs, they may not function properly after the upgrade. Microsoft does not support the use of third-party Internet browsers and email programs. If you want to use those functions, you must use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, or use an operating system not published by Microsoft.
      <I Understand and Agree>"

      It's kind of funny to see how Slashdotters race to the defense of Apple when they start acting like a monopoly, but when MS does it, the sky is falling. (Probable defense by Apple zealots: "Apple isn't anywhere near as bad as Microsoft." Problem with that defense: That doesn't justify defending Apple, that justifies criticizing them more selectively.)

    2. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't "act" like a monopoly. You either are
      one or not. And being a monopoly is not a problem.
      The problem is if a monopoly abuses it's power.

    3. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by speed-sf · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as a 'benevolent' monopoly? I hope apple will prove me wrong. This situation with MusicMatch is understandable though. Annoying, but understandable.

      --
      All your database are belong to us
    4. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More probable defense: Apple doesn't try to push crappy unsecure spyware shit on its users.

    5. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's kind of funny to see how Slashdotters race to the defense of Apple when they start acting like a monopoly, but when MS does it, the sky is falling.

      Ok, on one hand you have a company a with ~5% OS marketshare writing software for another OS and specifically telling people it will disable certain other software on the system.

      On the other hand, you have a company with ~95% OS marketshare bundling apps (such as a web browser) with their OS in order to crush the competition by leveraging the power of their monopoly.

      Now please, explain to me how the first is anywhere near comparable to the second?

      PS - If you click "Agree" on a fucking EULA, you damn well better have read it. Otherwise, you are accepting that there may have been terms in their you would have found disagreeable, but you don't care.

    6. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by dipipanone · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't "act" like a monopoly. You either are one or not

      Well, I suppose you *can* act like one. But it's pretty damn stupid if you don't happen to be one.

      A bit like SCO with their 'monopoly' over unix licenses, in fact.

    7. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Skater · · Score: 1

      Does Windows XP really have that warning? (I haven't used XP, so I really don't know.)

      If not, then this is a different situation--Apple's software DOES warn you.

      Besides, if I installed different software to access my USB printer/scanner, I'd expect the current software to stop working... *shrug*

      --RJ

    8. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Frac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's kind of funny to see how Slashdotters race to the defense of Apple when they start acting like a monopoly, but when MS does it, the sky is falling. (Probable defense by Apple zealots: "Apple isn't anywhere near as bad as Microsoft." Problem with that defense: That doesn't justify defending Apple, that justifies criticizing them more selectively.)

      "Acting" like a monopoly? Who cares if companies act like monopolies? More so, who cares if companies ARE monopolies? Only thing we care about is when companies that ARE monopolies begin to abuse their status. The iPod is popular, but it is by FAR not a monopoly.

      And your argument would only make sense if Microsoft actually posts something like the warning you described above. Instead, they secretly fuck with the compatibility of programs, use price discounts to lock out competitors, etc, ALL BEHIND YOUR BACK.

      I'm still waiting to click the "I Understand and Agree" statement from Microsoft. Where is it?

    9. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes your Honor, I killed him. But in my defense I'll say it wasn't painful. It was very quick and he didn't feel a thing. Can I go now?"

    10. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    11. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple sold you the iPod. Microsoft didn't sell you the machine.

      You're planning to tell me that because I dictate that my hardware will only work with my software, I am a monopoly?

    12. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by pyros · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This isn't anti-competetive monopoly abuse. It is anti-competetive free-market tactics. Apple has a monopoly on MacOS based desktop systems. They might also have a monopoly on legal online music sales in the U.S., and/or portable mp3 players. I consider those to be part of the same market though. So no monopoly position is being abused to gain market share in a new market, rather to increase market share in the same market. If MS does something anti-competetive with Windows to gain market share in the Intel based desktop PC market, it wouldn't be a strong candidate for anti-trust proceedings. Some consumers have iPods which they access with Windows. They then obtained iTunes for Windows. These are two products both made by Apple for use with a service which Apple provides. You were not forced to buy either of these components with your Windows PC, nor are you forced to buy either with an Apple PC. It is purely up to each consumer to go out of their way to obtain these products. That is why it is defensible, in my opinion.

      Before you over-react and call me a fanboy or a zealot, I have two home computers running Linux, and my worktstation at work runs Linux. I have never owned an Apple computer. And I did start off calling this tactic anti-competetive. I just tried to clarify how it's not anti-competetive by way of monopoly abuse (selectively criticizing).

    13. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by winkydink · · Score: 1
      More probable defense: Apple doesn't try to push crappy unsecure spyware shit on its users.

      ...at least not yet

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    14. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have that warning because it isn't true. You can use other browsers and mail clients in Windows XP. They may be unsupported in that MS won't offer customer support for 3rd party programs, but who does?

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    15. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    16. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Tokerat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, basically Apple is saying "If you buy our product it will only work with our other (free) product."

      That's like being pissed when someone says "If you buy our Linux database, it will only work with the (free) Linux OS." "WTF? What happned to choice? Since when is Linux a Monopoly? I WANNA RUN AIX & SOLARIS!" "Sorry, Linux only."
      (Probable defense by Apple zealots: "Apple isn't anywhere near as bad as Microsoft." Problem with that defense: That doesn't justify defending Apple, that justifies criticizing them more selectively.)
      Let's take that one step further: Apple has their bad points, but overall they have been consistently higher-quality than Microsoft, and they rarely absuse their position. Microsoft forces crap apon people, buys out competition and replacies their market share with their own crappy product.
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    17. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does this mean that everything rotten thing a company does is permissible UP TO the point they achieve market dominance (as long as they provide a helpful EULA)?

      If this is the case, I never again want to hear complaints about the terrible things Microsoft has done before they were actually convicted of monopolistic practices, nor the terrible things they have done in markets where they don't have monopoly status.

      Apple does this shit again and again, its despicable business practice, and I'm sick of people glossing over it. Maybe it's not "monoplistic", but its still a crap way of advancing your products over competitors.

    18. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but the relevant figure in THIS discussion what marketshare that iTunes and the iPod have. This has nothing to do with the OS marketshare percentages.

    19. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, on one hand you have a company a with ~5% OS marketshare


      Try 3%! at best.


      There's no need to inflate Macintosh marketshare by 40%, you silly zealot.

    20. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love watching the Macinistas parse the meaning of the word "is"...

    21. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by stinkyfingers · · Score: 1

      He listed what the probably defense would be, and you spewed it back out.

      Go ahead and select the Flamebait option ...

    22. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      why should marketshare matter? Whether Hitler kills 1 million or 6 million people, he's still a stone cold killer. And just because Apple has CHOSEN to have a small marketshare in exchange for tight control of "the whole widget", and thus, higher markups, is no excuse for their anti-competitive behavior. Because in more ways than not, they DO have a monopoly. Just not over the X86 desktop.

    23. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by morelife · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...you have a company a with ~5% OS marketshare writing software for another OS...

      and trying to remove "another OS"'s user's choice in music applications by disabling software already installed and configured on that user's system.

      The only software Apple should be replacing on a Microsoft (or any other OS) install is previously installed Apple software.

      Apple is perhaps more evil than Microsoft; they just don't have the market share yet.

    24. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe it's not "monoplistic", but its still a crap way of advancing your products over competitors.

      If you look at it in the exact same way that the court looked at Microsoft, then you'll find it is monopolistic:
      Number of Apple computers shipped without Mac OS X: 0

      Percentage of Apple computers running an operating system not developed by Apple: (slightly larger than 0)

      Competitors' software broken by Apple software when installed to use with Apple hardware: ...

      Remember that in the last anti-trust case against Microsoft Apple was ruled to not even be a competitor in the OS space because they didn't run on x86 (Microsoft wanted Apple to be considered a competitor, of course, whether or not they actually see them this way). This is how Microsoft suddenly had a 95+% market share when before the trial the numbers tended to be in the 80-85% range, because the market was limited to a very specific area (primarily x86-based desktop PCs). Not to mention the portions of the case regarding forced bundling of Windows, requiring OEMs to buy a copy for every PC they shipped, meaning that OEMs wouldn't sell PCs without Windows (notably, though, the fact that many OEMs offered Linux before the case even went to court was omitted).

      There are 2 different types of monopoly at hand here, and the only reason people overlook (or even deny) Apple's monopoly is because it's in a relatively small market. When Apple extends their practices into larger markets, there are a lot more people to take notice, and this is just that. (I'd also add that when Microsoft made Office look the same on the Mac as it did on Windows, Mac users cried foul, and even Apple cried a bit, but most of the applications Apple releases for Windows look like they are Mac OS apps, rather than Windows apps).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    25. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by pyros · · Score: 1
      If this is the case, I never again want to hear complaints about the terrible things Microsoft has done before they were actually convicted of monopolistic practices, nor the terrible things they have done in markets where they don't have monopoly status.

      The problem is not having a monopoly in a particular market, or even branching into other markets when a monopoly is held. The problem is using the monopoly to gain a competetive advantage. Microsoft forced OEM computer manufacturers to make products in one market more visible than competing products before licensing a different product which held a Monopoly. Apple is doing no such thing. I do thing this in anti-competetive behavior on Apple's part, it's just not Monopoly abuse.

    26. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by pyros · · Score: 1

      But this discussion is about software on Windows PCs. How does it leverage their monopoly of MacOS based PCs to gain extra market share in the portable MP3 player and/or online music retail markets? Apple has no monopoly positions in the Windows based PC market.

    27. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      >Number of Apple computers shipped without Mac OS X: 0

      Untrue:
      http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    28. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Pendersempai · · Score: 1
      Ok, on one hand you have a company a with ~5% OS marketshare writing software for another OS and specifically telling people it will disable certain other software on the system.

      Right, well, you're being disingenuous. Their monopoly isn't in the OS, obviously. It's in the high-end mp3 player market. The iPod is the only game in town at the high end. And they are (perhaps explicitly) trying to extend their desktop market by leveraging their mp3 player market, which is EXACTLY what MS wrongly did with a number of their products.

      I'm typically a fanatical Apple apologist, and in this case I happen to think that the iPod isn't a monopoly: rather, that it's the most favored of a number of options only because it is the best option -- winning fairly in a still-competitive market. But you've got to admit that the argument is worth consideration.

    29. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But this discussion is about software on Windows PCs. How does it leverage their monopoly of MacOS based PCs to gain extra market share in the portable MP3 player and/or online music retail markets?

      Apple is using iTunes to disable access to the iPod from other programs as well as to install QuickTime on the PCs. Essentially they're trying to leverage the popularity of the iPod (which I believe is one of the best-selling portable MP3 players available) to force these other products (iTunes, QuickTime, ITunes Music Service) on end-users. A savvy user can easily get around much of the behavior of iTunes and QuickTime in taking over media functionality on Windows machines, and Microsoft was forced to make this slightly easier for users (adding in the 'Set Program Access and Defaults' item in the 'Add/Remove Programs' Control Panel entry), but the only way for the average user to really stop this behavior is to uninstall the Apple software and reinstall the pre-existing software.

      Breaking other people's software and bundling software together is exactly the behavior Microsoft was accused of in the antitrust trial. In the case of iTunes, the biggest offense comes to users of Apple's hardware (the iPod), which means they're leveraging a user's choice in hardware to force a software choice on them (assuming they've made the decision to try iTunes, they don't get the choice to use the software side-by-side with other software to access their hardware).

      Apple has no monopoly positions in the Windows based PC market.

      Apple doesn't need a monopoly position in the Windows-based PC market. They are attempting to create a monopoly in software for synchronizing the iPod on Windows by breaking software that previously worked, and then further trying to extend that monopoly into other areas by taking over the functions of all other media players on the system.

      Remember that at the time the antitrust trial was brought against Microsoft they didn't have anything resembling a monopoly in either Internet browsers or media players, either, but were accused of using an OS monopoly (over a very limited market) to push out competition in these areas. During the trial they gained a majority market share in the browser space and a fair amount of market share in media players and other 'middleware' applications, but this wasn't the case when the trial started (before Windows 98 was released).

      As far as leveraging a monopoly on MacOS based PCs, it was simply that monopoly that allowed them to market the iPod and iTunes to the point where the platform had enough strength to leverage it's way into the Windows-based PC space. Apple is now simply leveraging the popularity of the iPod to push iTunes into the Windows space, though iTunes also gained some reputation of it's own on the MacOS that made some Windows users curious as to what the big deal was (and frankly, the only thing I see as a big deal in it is solid seperation of the interface and playback functionality, because the thing won't miss a beat playing a song even if it's redrawing at a piss-poor rate and half-frozen).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    30. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yellowdog linux

    31. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      It's not despicable. It's sensible. I'm saving my main point for last, but first off, if you HAVE an iPod AND purposely downloaded iTunes, why would you want to use MusicMatch with your iPod anymore anyway?

      Apple probably figured that it wasn't worth the time they'd spend addressing this problem because nobody would want to bother with MusicMatch's iPod connectivity after they HAVE a "native" iPod client (iTunes) installed. Maybe they'd still want to use MMJB to play Mp3s once in a while, but this issue doesn't affect that.

      Oh, and the article's subject: "iTunes disables MusicMatch" is blatantly incorrect and inflammatory. "iTunes interferes with iPod/MMJB connectivity" is correct. No one is saying the program was disabled.

      And as for MusicMatch's music download service and the claims that Apple is "knocking out an opponent":

      HELLO! It's WMA! If you have an iPod, you would be stupid to buy music downloads from MusicMatch because the iPod doesn't PLAY WMA! MusicMatch's service is only a competitor to iTunes for Windows to non-iPod users (i.e. users of other MP3 players or none at all). Those are users for whom iTunes does not affect MusicMatch's behavior one bit!

      This is not anticompetitive behavior; this is completely trivial because it's a non-issue. If you want to sync your iPod with two different programs to confuse yourself, big deal, do a 5-minute uninstall/reinstall and you're fine. I'm surprised at how easy the fix is. And besides, MusicMatch is not their competitor anyway. Apple is a hardware company. iTunes Music Store (as well as the program itself) is just a trojan horse for selling iPods. Which are a trojan horse for selling Macs. End of discussion.

    32. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      From the site you referenced:
      When you purchase an Apple computer from Terra Soft, it will ship with the most current version of Yellow Dog Linux pre-installed. Mac OS X is also pre-installed and may be accessed by holding the OPTION key at boot.

      You were close, though, and I would probably amend that statement to 'a percentage that is smaller than the number of x86 desktop PCs shipped without Windows', given that someone out there might offer to strip OS X (and the Apple warranties) from Apple computers before sending them to you.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    33. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by dissy · · Score: 1

      "Warning!
      You are now installing Windows XP. If you have previously installed any third-party Internet browsers or email programs, they may not function properly after the upgrade. Microsoft does not support the use of third-party Internet browsers and email programs. If you want to use those functions, you must use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, or use an operating system not published by Microsoft.
      "

      Heres the thing about your point. Windows XP does not say that. Or anything CLOSE to that.
      Atleast not on the copies of XP home and XP pro I have.

      There are two issues in my response to you (I think you are more interested in the second)

      A) If windows did have a message such as the one you quoted above, I would see that, not aggree, and not install windows.
      Problem solved.

      B) Even if they did have that notice, you are arguing that it is not good to allow such a thing. Arguable, but as we have all seen in the past, if people are so stupid as to call their ISP when netscape ruins the registry, or call palm about a 3rd party app not doing what that app claims on their palm pilot, or calls MS tech support for a harddisk failure on a drive that is 9 years old, how could you even think a company nowadays will claim support for anything they dont have full control over?

      Now if installing windows trashed everything else (IE linux partitions) that you add on AFTER the installer is done, then I can see a problem. But if the installer claims it will do something, and then does it, its your own fault for allowing it to do exactly what it told you it would.

      If windows installer would delete linux, I would pull that drive out of the machine first. I would complain when after the installer is done and windows is there and working, if i connected the linux disk and it then found and deleted it.

      But apple is stating up front it will definatly break this feature.
      If you run a program that says it will break something, and it does, its your fault.
      Now if you reinstalled musicmatch and itunes did somethng AFTERWARDS to break musicmatch again, there would be a problem.
      That doesnt happen. Thou itunes may stop working properly with the ipod. but they explicity state that both wont work at the same time.

      So yes you are right, if apple or MS did this, we would all be up in arms.
      But nether company is doing so. So what is your problem again?

    34. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by pyros · · Score: 1
      First off, realise that I've stated in at least two other posts that I agree this tactic is anti-competetive.


      Breaking other people's software and bundling software together is exactly the behavior Microsoft was accused of in the antitrust trial.


      No, doing all that in the context of leveraging a monopoly is what Microsoft was accused of. Apple doesn't have a monopoly to abuse, so they can't be compared in the legal context of monopoly behavior.


      Apple doesn't need a monopoly position in the Windows-based PC market. They are attempting to create a monopoly in software for synchronizing the iPod on Windows by breaking software that previously worked, and then further trying to extend that monopoly into other areas by taking over the functions of all other media players on the system.


      So you can leverage a monopoly without having one? That's news to me. In your original post you stated If you look at it in the exact same way that the court looked at Microsoft, then you'll find it is monopolistic:. Which to me means you think they are leveraging a monopoly.


      Remember that at the time the antitrust trial was brought against Microsoft they didn't have anything resembling a monopoly in either Internet browsers or media players, either, but were accused of using an OS monopoly (over a very limited market) to push out competition in these areas.


      That's exactly right, and that was the right time to bring legal action. Microsoft was seen to be leveraging their monopoly of the x86-based PC market to gain a dominant position in the web browser and media player markets. Those are three separate markets so such a tactic is illegal.


      As far as leveraging a monopoly on MacOS based PCs, it was simply that monopoly that allowed them to market the iPod and iTunes to the point where the platform had enough strength to leverage it's way into the Windows-based PC space.


      Please cite examples of how Apple did the same thing with Mac OS and iTunes that Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer. You'll have to show me products which compete with iPod and iTunes on Mac OS which were technically incapable of competing because Apple altered the OS to give them the advantage. If you can't do that, then you can't claim Apple leveraged their Mac OS based PC monopoly to gain a dominant position in the portable mp3 player and online music retail markets. If you can, then I'll concede that I was wrong.


      Apple is now simply leveraging the popularity of the iPod to push iTunes into the Windows space


      Apple does not have a monopoly in the portable mp3 player market. Leveraging popularity is not the same as leveraging a monopoly. One is legal, one is not.


      Once again, so we're all clear, I'm not defending this action as fair and competetive, I'm defending it as not monopoly abusing.

    35. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by prockcore · · Score: 1

      You forgot that the company with ~5% OS marketshare has ~95% Online Music Sales marketshare.

      Apple has it's own monopolies.

    36. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by marhar · · Score: 1

      You can't "act" like a monopoly. You either are
      one or not.


      That's it. I'm banning you from slashdot!

    37. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Skater · · Score: 1

      Kind of what I figured. It seemed pretty farfetched, and I do know one person that uses Mozilla under Windows XP. (Her modem doesn't work under Linux, so she's kind of stuck.)

      Somehow, though, the parent seemed to think it was the same situation with Apple's software. I really don't see it that way, and I think most of the people posting messages agree.

      --RJ

    38. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by pod · · Score: 1
      Besides, if I installed different software to access my USB printer/scanner, I'd expect the current software to stop working... *shrug*

      What?! What kind of logic is that? If I have software A talking to my scanner, and I install software B, I'd expect BOTH to keep working. If I want to scan with A I launch A and it still works, even though B was installed later. Scanners come with scanning software, even the cheapest ones. Corel PhotoPaint, for example, comes with its own scanner utility. You can choose which one you want to use when you hit the Scan button in Corel. At any time, you can use the original one. At no point does either piece of software cease to work.

      This is really strange logic and reasoning.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    39. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by pympdaddyc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it ironic that there was an article over a week ago about Microsoft's warning customers about iTunes, yet the relevant info (that it disables other programs) only came appeared today on slashdot. Perhaps someone should have looked into what MS was making a fuss about before mocking them for it. =P

    40. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EULAs do not and have not ever carried force of law. Clicking "I Agree" simply cannot constitute any kind of real agreement. The fact is, just because Apple put something in their EULA absolutely does not change the fact that iTunes disabling MusicMatch constitues either poor programming or (less likely) intentionally malicious programming. Most likely, they'll fix their mistake, but nothing in their (meaningless) document can excuse what was, in fact, a mistake.

    41. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    42. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by zorcon · · Score: 1

      That's right folks, you read it first on Slashdot (and we all know everything on Slashdot is true!):

      Apple ~5% OS marketshare
      Microsoft ~95% OS marketshare

      and ... ...
      no peaking ...

      LINUX ~0% OS MARKETSHARE!!!!!!!!!!!

    43. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Monkeybaister · · Score: 1
      Number of Apple computers shipped without Mac OS X: 0
      It's called vertical integration.
    44. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Does this mean that everything rotten thing a company does is permissible UP TO the point they achieve market dominance (as long as they provide a helpful EULA)?

      Yes, because you can't abuse your monopoly power until you actually have that monopoly power.

    45. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by spooza · · Score: 1

      "on one hand you have a company a with ~5% OS marketshare"

      Well. And if one sees how Apple manages things I sure wish it stays that way.

    46. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      How is it a crap way of advancing your products over a competitor? THEY COME OUT AND TELL YOU IT WILL HAPPEN. There's no damn law saying that all computer users must install iTunes. If you like musicmatch that much then ditch iTunes or use the fix.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    47. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck do I have to make that decision? What gives them the right to have ANY say over what other software I have installed on my PC? Sure its their hardware and their software, but if they have to artificially restrict my options to make themselves feel safe, how is that NOT anticompetitive?

    48. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Senjaz · · Score: 1
      The only software Apple should be replacing on a Microsoft (or any other OS) install is previously installed Apple software.

      I'd say that most PC iPod owners used Music Match because it came with their iPod.

      Now if a user had installed Music Match software, then bought the iPod for PC from Apple and later an iTunes install walked over it then you would have a right to bitch.

      Is this what happens I don't have a spare PC to test?

      But if you installed Music Match as the player for PC iPod because that's what Apple gave you and downloading the new iTunes software for your iPod disabled the old version of the syncing software it used then as long as they warn you (which Apple do) then how is this a problem?

      They are replacing software they installed.

      --
      Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.
    49. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by fr0dicus · · Score: 1
      You're not required to use iTunes with your iPod though; they're simply stating that if you want to use iTunes, then they're going to break Musicmatch for you (temporarily). Musicmatch will work just fine if you don't install iTunes. I don't see how this is any different to any other piece of software that comes with hardware, do you have an alternative to NVidia drivers? I find it strange that Windows users of all people should moan about this sort of thing. In terms of a license it's nothing new. If you do {this} you have to accept {that}, in this case where {this}=install iTunes and {that}=accept that musicmatch will temporarily break and Quicktime will be installed.

      In mannerism it's no different to any other license (try subbing in {this}=use our code and {that}=release all your code too, familiar?).

    50. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      You're not required to use iTunes with your iPod though; they're simply stating that if you want to use iTunes, then they're going to break Musicmatch for you (temporarily).

      Temporarily as in until you uninstall iTunes, repair your registry if they broke it, uninstall MusicMatch, and then reinstall MusicMatch. This is not the way you're supposed to write software.

      Musicmatch will work just fine if you don't install iTunes.

      You're right, everything's perfectly ok as long as you don't install iTunes.

      I don't see how this is any different to any other piece of software that comes with hardware, do you have an alternative to NVidia drivers?

      This isn't a case of installing new hardware drivers and complaining that the old ones don't work, this is a case of installing a seperate piece of software with similar functionality and not having the other software work any more. If I install new nVidia drivers and all of my games stop working then I'll revert the drivers. If I install a new game and it installs drivers that only work with it, then the game is doing something completely wrong. If I can't play the game with any drivers other than the ones it installs, then I'm screwed, and that's simply not the way you're supposed to do things.

      I find it strange that Windows users of all people should moan about this sort of thing. In terms of a license it's nothing new. If you do {this} you have to accept {that}, in this case where {this}=install iTunes and {that}=accept that musicmatch will temporarily break and Quicktime will be installed.

      I find it strange that anyone believes Windows users will accept this crap after Microsoft's been forced to stop breaking software and bundling software.

      In mannerism it's no different to any other license (try subbing in {this}=use our code and {that}=release all your code too, familiar?).

      So now I'm accepting the copyright terms for using GPL'd code (in a spastic reactionist language)? There's a vast difference between the terms for copyrights and a software use license. If I use a piece of GPL'd software I don't have to release all of the code I have on my PC, and at least if it's doing something like this I can remove the offending code and redistribute the fixed version. Instead, if I uninstall iTunes there's a vague chance that my CD player won't work and there's no chance of an iPod working on my machine. It's amazing what Apple thinks users will put up with, but it's even more amazing what people will defend them for.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    51. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      Her modem doesn't work under Linux, so she's kind of stuck.

      Then it's not a modem. Sound cards that rely on the host operating system to tell them how to make the right sounds for transmitting data across POTS lines are usually called Winmodems.

      There is a special circle of hell reserved for vendors who abuse language to deceive their customers into thinking they're buying something other than what's actually being sold. The people who make sound cards and sell them as "modems"; the people who make "printers" that can't accept ASCII input because they're too damned stupid to render letters of the alphabet all by themselves; the people who decided that a "1 GB" hard drive could hold 10^9 bytes of data instead of 2^30 bytes; the people who sell "USB 2" controllers that are actually USB 1.1; these will be the ones burning in the pits of brimstone. Be sure to laugh at them on the way down.

    52. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I know. Big deal. The point remains valid.

      I propose a new rule, whoever mentions Apple first in any conversation automatically loses. Why can't I? It's as valid as some other dickhead making arbitrary rules like that. Get a life.

    53. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by fr0dicus · · Score: 1

      I'd feel an ounce of sorrow if musicmatch wasn't a pile of steaming turd.

    54. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by fr0dicus · · Score: 1
      If you want to take the posture that your Windows setup is as important as some critical piece of business equipment then you'd better just read the damn EULA that comes with products in the first place, as you would there.

      Chances are you had Musicsnatch installed in order to update your iPod in the first place and it beggars belief that you'd want to keep it for that purpose after seeing and installing iTunes. I don't even know why I'm typing this because it's just the same attitude I always see from Windows using trolls who are jealous of the quality of Apple's stuff and desperately seek some pathetically minor point to snipe at them with.

    55. Re:Apple tells you this when you download iTunes by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      If you want to take the posture that your Windows setup is as important as some critical piece of business equipment then you'd better just read the damn EULA that comes with products in the first place, as you would there.

      I simply take the posture that installing software from any vendor should not break software from another vendor, or break the OS itself, both of which iTunes does. I don't recall anyone pointing out anything in the EULA that says 'iTunes will make your CD-ROM drive inaccessible if you uninstall the software'. I can understand some people thinking it's ok for MusicMatch to be broken simply because Apple developed the functionality and warned you, but that's an issue of whether or not you believe it's ok for someone to (A) do this in the first place and (B) get away with it just because it's in an EULA. Making the CD-ROM drive stop working properly after removing the iTunes software is a mess, but then you weren't defending that (and may not have been aware of it).

      Chances are you had Musicsnatch installed in order to update your iPod in the first place and it beggars belief that you'd want to keep it for that purpose after seeing and installing iTunes.

      Since I don't have MusicMatch or an iPod, that particular problem is not mine, but I believe (mostly as a software developer, but also as a user) that installing one piece of software should not screw up another, even if you put it in an EULA (and I don't believe half or more of what's in an EULA should be legally binding).

      I don't even know why I'm typing this because it's just the same attitude I always see from Windows using trolls who are jealous of the quality of Apple's stuff and desperately seek some pathetically minor point to snipe at them with.

      The quality of Apple's Windows software is questionable at best, especially if iTunes is the best example. Their software for Mac OS may be top-notch, but I really wouldn't know since I haven't used an Apple computer in several years (though I had few complaints when I did).

      As far as I can tell, iTunes breaks MusicMatch, disables the CD-ROM on uninstall of iTunes, and possibly causes other issues with access to music files (I'm going to have to go home and investigate this tonite because suddenly my gf can't access her music files). The CD-ROM access alone was a big problem for me, but luckily I found a working list of the registry entries required to fix the problem. I'm hoping the problem with my home computer is simply user error, as I actually like using iTunes for my mp3 collection, even if I don't use most of the features (iTunes Music Service and iPod synchronization), dislike the installation/uninstallation, and have problems with the interface. It does play my (fairly large) playlist without a hitch, regardless of what I do, which in itself means that at home it gets more use than any other player on the system. Since I didn't bother installing an mp3 ripper at work, though, iTunes can only play about 5% of my playlist and is useless here, therefore it was best to remove it (and then try to fix the uninstall problems).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  6. iTunes disables all other ipod managers by kerubi · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least it is not targeted at MusicMatch, just broadly to all competitors :)

    --
    I joined two users too late.
  7. as stated when installing iTunes by dreamt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Funny, I remember when installing iTunes on my laptop, it WARNED your that this would happen.

    While I see MusicMatch not being happy about this, it isn't like it wasn't an expected result of the iTunes installer.

  8. Thank god! by lambadomy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had to use musicmatch for my ipod, and it was one of the worst pieces of software I've ever used. Musicmatch was kind enough to send me an e-mail alerting me that itunes would disable the musicmatch interaction with my ipod, unfortunately when I replied to the e-mail with "Thank god, your software is horrible" it didn't go to an actual person. Oh well.

    1. Re:Thank god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It did. It went to me.

      Fucker.

    2. Re:Thank god! by crawling_chaos · · Score: 4, Funny
      I did exactly the same. Funny how the fact that their reply-to address is just a bot saying "I can't do anything about this." Already that bot is 99% more effective than MusicMatch's Tech Support (motto: We put the "less" in Clueless) ever was.

      The disabling of MusicMatch was a bugfix, in my opinion.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    3. Re:Thank god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that MusicMatch, or MusicCrash as I like to call it, is a steaming pile o' crap.

      What did it for me? I tried syncing my iPod to my mp3 collection on my PC. I have about 15GB of mp3's, and a 30GB iPod. No problem, I thought. Wrong! MusicMatch churned for a while, then crashed because it attempted to allocate over 2GB of system memory! What the hell is that?

      I got the email from musicmatch, read it, and thought, thank god. iTunes here I come.

  9. Re:Uh oh... by NineNine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple doesn't start going the way of Microsoft...

    Oh, you mean by locking customers into expensive, proprietary software? No. They're already worse than that. They lock customers into expensive, proprietary software AND hardware.

  10. Re:This was not an accident by Alien54 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I work for Apple and am therefore posting anonymously. While this was done on purpose, it was buy a sole developer, and not a decision by Apple. That developer has since been let go.

    Strange. I would have thought this behavior was a feature of the operating system ;)

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  11. Does anyone even care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is FUD. I mean, MusicMatch is a horribly broken piece of dogshit anyway, no one in their right mind would even consider using it.

  12. Reminds me... by orkysoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Apple co-operated with MusicMatch, up and until it had its own software, and then used it to knock out its former partner.

    Reminds me of a certain big software company somewhere in the North West of the USA.

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    1. Re:Reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no! That one is Microsoft... this one is Apple, and therefore it's ok.

    2. Re:Reminds me... by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Come on - MusicMatch knew damn well they were just a stopgap solution. This isn't a loyalty thing. These kinds of deals are made all the time. I've worked at companies where we signed a short term agreement to cooperate with a competitor and use their software while we developed our own to do the same job. Both sides went in with eyes wide open, and the competitor profited during that time.

      If MusicMatch thought they were going to be a permanent partner with Apple, they're idiots. And I don't think they are.

    3. Re:Reminds me... by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Reminds me of a certain big software company somewhere in the North West of the USA.

      Reminds me of every for-profit company. Do you imagine there are lasting alliances (much less true friendship) in business? If MusicMatch did not profit from its cooperation with Apple while it lasted, their stockholders should be upset at its management.

      I like and own Apple products, and I think they distinguish themselves in the marketplace by putting out polished products at a premium. However, I don't expect them to be "nice", or to care for me more than my money. Where do you folks get your expectations anyway?

    4. Re:Reminds me... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't justify Apple's software disabling MusicMatch's software without the computer owner's consent.

      But the small print will probably have taken care of that...

      I'm not anti-Apple or anything. I like those iBooks, and I think OS X is okay. It's just that intentionally breaking the functionality of another application seems sleazy to me.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    5. Re:Reminds me... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      I think it's sleazy to sabotage a competitor's software, just like it's sleazy to e.g. block the road and cut the cables to a competitor's headquarters, in order to deprive them of business.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    6. Re:Reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The installation routine does exactly that. You are warned, that - if you continue - MusicMatch will cease to work with your iPod. MusicMatch itself is not disabled.

    7. Re:Reminds me... by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      I think it's sleazy to sabotage a competitor's software

      I would agree, but is there actually any evidence of sabotage, or did you just presume it? The linked article did not allege any such thing.

    8. Re:Reminds me... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    9. Re:Reminds me... by blisspix · · Score: 1

      huh? we all knew iTunes for windows was coming, months and months ago.

    10. Re:Reminds me... by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Yes, there is.

      "Sabotage" requires more than knowingly breaking a competitor's product. It requires that the action be done outside of reasonable technical considerations. That is, a legitimate technical reason is always fair defense against charges of sabotage, unless you have a confession that the intent was to sabotage a competitor. AFAIK, not even MusicMatch is alleging sabotage.

      By the way, plenty of software deliberate break competitors this way. Web browsers frequently ask if you want to make it the default, which "breaks" other browsers, for example. Media player applications also do this.

    11. Re:Reminds me... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      If a web browser makes itself the default, it does not prevent another browser from accessing the www.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    12. Re:Reminds me... by sevenofnine · · Score: 1

      the whole point is that it was with the users consent,
      The installer informed that this would happen, and the user clicked OK to install, hench the user agreed to install with this setting of options...

    13. Re:Reminds me... by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      If a web browser makes itself the default, it does not prevent another browser from accessing the www.

      Sure, but it certainly undermines the other browser. In this case, Apple is disabling another software's ability to access its own product if you choose to install Apple's software, and nobody seems to have any proof that this was not a technical necessity driven by legitimate features (even if those features themselves aren't necessities).

      Therefore, it is probably premature and unfair and call it sabotage.

  13. I agree by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    It's much too difficult to change the default browser.

    Launching applications? Setting preferences? What do they think we are, rocket scientists?

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  14. honestly by peetola · · Score: 1

    If you have windows and an ipod. You were using music match until now, because that's what you had to use. Now that iTunes is out, will people be really using music match to sync their ipod when they can do it easier and better in itunes?

    1. Re:honestly by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Now that iTunes is out, will people be really using music match to sync their ipod when they can do it easier and better in itunes?

      I dunno, will people be really using netscape to browse the web when they can do it easier and better in IE?

    2. Re:honestly by Ageless · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not true. There were and are tons of alternatives to Music Match on Windows.

      My very own vPod is one of them.

    3. Re:honestly by peetola · · Score: 1

      or Safari...

  15. Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by wankledot · · Score: 1, Troll

    Drooling Apple Apologist Fanboy Twits vs. Conspiracy Theorists

    I think the conspiracy theorists are problably right though, Apple had to know known this was going to happen, and had no qualms about disabling MM. Apple is playing God of The iPod for the PC, what they can giveth, they can taketh away. MS and Real aren't the only people that are good at playing this game on the PC.

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    1. Re:Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

      Well, iTunes tells you this is going to happen before you install it. If you don't like it, don't install it.

      The funny thing is, I always wanted both Real Player and Windows Media Player installed because each sucked enough that I needed both to actaully watch video clips. Neither could do the job right.

      When Apple makes iTunes, they have the balls to tell you its all or nothing, and they can back it up. With iTunes, I no longer need or want another music organizer on my PC.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    2. Re:Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by Pedro+Vigdny · · Score: 0

      Yes, they back it up sir. So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them. It is good that they need to break Musicmatch for me to make me see how good they are. I must be the idiot for using Winamp and Ephpod where I could be having just iTunes.

      --
      Hi!
    3. Re:Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

      So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them.

      Do you even remotely know what you are talking about? MP3 is a standard, it is by definition a single codec. There are multiple encoders, but they all adhere to the standard. I've encoded my MP3s with probably 10 or more different encoders, and iTunes plays every MP3 I have just fine.

      MusicMatch is an MP3 player. iTunes does not break it, as you can still play your MP3s with it. However, you can't transfer songs to your iPod using MusicMatch anymore.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    4. Re:Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      I've never had a problem playing mp3s in iTunes. Granted, these were mostly mp3s I ripped/encoded myself (with blade and lame). WMP had some problems with them (sometimes would play with no volume when started at the beginning. starting 2 seconds into the song was fine).


      WinAmp and iTunes are very different programs, IMO.


      WinAmp is an mp3(/ogg/wav/etc) player. iTunes plays mp3s, but it's really a music database.


      With Winamp, I might play a CD worth of music, but I was at the mercy of how my mp3 collection was sorted on disk. With iTunes, my music is sorted and catalogued. I can easily select disco music, 60s music, individual artists, individual albums, etc. I find myself listening to music much more. I've probably played more songs through iTunes in the last month than I did through winamp in the last year.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1
      With iTunes, my music is sorted and catalogued. I can easily select disco music, 60s music, individual artists, individual albums, etc.

      those options are in windows media player, also. :p

    6. Re:Tonight at 1PM, at the MGM grand we have... by Pedro+Vigdny · · Score: 0

      "...all 1 of them." That means 1 codec. Perhaps read the parent and then look for sarcasm.

      --
      Hi!
  16. Default changes made at developer request by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 1

    Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the changes to internet preferences were made at the request of developers. Instead of a system perference panel, developers wanted to be able to switch this within each application. Hence the new API.

    1. Re:Default changes made at developer request by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1
      Instead of a system perference panel, developers wanted to be able to switch this within each application.

      But there's been an API for about 10 years to do this, Internet Config. It's still functional, but it's Carbon and is being overtaken by Launch Services, which is Cocoa.

      Apple didn't do users any favors by burying these in Mail and Safari - that's not the obvious behavior for setting a preference, that's the Redmond behavior. The help text is confusing as well:

      To set Safari and Mail as your default Internet applications:

      Open Safari, then choose Safari > Preferences. Click the General icon, and then choose Safari from the Default Web Browser pop-up menu.

      Open Mail, then choose Mail > Preferences. Click the General icon, and then choose Mail from the Default Email Reader.
      It's confusing because it's not apparent that this applies to other apps as well, though if you know that it's easy to see. Thought experiment: "Q: where do I set a cross-application preference? - A: in System Preferences. - !A: In the application you don't want to use."

      Me, I just use More Internet, which works great, still as a preferences pane.
      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Default changes made at developer request by curtlewis · · Score: 1

      Pardon me but...

      Who gives a shit about what developers want for preferences?

      Preferences are for the users to set and should use an interface intuitive and designed for users, not developers.

      I'm not saying the change was bad, but if that was the reason for the change, it was a stupid reason.

    3. Re:Default changes made at developer request by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      But there's been an API for about 10 years to do this, Internet Config [apple.com]. It's still functional, but it's Carbon and is being overtaken by Launch Services [apple.com], which is Cocoa.

      Apple didn't do users any favors by burying these in Mail and Safari - that's not the obvious behavior for setting a preference, that's the Redmond behavior.


      Right, and it's Redmondian in yet another aspect. Those two apps (or at least one or the other) are now mandatory, vs. being optional in earlier versions of OS X (don't want mail? Chuck it in the trash. Don't want Safari? Don't download it, or if you did, chuck it in the trash).
      Yeah, we know about other ways to change the default mailto: app, but does the average user?

      That's a really annoying change to me. It's a system-wide configuration. Leave it in the place where system-wide configs are.

    4. Re:Default changes made at developer request by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Apple didn't do users any favors by burying these in Mail and Safari - that's not the obvious behavior for setting a preference, that's the Redmond behavior.

      The point is that all email applications will be able to put those preferences inside their application preferences.

      The reason they were "buried" was so they were no longer restricted to a pre-programmed list of default application types (email, browser, etc...). Now there can be an unlimited number of types and each application of that type can set them.

      This is a good thing.

    5. Re:Default changes made at developer request by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Instead of a system perference panel, developers wanted to be able to switch this within each application. Hence the new API.

      Maybe this is just because I'm a developer, but what the hell does an API change have to do with changing the location of a preference?

      If the API changes, you update the code behind the existing UI so that it still functions as expected. If there are more options that you want exposed to the user, you add to the UI accordingly. Changing an API doesn't force a change in the UI, though.

      On the other hand, if you move an API from the system level to the application level, it should no longer have system-wide effects. The location of the UI elements should generally reflect the level at which it has effect, in other words system-level settings should be set in a system-level interface, while application settings should be set in an application-level interface.

      Just because Microsoft thinks it's a good idea to put a bunch of system-wide preferences in Internet Explorer and Outlook doesn't mean they belong there (on the other hand, what Microsoft does in many cases is actually use system-level interfaces in applications, the same dialogues can be found in the system's control panel).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    6. Re:Default changes made at developer request by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The reason they were "buried" was so they were no longer restricted to a pre-programmed list of default application types (email, browser, etc...). Now there can be an unlimited number of types and each application of that type can set them.

      But that's not new either. Internet Config and now More Internet have always had an 'add' button, for any number of URI schemes you might want to think up.

      Eventually, maybe all the apps will be revved to support the new 'concept' but until then you have to use Apple Mail and Safari to set these.

      The right thing would have been to add the capability for apps in 10.3 and take it out of System Preferences in 10.4, after all the apps had time to migrate. Apple is usually very good about making transitions gradual for the user, but this one is very abrupt.

      It's also inconsistent: Web & Mail prefs have moved into Apple Applications. CD & DVD prefs still have a preferences pane. Image Capture prefs are off in an application that acts both like a preferences page and a utility. This is hard for users to understand. All I'm saying is stick preferences in the System Preferences tool, and optionally have other ways to set them when it's more convienient.

      Of course, _this_ is what we have to complain about in Panther, so, put that in perspective.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  17. Re:This was not an accident by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work for Apple and am therefore posting anonymously. While this was done on purpose, it was buy a sole developer, and not a decision by Apple. That developer has since been let go.

    Bullshit! If that was the case, iTunes would have immediately been 'fixed' to stop that behaviour, and/or a patch released.

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
  18. Conspiracy theory or...? by stubear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, I would have thought this was simply another conspiracy theory on /. created to stir up controversy and debate. However, after reading this and this on Think Secret the other day I'm not so sure. This isn't the first not will it likely be the last transgression at this level pulled by Apple.

    1. Re:Conspiracy theory or...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. Apple screws dealers? So what else is new? Apple has been screwing the retail channel since 1985, when they could least afford it. Time hasn't changed that. The only thing that's changed is that now they really don't need the dealers.

    2. Re:Conspiracy theory or...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This IS a conspiracy theory. Why? Tracks bought in musicmatch can't be uploaded to the ipod because the ipod doesn't support musicmatch's format. This isn't about blocking the competition, it's about moving people from a piece of crud (musicmatch) to something excellent (itunes).

      ITMS is a way to sell more ipods, not the other way around. Apple could care less if you use another service with your ipod, since you would already have bought an ipod by then.

    3. Re:Conspiracy theory or...? by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Apple QuickTime tries to hijack all sorts of video and audio formats already on Windows. It comes as no surprise to me that other pieces of Apple software react the same way. Not to say that they are the only ones doing it, but WMP worked great for videos and I don't need QuickTime to take over everything for me. I hate the brushed metal look, as well as the newer interfaces for WMP. WMP at least lets me put on the old school theme.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    4. Re:Conspiracy theory or...? by Carch · · Score: 1

      My irony detector just exploded... Using a rumor site to debunk a conspiracy? Nice!

      --
      _/\ - Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud.
  19. If I read this right... by terraformer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...then it only affects using MM to access the iPod and not totally disabling MM. Now MM sells music using WMA format which is incompatible with the iPod. There is no conspiracy here since the MM service is totally incompatible with the iPod and since disabling access to the iPod from within MM does nothing to lose the std mp3 files I am figuring this is just apple's way of simplifying the process of users "switching" (pun intended) to iTunes without having people utterly confused.

    This is classic Apple (as I type this from my 15" TiBook) and lets face it. Apple is used to controlling the environment it is in (why the hell freezing over joke was less of a joke than outsiders realize) and this only smacks of something any Apple user has known since they became an Apple user. That Apple takes care of the hard part and doesn't leave much control to the end user as a result. ie; It just works...

    FYI: I like that as much as I like the exact opposite with Linux, which I run on multilple machines so the above was not a dig.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    1. Re:If I read this right... by nolife · · Score: 1

      That Apple takes care of the hard part and doesn't leave much control to the end user as a result. ie; It just works..

      So, would you and the current +4 moderators say the same thing if MS disabled Netscape for you and put IE in its place? How about disabling Winamp and forcing you to use WMP? What about automatically wiping out and replacing your boot manager?

      Let me rephrase your quote..

      That MS takes care of the hard part and doesn't leave much control to the end user as a result. ie; It just works..

      I see nothing here but an excuse and apology for Apple.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    2. Re:If I read this right... by terraformer · · Score: 1
      If you understood my point you would have realized that I was saying that this is not a surprise they would do something like this, not that it was above board. However, nor do I believe it is Apple trying to dominate it's competition. They do not enjoy the numbers MS has nor do they have a direct vested interest in seeing MM not sell to their iPod customers since, as I stated, the two formats are incompatible. Their immediate and most pressing issue is trying to get MM out of the picture since the software is fucking horrid and it does have such limitations (relatively speaking) surrounding the DRM formats.

      Their long term interests revolve around when they make the decision to license AAC or if they decide they will leverage iTunes to sell iPods. I think the latter would not make good business sense and they will continue to ride the fringe if they go that route. Either way, there was no vested competitive interest in the decision they made. It was highly targeted and if MS had done it I may even have given them a pass. The thing with MS doing it is that history has shown they would not have stopped there. Also, it would have to be looked at through the prism of a monopolist leveraging ill gotten gains and that changes everything, both legally and morally.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    3. Re:If I read this right... by jkabbe · · Score: 1


      So, would you and the current +4 moderators say the same thing if MS disabled Netscape for you and put IE in its place? How about disabling Winamp and forcing you to use WMP? What about automatically wiping out and replacing your boot manager?


      I would say you're foolish for offering such a poor analogy. iTunes didn't disable MM it only removed the Apple-supplied component that synched MM with the iPod.

      To reiterate: iTunes only uninstalls APPLE SOFTWARE when it runs.

      So an *good* analogy might be:

      MSN (the service, not the network connectivity) ships with a hook into Netscape that uses Netscape as the browser for MSN. Then, when a new version of MSN and IE come out it removes the Microsoft component the allows Netscape to work as the browser for MSN but otherwise leaves Netscape on your computer and fully functional.

    4. Re:If I read this right... by buysse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That MS takes care of the hard part and doesn't leave much control to the end user as a result. ie; It just works..
      If only that were true... with a Macintosh, it usually is.</flamebait>

      It doesn't disable MusicMatch - it disables communication with the iPod from programs other than iTunes. Have you ever tried to get three different programs to sync with a PalmOS device? It's an interesting experiment. Make sure to back everything up with the original software first. The program is clear at install time that this will occur, it's not checking and removing it at startup, and by reinstalling MusicMatch, it works (and you are now unsupported by Apple).

      For your example, if MS disabled Netscape and replaced it with IE when you did a major upgrade, yes, I would be annoyed. If it disabled WinAMP's ability to talk to the (fictional) msPod when you installed WMP XP 1.2, sure, it'd be annoying, but I would say the same damned thing. Boot manager? That's a bloody support issue. Annoying? Yes. Would I do it if I were them? Yes, and I would not apologize -- operating as documented. Don't like it? Don't dual-boot.

      I'm not apologizing for Apple. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I don't know why that decision was made. If MusicMatch does something that's extremely incompatible with iTunes and damages data on the iPod, would you blame Apple for not warning you?

      --
      -30-
    5. Re:If I read this right... by BayAreaRefugee · · Score: 1

      Maybe a better analogy would be if Apple were to start selling Safari on Windows (we know that won't happen of course), but if they did, and decided that they didn't want other browsers to use Quicktime and disabled Quicktime functionality in IE or Mozilla/Netscape that was already installed on the system. They would make the same argument that they want to provide better support for Apple's Quicktime on their system, and Safari provides more Quicktime functionality than could be provided through Netscape or IE (maybe playing protected video files down the road or something like that, which their download store will start selling then). Would that be acceptable?

      It seems that they should arguably provide the user a choice to disable other software that they detect using resources that they want exclusive access to use or have some way that they can all share them, kind of like most apps warn you before overwriting the filename extension mappings they want to have set up for themselves.

    6. Re:If I read this right... by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      But the iPod synching is a totally different animal (that renders even MY analogy a poor one in some respects).

      Think about it for a minute. Let's say I have 100 songs in iTunes and a DIFFERENT 200 songs in MM. So I synch it with iTunes. my iPod now has the 100 songs on it from iTunes. If I later synch it with MM will my iPod have 300 songs on it? Likely not. MM will delete those 100 songs because they are not in MM anymore and any good synching program should delete the songs from the player that are no longer in the library (since they would likely have been deleted from the library and we don't want strays around). So you will now have the 200 songs from MM but none of the ones from iTunes. This is rather pointless.

      So it makes total sense that only a SINGLE application on your system would be responsible for synching with your iPod. So it makes sense that Apple would make iTunes the synching software if you choose to install it.

    7. Re:If I read this right... by linuxelf · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and what of those m4ps you bought from the iTunes Music Store. How will Music Match handle those when they get sync'd? Probably not very well.

      --
      - "That's just the kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
    8. Re:If I read this right... by BayAreaRefugee · · Score: 1

      But the issue is that there is more than one function that Itunes does than synching with the iPod (and for that matter an application like MMJB). Itunes plays music files, burns CDs, etc. too much like MMJB does. They both also have the capacity to synch with the iPod, iTunes being more able to synch Apples' download files than MMJB is of course.

      It would appear that most users when installing iTunes would prefer to use it to synch with the iPod than MMJB, given it will synch their download files. However, perhaps the user is just curious to try iTunes out as a player and doesn't want to damage any other players, software on their system, and is more concerned about that than synching Apple download files to their iPod, which they might not have any intention of buying.

      Why should a person wanting to test how iTunes plays MP3 files, burns Cds, etc. have to have their other software installation "damaged" in the course of this installation. Perhaps the user doesn't like how iTunes plays stuff and then uninstalls it after they decide they don't want it. With what iTunes install does though, now they have to reinstall MMJB or perhaps other apps that would synch with the iPod to restore it back to what they originally had, and that reinstallation might have other side effects too. Apple should give the option to be as least intrusive as possible to the user when doing installations.

      My previous point though was that Apple at some future date might decide that it also wants to control how Quicktime (it's own product) is accessed on a Windows system much like it is trying to now retroactively control an iPod (it's own product) on a Windows system previously controlled through external software means.

      If the same draconian ways of installation are employed, you'd have some folks not to happy with how it might render some other browsers unable to play Quicktime movies, etc. in the same fashion.

      Apple should warn before affecting other installations of software on the system and give the option to install its software in a way that doesn't destroy functionality of other software on other parts of the system. They could and should certainly warn people that allowing other software to synch instead of iTunes wouldn't be supported by them, etc., but they should still give the user a choice.

    9. Re:If I read this right... by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      What about automatically wiping out and replacing your boot manager?

      Yes, that is precisely what Windows does when you install it. It replaces the MBR with its own. Afterwards, you must boot Linux from some other source than the hard drive's MBR, and then rerun lilo (or grub) to replace the Windows-only MBR with one that can dual-boot both Windows and Linux.

      Oh, and it doesn't bother to warn you, either. It just does it.

      (Some of you kids reading this may be thinking, "But I installed Windows {XP,NT,2k} and it didn't do that!" I'm talking about Windows 98 and earlier. I don't know what the new versions of Windows do, but the old ones acted precisely as I'm describing here.)

  20. Re:Uh oh... by finkployd · · Score: 1

    True, but they have been making great strides (lately) in making their system open for developers and making sure that Apple machines can communicate to other platforms using standard protocols.

    Finkployd

  21. Obvious Choice by mrpuffypants · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have an iPod and had the choice of MusicMatch or iTunes what would you choose?

    MusicMatch:
    1) WMA-Crippled Music Downloads
    2) Pay more for more features
    3) Shit-poor interface

    iTunes
    1) AAC-crippled Music Downloads that play on the iPod
    2) Full features (ripping, smart playlists, etc) for free
    3) Great interface

    Sorry, no competition here. Move along.

    1. Re:Obvious Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what your saying is: this is some sort of great new iTunes feature! It removes software that isnt as great as itself from your system... or at least makes them funciton even more poorly. I hope more software starts integrating this feature (if it isnt patented). I can't wait for the day that open office decides to kill word off my computer, or maybe just make it so that it cant print.

    2. Re:Obvious Choice by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you do look at the interfaces, they are quite simular. Now, Music match has had the intreface since 99 at least. I think apple obviously imitated its design. Apple, however, left out the seperation between the player and the music library. So you can't browse the music store or library and look at your playlist at the same time on Itunes.

      That being said, I think I would rather download the higher quailty ( 160 Kbps) Music match files and convert them to Mp3's and then onto the ipod. As for the price, I paid $20 back in 99 for unlimited upgrades. Do you think thats too much for software I have used everyday for the past 4 years?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:Obvious Choice by gosand · · Score: 2, Informative
      If you have an iPod and had the choice of MusicMatch or iTunes what would you choose? MusicMatch: 1) WMA-Crippled Music Downloads 2) Pay more for more features 3) Shit-poor interface iTunes 1) AAC-crippled Music Downloads that play on the iPod 2) Full features (ripping, smart playlists, etc) for free 3) Great interface Sorry, no competition here. Move along.

      Umm, the point is that you shouldn't have to choose one over the other, you should be able to use both.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    4. Re:Obvious Choice by yomegaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use MusicMatch for ripping and encoding, its MP3 encoder does a good job at low bitrates (VBR ~128kb/s). Back when I used iTunes on my Mac the MP3 encoder it came with was terrible, when using VBR you had to jack the base bitrate way up or it was artifacts galore. Maybe it's better now, but I'll stick with MM thanks anyway.

      As a player I don't like MM at all, BTW. I use Winamp for that, which is much niftier than iTunes in just about every possible way.

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
    5. Re:Obvious Choice by pyros · · Score: 1

      you can, just re-install MM. You're implied point that you shouldn't have to reinstall stands, but installing iTunes doesn't permanently break MM.

    6. Re:Obvious Choice by dissy · · Score: 1

      > Umm, the point is that you shouldn't have to choose one over the other, you
      > should be able to use both.

      Well, once you figure out how to have multiple drivers controlling the same piece of hardware, not only will you have solved the iTunes problem, but you'll have solved problems that research scientists have been trying to come up with a solution for for years.

      Or to put it another way
      You _should_ be able to double click a linux ELF executable in windows and have it just work even without a .exe extention.
      You should be able to run a windows exe from the linux command line and have it run flawlessly too.

      And no, dont point out how those two items are possible, because using itunes and MM is equally as possible (easier actually)

      Alot of things _should_ be, but that doesnt mean its technically possible to do, for you or anyone else.

    7. Re:Obvious Choice by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      you can, just re-install MM. You're implied point that you shouldn't have to reinstall stands, but installing iTunes doesn't permanently break MM.

      But why then, does iTunes have to break MM in the first place? Give me that choice up front.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    8. Re:Obvious Choice by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      since you can get the AAC encoded files to CDA without using cracks i wouldn't say it's crippled

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  22. so expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after i downloaded and installed itunes for windows and quicktime, i soon found out that i was broke. they must have a nifty way to automatically empty out your debit card even without collecting your information.

    wait.... there is a small possibility that i was already broke, but i can't bash apple for that

  23. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the developer that Apple chose to scapegoat for this. I did do this on purpose, but the instructions to do so came directly from upper management. I should have been suspicious when my boss was bypassed and I was told not to discuss it with other developers. Now I've lost my job and I want to tell the world how Apple plays. disclaimer: This post is not true.

  24. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    +1 informative? the credulity of moderators is amazing! let's see if i can leverage this:

    [fud]
    i was an employee of lyndon johnson in the early 60's so am therefore posting under a pseudonym. johnson had kennedy killed to further his political career. the assassin has since been let go. [/fud]

    now give me my mod points.

  25. Re:Uh oh... by masonbrown · · Score: 1

    They lock customers into expensive, proprietary software AND hardware.

    How are customers locked? If anything, it's an expression of choice that you have the opportunity to buy an Apple computer. Or a Sun workstation, or anything else you want or can afford.

    Please elaborate on this hideous "locking in" that Apple's forcing on millions of users each year.

  26. Taste of their own medicine... by irritating+environme · · Score: 0, Insightful

    They're as obnoxious as Real when it comes to file extension stealing. MIGHT be a coincidence, but given all the windows tricks of the past, I bet Steve Jobs just smells the money.

    --


    Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    1. Re:Taste of their own medicine... by naktekh · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Real is not the only one who does it though... a lot of programs ask you to register file extensions when you install the program. This one is a case of Apple using proprietary extensions to overwrite MusicMatch's dlls.. there's an IPodHelper and a couple of other DLLs that iTunes uses that help it communicate with the iPod. Besides, why would anyone want to use a non-Apple music software with an iPod? They know how to address their own products better than anyone.

    2. Re:Taste of their own medicine... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Besides, why would anyone want to use a non-Apple music software with an iPod? They know how to address their own products better than anyone.

      Why would anyone want to use non-Microsoft software under Windows? They know how to interface with their own OS better than anyone.

      Sorry, for Apple's software to break other people's software is not acceptable. Remember, IE used to be better than Netscape.. it's no excuse for heavy handed tactics.

  27. It was done on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know someone who works for Apple. They told me it was done on purpose because managment does not want a competing solution to iTunes. I personally do not agree with these types of tactics.

  28. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaahah yeah right, anyone modding this up is an idiot.

  29. In reply to the first... by Trillan · · Score: 1

    I wish we had an Apple store here.

    The closest Mac store is terrible. It's at a horrible location, it's grungy and dirty, and most of the hardware is used crap like 6100s. The software is often very old, and frequently mislabeled. The copy of Panther I bought from them was already opened, and they admitted they'd made copies of it for their own use (store and personal).

    Bring on the Apple store.

  30. With iTunes, why do you need something else? by soft_guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Before I had iTunes, I had Cassidy and Greene's software (I can't remember the name) for playing and managing MP3s and moving them onto my Rio 500.

    Then iTunes came out and it did everything except better. It probably disabled the Cassidy and Greene software. Who cares? I sure didn't. I deleted the damn thing once I had iTunes.

    Now I have iTunes (for Mac) and an iPod. I don't see why I would want anything else?

    I thought MusicMatch was the stop gap solution for Windows iPod users until iTunes comes out. Now that iTunes is out, why would you want to keep using Music Match?

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    1. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      You mean SoundJam?

      C&G was just a distributor for SoundJam. Apple actually bought SoundJam from the developers, and it became iTunes. Some things were improved, some features added, some taken away in the interest of interface simplicty. Overall, I liked iTunes much better right from the start, and it's certainly better now.

      I really wonder why people complain about iTunes not connecting to music devices. The SDK is available for connecting to other music devices; Missing Link uses it.

    2. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by Onan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "damn thing" was Soundjam, and it's what Apple purchased and turned into iTunes.

    3. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      Then iTunes came out and it did everything except better. It probably disabled the Cassidy and Greene software. Who cares?

      I know I do, just because you like iTunes doesn't mean that everyone else does. Myself I like the XPlay interface much better.

      You know if Microsoft did something like this everyone would be up in arms because they were crushing the competition, now Apple does this and they say it's normal and too be expected.

      If this is normal how do you expect other music software will interface with the iPod, magic?

    4. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by croddy · · Score: 1
      Now I have iTunes (for Mac) and an iPod. I don't see why I would want anything else?

      well, you may not have thought of it, but some of us would just like to be able to mount /dev/ipod /ipod and not deal with any eye-crushing clickety clack.

      apple doesn't want me to be able to do that. oh well. their loss.

    5. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by quasipunk+guy · · Score: 1

      Huh? You most certainly /can/ just mount an iPod as a hard drive. That's exactly how the computer sees it. To add music to the iPod you have to modify a database contained on the iPod or it won't know which files are music, but you can add any files at will.

    6. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      It isn't really a question of which piece of software that is best - it is a question of having the ability to make a choice in the first place. Or would you say the same if any other bits of hardware or software you got disabled other programs on your computer, say if installing Opera meant that NetScape no longer was able to talk to your modem? Or if your modem wouldn't talk to any other browser than Mozilla?

      It's a question of beeing able to decide yourself whats most suited for your needs. In this cause, reading this has put me off investing in an iPod, no matter how sexy it is otherwise.

      I don't see why I would want anything else? Maybe you woudn't want to use anything else, but that don't mean that everyone else agrees with you. Again, this is not about what piece of software that is best, but about beeing able to make a choice yourself.

      Now that iTunes is out, why would you want to keep using Music Match? Lets change a few words and see if you still agree, shall we? Now that Internet Explorer 6.0 is out, why would you want to keep using Mozilla (or any other way to look at webpages)?

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    7. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Why is that needed? Surely it's not that hard to open a file and see if it's an MP3 or not by reading a few bytes in. Other MP3 players work without a centralized database. Why can't apple's?

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    8. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case, the iPod would have to scan the whole drive, up to 40GB, on each boot (yes, they actually boot), read all id3 tags, collect the data, guess which playlists you'd like to have (b/c those can't be stored in the tag) and invent some other information that isn't stored in the tags (like sound check data). Good idea, right?

    9. Re:With iTunes, why do you need something else? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      There isn't a database. They just obfuscated the path. They did that so that you wouldn't take your iPod loaded with 200+ albums, plug it into a friends computer and give him your whole music library.

      You *can* do this. I forget what the path is, but its freely available on the net. You can write your own program to the synchronization if you want.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  31. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for Apple and am therefore posting anonymously. While this was done on purpose, it was buy a sole developer

    i guess English spelling wasn't a requirement then, let me guess you are a student and American

  32. Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Gary Leon Ridgway!

  33. This is surprising? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you choose to use iTunes, use iTunes. If you choose to use Musicmatch, use Musicmatch. Just keep in mind that, if you download from Musicmatch that you won't be able to play WMA files on your iPod.

    This doesn't strike me as frontpage material, folks. It's kind of a no-brainer.

    1. Re:This is surprising? by musikit · · Score: 0

      considering that itunes is the only interface into the apple store i think that some downloads may have be to get access to the store not to neccessarily change their media player settings or to disable their media player management software.

      so i don't agree with you when you say choose itunes, use itunes.

  34. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    As the Apple Turns said it best:

    "And before you start lambasting Apple for pulling a stunt like this, c'mon... the people affected by this are Windows users-- they're used to this kind of treatment. Obviously they thrive on it, or they'd have ditched Microsoft years ago. Heck, crippling a competing product was probably the only way Apple could have gotten an ounce of respect from these folks in the first place. In fact, we think Apple probably missed a golden opportunity to win some serious admiration from the Windows community; instead of simply removing MusicMatch's ability to sync with the iPod, iTunes should also have deleted MusicMatch entirely, installed spyware, inexplicably disabled a random piece of system hardware, reformatted any writable volumes not containing iTunes itself, and then emailed itself to everyone in the user's Outlook address book. Oh, and it should have cost thirty bucks. More, with technical support."

    1. Re:Yes, but... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      The only reason most people put up with Windows is as of now, they're the dominant operating system. Apple isn't a dominant desktop operating system, and we here are trying hard not to have another Microsoft. One's already bad enough, and this story came out just around the time I was considering getting an Apple laptop, kinda make me want to reconsider it.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I'd almost forgotten why we hate Mac users.

      Yeah, its really annoying having people keep on reminding us how crap Windows actually is. After all, it isn't as though we're likely to forget any time soon.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wooo! I'm real glad a Mac-tard spent a whole moderator point on the above post to say its a troll...

      I mean, who better to know who a troll is than someone who who by nature cannot be anything other than a troll?

    4. Re:Yes, but... by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      The only reason most people put up with Windows is as of now, they're the dominant operating system. Apple isn't a dominant desktop operating system, and we here are trying hard not to have another Microsoft. One's already bad enough, and this story came out just around the time I was considering getting an Apple laptop, kinda make me want to reconsider it.

      My iPod experience would scare me away from buying any other Apple product, ever. The fact is that on Windows, the iPods are riddled with problems. Check out the forums. It's fine that there are problems -- they're expected with bleeding-edge hardware. The problem is that Apple hasn't even acknowledged these problems, and I don't forsee them being fixed any time soon.

      Other than the price point and that damned single mousebutton (but alot of context menus in the interface) -- I think that Apple has excellent machines. However, after my iPod experience, I wouldn't have bought one of their laptops either.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    5. Re:Yes, but... by blisspix · · Score: 1

      ok I bought an ibook last year (switcher), it's a wonderful machine, apart from a technical problem that forced it into service for 2 months (reed switch needed to be replaced).

      That aside, I'd rather have an Apple and be able to get it repaired locally than deal with the hell that is IBM tech support (my dad works at IBM, I know) or Dell et cetera.

      Plus the thought of having a Windows blue screen of death on the road terrifies me.

    6. Re:Yes, but... by Moraelin · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Or is it more like it's the Apple users who are used to this kind of treatment. Obviously they thrive on it, or they'd have ditched Apple a long time ago.

      You only have one program, or sometimes none, for each task you might actually need, and even that one is often a half-arsed Apple implementation. If none is available, you're supposed to believe that, hey, the Mac has a good graphics editor. (Which the PC has too.) So go edit graphics instead of whatever unrelated thing it was that you wanted to do.

      I suppose once you catter to people who are confused by more than one mouse button, or by stuff like "each program has its own menu bar", there's no point in torturing their mental skills by making them (*gasp*) choose between programs.

      You're also supposed to believe that any crap that Apple sells is pure gold. Such as paying big bucks for 100 MB of storage on .Mac. Sorry, an old 100 MB Zip drive _and_ a whole pack of 100 MB disks costs less. Or you could just learn to burn a CD or DVD.

      Oh wait, I forget that we're talking about people who can't right click. Sorry, folks. I forgot that dragging stuff into a CD burner program and clicking on the "Burn" button is too complicated. Go on.

      You also get maybe one game per year. Two if it was a particularly good year. None of that "Microsoft fanboy" mental torture of going into a shop with a whole aisle per genre of Windows games, and wondering which of all those to buy. On a Mac, you're lucky if your favourite genre got a game in the last decade, so you know which one to buy. (No, not all of us play Warcraft and FPS only.)

      And you're used to Apple pulling stunts as to which hardware works and which doesn't any more. (See all those people with external drives who lost all their data in the Panther upgrade. Sorry, no worm has done anything of that scale to anyone I know, in the Windows world. "Just works" my ass.)

      So, yeah, I'd say it's a brilliant move by Apple. Get people used to the idea that Apple decides which software and hardware they're allowed to use. Once you get them off that nasty addiction on using their brains, they might even go and switch to Macs.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  35. Oh yeah... by Trillan · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's terrible! If you want to use an iPod, you're supposed to use iTunes! And iTunes only supports the iPod directly! Talk about an unfair system -- imagine, giving software away for free that integrates only with their hardware!

    By the way, these ATi drivers work great with my nVidia card. I don't know why I didn't think to try this years ago.

    1. Re:Oh yeah... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      By the way, these ATi drivers work great with my nVidia card. I don't know why I didn't think to try this years ago.

      More like 'Half-Life 2 disabled my GeForce card' or 'Doom 3 disabled my ATI card', or, even more accurate (though still not true, just an example that would be closer to what's happening here): Doom 3 replaced DirectX on my system with a game-specific OpenGL wrapper and now Half-Life 2 doesn't work.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  36. I work for slashdot by andy666 · · Score: 0, Troll

    And I am posting as this other guy so I won't get in trouble. First of all this story is not true. Slashdot was bought by Microsoft and is planting anti-Apple stories.

  37. As well as xplay... by sithkhan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have Xplay installed as well, and have noticed the blank screen in Xplay. When I downloaded iTunes, it immediately noticed my iPod. I thought that I could then delete Xplay from my computer. Well, after that, iTunes did not recognize my iPod. I had to reinstall Xplay. Have you had the same experience? Is this a glitch? I cannot find any information on this.

    --

    is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
  38. Not so obvious by wayner9 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I prefer MusicMatch. Problems with iTunes: Will not downsample when moving to iPod - I ripped my MP3s at 256k, but I want them at 128k on my iPod. iTunes forces you to have song name in the first column of the library. I want artist - you cannot change this in iTunes. iTunes is slow at ripping MP3s - MusicMatch is 50% faster at ripping than iTunes. iTunes is SSSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOWWWW iTunes music store is unavailable to 95% of the population of planet earth. I live in Canada so I can't use this service.

    1. Re:Not so obvious by wankledot · · Score: 1

      Shhhh. drink the kool-aid and don't question it. Apple > anything else out there.

      And how dare you want to see the artist name first! Those are all really valid points, no one ever seems to think that users might not like all the same software, even if 90% of people think it's "better". That's really interesting about the song name, I never noticed that you couldn't move that first column in iTunes. Now it's going to bug me.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Not so obvious by wayner9 · · Score: 1

      I also find iTunes is also much weaker at editing MP3 tags. MM's auto-tagging function, or whatever it's called, is very good.

  39. Interface update? by forand · · Score: 1

    I think that iTunes updated how windows accessed the iPod, before installing iTunes I had three programs installed for working with the iPod now I only have on in the install list. Perhaps Musicmatch hasn't updated their software to work with the new method? Just a thought.

    1. Re:Interface update? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I wonder if disabling the iPod service would make MusicMatch function properly again. Since I have neither an iPod nor MusicMatch, I can't really check this for myself, but I noticed the iPod service running on both of the machines I installed iTunes on and quickly disabled the service (simply because I don't have an iPod, so have no reason to run the service). iTunes seems to work perfectly fine for me with the service disabled, but I'm sure I'd have to manually start the service if I wanted to use an iPod with it.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  40. Re:Uh oh... by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Oh, you mean by locking customers into expensive, proprietary software? No. They're already worse than that. They lock customers into expensive, proprietary software AND hardware."

    I'd like to hear a rebuttal from the dude who modded this post troll.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  41. Workaround found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want to use xpod or musicmatch with the ipod, you just have to terminate (kill) the iTunesHelper.exe process. That will allow xpod and musicmatch, and most likely any other ipod software to work.

  42. I wondered that too. by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Then I got a mac.

    Now I understand.

    Apple is a corporation. Yes. They are out to make money. Yes.

    Their way of doing so, however, is to make some rally kick ass stuff.

    I *LOVE* OS X. And I"m a control freak. If I didn't have OS X, I would be using a linux desktop, no questions asked.

    As it is I get a rock solid desktop that rules. In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that if you haven't sat down and really got to know OS X as a desktop, you only THINK You know what a good desktop is.

    It IS that much better, in terms of user experience. Apple knows what "User experience" actually means.. to microsoft it's a buzzword. You don't know what good effortless computing can be if you haven't been using a mac.

    What they say about itunes is totally true...

    I bought an ipod last summer. I plugged it into my ibook. Then I opened up the manual, and started reading.. and basically every step said "If you have a mac, skip this step". When I got to the end, there was nothing for me to do.. I looked back at the laptop, and it had already done everyting.

    THen my co-worker got one, and he uses windows.
    It took us 5 or 6 weird dialog boxes to install MusicMatch.
    Then we had to get musicmatch to import his music to it's library (which was REALLY slow, and it doesn't even move files around, just reads them). We had to reboot.
    We had a few more dialog boxes for a few other components....
    Then we could synchronize, which was by overwriting everything already in the ipod. And it was slow.
    And, ,of course, the firewire ports on his laptop are 4 pin, and don't have power in them, so we had to leave the ipod plugged in for an hour or so before being able to use it.

    End result:

    I plugged in my ipod, and it worked. All the music I had ended up on my ipod in seconds, and it started charging up.

    IT took us an hour or so of futzing around to get my co-workers to work.

    1. Re:I wondered that too. by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      IT took us an hour or so of futzing around to get my co-workers to work.

      This is because Apple made a choice to go with a program that isn't normally used in this manner by most Windows users. If they had chosen to let the iPod synch with WMP instead, it shouldn't have been any harder to use than any other media player that synchs with WMP (namely the items listed here: http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Co olDevices.asp?page=4&lookup=CoolDevices ), though it may not have been the same experience that Mac users have, it would have been more consistent with the Windows environment. Or perhaps they could've chosen WinAmp, which more people already have installed on their Windows boxes.

      It's no different from the design choices they made with iTunes for Windows, making the design more consistent with the OS X version of the application than with the environment in which it is used.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:I wondered that too. by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      if it really took you an hour to get an ipod to work your a damn idiot and you deserve to use a mac. That aside, the software that ipod comes with didn't have a windows equivalent for a long time... everything else is 3rd party knockoffs. I guess user experience is only being able to play games that are like 5 years old (blizzard is the exception in this respect) and for the most part, being locked into the hardware apple sells you. So much for a control freak eh?

  43. Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by MightyTribble · · Score: 5, Informative

    See this discussion over at Ars Technica for more details.

    Bottom line : iTunes or GEAR removes vital registry keys that prevent audio CDs from playing once you've uninstalled the software. I had to manually hack my registry to restore functionality.

    Bad Apple. No Cookie.

    1. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Just a quick note: my Win2k Pro (SP4) box doesn't have this problem with iTunes installed. I haven't checked my XP box yet, but the thread states it's only a 2k problem. Then again, I have disabled the iPod and QuickTime services as well...

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by MightyTribble · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have the problem (no CD audio through any other progam), or doesn't have the screwed up registry key / 'Unknown' listing in Device Manager? :)

    3. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by abcxyz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure this is the case for everyone, I've installed iTunes on two W2k (SP4) machines and don't have any problem with my CD drives or using other player apps. Uninstalled it as well and everything is still working.

    4. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by jdreed1024 · · Score: 1
      I have a Win2K machine (SP 4), and I didn't have this problem. It did the usual registry association of audio CDs with iTunes, but WinAmp gladly changed it back to WinAmp for me, if I asked. I can play audio CDs with either application. (Haven't tried Media Player, but I dislike it anyway).

      However, I wouldn't be surprised if this happened, because the GEAR software is crap. My gf had it on her computer because she used the Audible.com software for her audio books. It broke CD audio playing, and it also broke Easy CD Creator - I had to delete some registry keys to get it to work. The GEAR software also made a lot of coasters, where other CD burning software (Easy CD, cdrecord under Linux) worked fine, and it's a decent CD-RW drive, too. I came to the conclusion that the GEAR software just plain sucks, in all regards. I fail to see why they didn't contract with Adaptec (or Roxio now, I guess) for decent software.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    5. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by zonker · · Score: 0

      my win2k sp4 machine has itunes, napster, musicmatch, winamp2, winamp5beta2, and nero5 all on it and they all work fine together...

    6. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Actually, I haven't tried CD audio yet, but the drive is still listed correctly in Device Manager. Perhaps I'll try the audio tomorrow, as I don't have a music CD here at the moment.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    7. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by davidebsmith · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the same problem as in Microsoft Knowledge Base article 270008? Removing a couple of values from a couple of registry keys solves it.

      (P.S. Doesn't anybody Google to see if somebody else has seen the problem before posting a "X breaks Y" story?)

    8. Re:Also breaks W2K Pro CD access after uninstall by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      ok, after uninstalling iTunes, the CD is listed as Unknown. A quick 'update driver' found the cdrom inf file and updated it, but didn't repair the unknown listing, so I guess it's back to the registry to fix by hand.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  44. Well couldn't it just be.... by MKalus · · Score: 1

    ... that they did this in order to prevent TWO programs at the same time trying to get a hold of the iPod?

    If that's all it does it's okay. If it prevents MMJB from starting than it isn't quite that okay.

    M.

    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  45. Re:First Match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I know...... I should have changed it, especially today. Damnit. Oh well.

  46. NEWS FLASH: cd player disables tape deck by freejamesbrown · · Score: 1
    when was the last time your cd player disabled your tape deck or your record player?

    as digital music buying consumers we are in TERMS OF SERVICE hell.
    m.

    1. Re:NEWS FLASH: cd player disables tape deck by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      when was the last time your cd player disabled your tape deck or your record player?

      umm in my car or at home?

      At home, never, in my car, depends on the setup.

      On the other hand, actually listening to both the casette and the CD or record player at home would require a second receiver, for fairly obvious reasons, but I'm sure if I really wanted to I could make the receiver play back multiple inputs at the same time.

      On the other hand, this particular story is more akin to the CD player making it impossible for you to ever use your record player again.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:NEWS FLASH: cd player disables tape deck by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, this particular story is more akin to the CD player making it impossible for you to ever use your record player again.

      except that you can just reinstall musicmatch (unplug and replug) and use it like you did before.

    3. Re:NEWS FLASH: cd player disables tape deck by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      except that you can just reinstall musicmatch (unplug and replug) and use it like you did before.

      Only after you uninstall iTunes, according to the previous post.

      Unless I have an extremely crappy receiver I never have to unplug my CD player, cassette player, or record player, and even then I could buy a cheap switch that would allow me to use them without unplugging them all the time (hey, just like the switch I have on top of my TV so I can use my PS2, GameCube, DreamCast, and XBox without plugging and unplugging each of them, and it's even got a splitter on it so that the sound goes into the aux input on my stereo receiver and I get sound from both the stereo and the TV at the same time).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:NEWS FLASH: cd player disables tape deck by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. But for some stupid reason my amp doesn't let me output both to the speakers at the same time.

      I wonder why? Must be some kind of CD player conspiracy.

  47. Re:This was not an accident by phebz23 · · Score: 1

    I really think this is BS. If the application did something that product management did not intend, NOR was it something that was in the product specification, then how the hell did it make it by quality assurance?!

  48. It takes over my laptop's volume controls! by Flat+Feet+Pete · · Score: 1

    No idea why iTunes does this but it takes over my laptop's volume control. They control iTunes' volume not the laptop.

    Its a bit irritating because if the main volume was low there's no way to increase it _unless_ I alt-tab to another app, then they work as intended.

    And it sucks up oodles of ram.

    moan moan moan

    1. Re:It takes over my laptop's volume controls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's xp's fault.

      those media keys by default will control the current focused application.

    2. Re:It takes over my laptop's volume controls! by Flat+Feet+Pete · · Score: 1

      But surely they needed to do work to get it to do this?

      I can understand that someone somewhere (maybe in a kiosk-type situation) may want to intercept these keys but why bother when you could just leave well alone and the system would do something sensible?

      The software volume control in iTunes will also introduce quantisation, something the mixer in the hardware shouldn't do?

      Thanks for the reply, and apolgies for ranting and spraying spittle. Most uncouth of me.

  49. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but they are intent on making it a one-way street. Open-source apps will all be available on the Mac, while their stuff, even the third-party stuff that's GPLed, will be a bitch to port to Linux because it's all based on Cocoa.

  50. He got it from Bill by w3weasel · · Score: 0, Troll
    Apple used to be so nice to their competitors before MS showed everyone 'embrace and expel' strategy for marketplace dominance.
    as an example: MS made the leading mac software for ages, and despite the Appleworks office suite losing customers to MS, apple only encouraged MS to improve their product, rather than disabling the competitor.

    What has MS done when in a similar position? Crippled competing media players, forced use of browser, etc

    I hope people here realize just how badly MS has impacted the Software Business Environment.

    Fair practice or not, Apple disables competitor... Bill taught Steve to be mean.
    well, ok Steve has always been a bit of a bastard, but he used to not be ruthless.

    --

    Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy

    1. Re:He got it from Bill by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      FYI: Employee at Apple doesn't really like Steve Job. He might be a good visionary, but he's somewhat obsessive about it, which has its up and downs.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:He got it from Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ROFLMAO!!! So now anything evil Apple does is also Microsoft's fault? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

      Let me guess - the voices in your head told you to post this, right?

  51. MOD THIS GUY UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is true, at least.

  52. Re:LEARN TO SPELL YOU STUPID AMERICAN by Computer! · · Score: 0, Troll

    what the HELL is wrong with Americans' spelling these _ days

    Fixed, fag. Now fuck off.

    --
    If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
  53. Same to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    what the HELL is wrong with Americans spelling thesedays ? maybe its time to start English classes and give up bowling.

    Try practicing your capitalization and possessives before criticizing others.

  54. iPod not entirely ready for PCs by bigwavejas · · Score: 1, Informative
    In addition to this... another little annoyance I noticed was:

    After purchasing a 15gig iPod and charging it up (4hrs), I went to hook it up to my USB 2.0 port on my PC, doh! No USB cable comes with the iPod! Back to Frys, purchased the cable for 20bucks... Back home, hooked up the iPod to my PC via USB 2.0 and everything was going just fine, except its UNABLE TO CHARGE WHILE CONNECTED TO USB. Ummm... Would have thought Apple would have a seperate connection for persons using USB ,so the iPod could charge while you're downloading music it. Instead I had to download 2gigs at a time, recharge the iPod (2-4 hours) and then do it all over again....and again.. It tooknearly 2 days to fill the iPod to capacity.

    Keep this in mind...

    If you have a PC make sure you have a firewire card (charges while downloading); otherwise, you're in for a real heacache.

    Take it easy. BWJ

    --
    "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    1. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by juuri · · Score: 1

      You could have purchased a firewire card for the price of the cable.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    2. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by davechen · · Score: 1

      For the newer iPods you can get a dual USB 2/Firewire cable. This Apple document shows how to charge and sync at the same time.

    3. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by psp · · Score: 1

      Take it easy yourself.

      Connect the firewire connector of your usb/firewire cable to the charger. Connect the usb connector to your computer. Charge AND transfer at the same time.

      Voila!

    4. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by Ageless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your USB cable has three ends. One is firewire, one is USB and one is the iPod dock. Plug the USB end into the computer, the dock end into the iPod and the firewire end into the AC adapter that came with your iPod.

    5. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised in the least - the voltage and current supplied by the firewire bus are completely different from that of the USB bus (can the usb bus provide enough power to drive a hard disk or disk drive?)

      The USB bus can provide 5v at 500mA - that's 2.5 watts. The iPod states it is rated for "8-30v, max 1.0A") which gives us a power range anywhere between 8x1 = 8 watts or 30x1 = 30 watts). The firewire bus supplies 18 volts, as does the iPod's plug in power supply.

      Oh, and if you're using 12mbs usb to fill your iPod then you really do need to get a firewire card. Yuo state you have USB 2.0 - due to the stupid naming scheme that has been adopted for this I don't know if that means you have the 480mbs or the "full speed" 12Mbs verion. The iPod is compatible with hight speed USB2 - 480Mbs.

      I filled my iPod to near -capacity (15 gigs) in about 5 minutes via the firewire bus on my iBook. It should take about the same time with "high speed" USB2 on a Windows machine.

    6. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it charges while downloading if you use the Dock.

    7. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by nvrrobx · · Score: 1

      The funny part about that:

      You could have bought a FireWire PCI card with a cable for the $20 at Fry's instead.

    8. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Dude, you are so full of it it's not even funny.

      I have a 30GB iPod with 27GB of music on it. I can format it and completely load it with music in about 45 minutes. That's long before the 8 hour battery runs out.

      Everyone knows that USB doesn't carry enough power to charge the iPod. That's why Firewire is a better interface to use.

      Instead of buying the $20 USB cable, why didn't you just buy a $20 PCI Firewire adapter for your computer and not have to worry about it?

      If your computer can only copy 2 gigs of data in 8 hours there is something seriously fux0red with it.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    9. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by psp · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't.

      15Gb in 5 minutes equals 50Mb/s, which is exactly the maximum speed of the firewire interface. A typical 2,5" hard drive from toshiba will allow 15-25Mb/s data transfer rate (outer to inner part of the platter) under optimal conditions. The iPod disk is quite a bit slower (smaller mechanics and less power usage allowed).

      Besides, I get about 7Mb/s writing to the iPod from my dual G5.

    10. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      No, you're right, I didn't - "about 5 minutes" = "in no time at all".

      I couldn't tell you exactly how long it took - just that it was a hell of a lot faster than a transfer that took 2 full charges of the battery.

      I've also just checked my iTunes library - 10 gigs, so 2/3 capacity on the iPod.

    11. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by dissy · · Score: 1

      > No USB cable comes with the iPod!

      You should take that back and get another iPod, as the iPod does indeed come with a USB cable.

      Matter of fact, the cable it comes with has both USB and firewire on the same end. You can use it one of two ways (Well, correct ways, you can also do what you are doing)

      a) plug firewire into pc. data and power over same line.
      b) plug usb into pc, and firewire into the ac adaptor. data over usb, power over firewire.

      any other setup is just wrong and doesnt make sense to do.
      (Yes, this includes what your doing)

    12. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by Bakaneko · · Score: 1

      Also, try to make sure you've got a 6pin Firewire connector. My laptop only has a 4pin Firewire adapter, and that of course doesn't carry power...

    13. Re:iPod not entirely ready for PCs by bigwavejas · · Score: 1

      LMAO! God u Apple Cronie buttons R so easy to Press.. STOMP STOMP hahahaha

      --
      "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
  55. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While this was done on purpose, it was buy a sole developer. I hate sole. That's part of the fucking problem. White fish gives me the runs.

  56. Great evening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not watching Matrix, but sitting at home, eating popcorn and watching West Wing episodes ruthlessly downloaded from the net.

  57. Re:Uh oh... by Trillan · · Score: 1

    It's also worth mentioning that there's an SDK available for connecting iTunes to other music players. Missing Link uses it. So it isn't as if people need to use an iPod -- someone just needs to write drivers for the music device.

  58. i hate drm by u19925 · · Score: 1

    as much as i like, i still think that online music downloading is still in its infancy. i can never imagine putting a CD that i bought from BestBuy in a player than finding out that now it won't play other CDs. nevertheless, such is the case of online music purchase and only because they don't trust me (their customer).

    if they don't trust me, they should implement drm in transparent way. when CDs first came out, it was not possible for consumers to make copies. it means no drm and everything was fine.

    as much as i hate MPAA over DeCSS case, atleast they have come up with a transparent way to handle copyright. i think if online companies want to implement drm, they should come out with a non-intrusive way of doing this rather than fiddling with their computer.

    first thing that itune, musicmatch etc software license would ask you is "can we do anything to your computer?". Say no and you can't use it. Say yes, and they do more changes to computer than you expected.

    i won't buy online music until i get it in a form that i can play on my computer with my own software. it also must come with any license agreement. only the standard copyright laws should apply.

    1. Re:i hate drm by naktekh · · Score: 1

      I agree... every DRM scheme I've seen for protecting CDs has been implemented poorly (Look at SunnComm's DRM scheme for example). Apple went the right route with using AAC, because the DRM is encoded into the file... most software players (like WINAMP) have AAC support now, and I'm sure we'll see it supported in newer portable players as well. Standard copyright laws are useless in an age that's dependent on digital technology for much of what we do... but digital copyright laws need to be clear, not overreaching like the DMCA... there has to be a solid definition of what constitutes fair use, and it shouldn't violate existing copyright laws or supercede them. Digital copyrights and standard copyrights should co-exist, not clash.

  59. ephPod by frission · · Score: 2

    does anyone know if iTunes disables ephpod as well?

    or xplay or whatever it's called?

    1. Re:ephPod by mozumder · · Score: 1

      ephPod works fine for me with iTunes installed.

    2. Re:Ephpod by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Well when I did it, it chopped the last letter off of each field in the tag of each song...on 15 GB of music. I went to xplay insteasd. Ephpod had the WORST interface I have ever seen in my life.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:Ephpod by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 1

      I agree...EphPod is great. Smooth interface, and includes a lot of features that MMJB doesn't but should have.

      FYI, I use both iTunes and EphPod and they seem to get along well: iTunes when I need to transfer music that I purchased from iTMS, and EphPod for everything else.

  60. Ephpod by hrath · · Score: 5, Informative

    I highly recommend using Ephpod (http://www.ephpod.com/) with an iPod under Windows. When my SO gave me my iPod as a present last year and I installed MusicMatch on my work laptop MM was dogslow and often didn't finish syncing with the iPod. The free alternative Ephpod is simple to use and has always worked perfectly for me.

    regards,

    Heiko

  61. Spelling and Grammar by Infonaut · · Score: 0
    i guess English spelling wasn't a requirement then, let me guess you are a student and American

    At Apple, good spelling skills are not required.

    On Slashdot, good grammar is not required.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Spelling and Grammar by diersing · · Score: 1
      In Soviet Russia, spelling and grammar REQUIRE YOU!!

      Sorry, it had to be done.

  62. Its a win win situation by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    You gain a real solution to managing your music and you can free up some hard disk by deleting software that doesn't work. Who cares...

    1. Re:Its a win win situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the headline read "Microsoft MediaPlayer disables [x]" you'd be crying bloody murder, so please STFU. The freedom of choosing what happens in my computer also goes the other way. If I choose to use MusicMatch, then I expect nothing will disable it behind my back (if that is indeed what's happening here).

      Holy crap, you people never cease to amaze me.

    2. Re:Its a win win situation by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      You forget that this IS a better solution to managing music. Unlike Microsoft. Where is the disadvantage? Besides MS products already do...

    3. Re:Its a win win situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider MSOffice to be a far superior product to, say, OpenOffice. That's my assesment. So I gather you won't bitch when the Office installer kills your OO setup dead, hmmmm? I mean, where's the disadvantage?

      Next time I recommend you actually think before posting. It helps.

    4. Re:Its a win win situation by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      There isn't one considering i killed the software myself to install Open Office when i had a PC... ...i'm on a mac now and i use Appleworks. MS Office = Junk btw.

    5. Re:Its a win win situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score: -1, Retarded Teenager

    6. Re:Its a win win situation by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Kiss my ASS +5, Cum receptor.

  63. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can buy a working X86/WinXP-ready box from any of a dozen vendors. The competition keeps prices down. I can buy a working PPC/Mac OSX ready box from how many vendors?

    And of course, the software is proprietary, as is Windows, who is no better, but GNU/Linux, of course, is not.

  64. Data corruption by Ciannait · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're a sysadmin nerd, it's sort of a given that if you have two sources accessing the same filesystem at the same time, you're going to clobber your data. (That is, unless special protection is used.)

    Maybe Apple just wanted to prevent people from screwing up their iPods.

    --
    A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.
    1. Re:Data corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? Two sources accessing the same file system at one time will cause data corruption? What planet are you on my friend? No, in fact I-Tunes is a *very* badly coded windows app.
      I can't see what the fuss is about. Who needs to categorise their music anyhow? If you can't remember what song you wanna listen to then you don't wanna listen to it!

    2. Re:Data corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you mean like a milti-user OS?

  65. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, not bloody likely. But +1, devoted for the pro-Apple try, anyway.

  66. This thread is full of apple apologists by Barbarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Why would you want to use Musicmatch when you have iTunes"
    "Musicmatch is a piece of crap, iTunes is much better"
    "There's nothing wrong with this, Musicmatch was a temporary solution until iTunes came out"

    The thing is, you ought to have the choice of using whatever program you want. Internet Explorer doesn't diddle the network settings of Mozilla or Netscape when it installs so that they will no longer be able to communicate with the www.

    1. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by DeltaSigma · · Score: 2

      But it will, repeatedly, attempt to make itself the default browser for accessing the internet.

    2. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't.

    3. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it does and my dad is bigger than your dad.

      You troll.

    4. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have Windows XP, and all I did was change the defaults. Now Mozilla is my default browser, and IE magically doesn't ask to be the default browser. It's like magic, you troll! All you have to do is: click on start, click on set program access and defaults, click on the custom configuration, and change the default browser at your heart's content. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!11!! ITS FUCKING GOD DAMN MAGIC!1!!!@@!@@!!#$@#$%#%#&$%&

    5. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      This is what I hate about Anonymous discussions, how does one tell if all the comments made aren't by the same person?

    6. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by dissy · · Score: 2, Informative

      > The thing is, you ought to have the choice of using whatever program you want.
      > Internet Explorer doesn't diddle the network settings of Mozilla or Netscape
      > when it installs so that they will no longer be able to communicate with the
      > www.

      Um, yes it does.
      Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.

      iTunes does the same, it installs a new driver that MM doesnt work with.

      When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.

      Slashdot really needs a -1 'Not based on facts'

    7. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAGIC!

    8. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      Um, yes it does.
      Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.

      Only if you click the button maked "Yes" to a message along the lines of "This browser is not the default web browser. Would you like it to be?".

      When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.

      No they don't. Mozilla, Netscape and even IE don't prevent you from using any other browser, they just change the file associations for URL's and HTML pages so that they point to themselves. They don't prevent you from using any of the other browsers.

      Slashdot really needs a -1 'Not based on facts'

      Amen to that. Your post would be the first to get it.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    9. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by dissy · · Score: 1

      >> Um, yes it does.
      >> Go install IE. It will change the windows settings to make IE the default.

      > Only if you click the button maked "Yes" to a message along the lines of "This
      > browser is not the default web browser. Would you like it to be?".

      "Only if you click"... yea, and iTunes only upgrades the iPod driver if you click the OK button to do it.

      >> When you install mozilla it does the same thing. Same as netscape.

      > No they don't. Mozilla, Netscape and even IE don't prevent you from using any
      > other browser, they just change the file associations for URL's and HTML pages
      > so that they point to themselves. They don't prevent you from using any of the
      > other browsers.

      Well iTunes does just that, and upgrades the driver for its hardware. Whats the big deal?

      MS did used to bundle IE and tcp stack patches back in the win95/98 days.

      >> Slashdot really needs a -1 'Not based on facts'

      > Amen to that. Your post would be the first to get it.

      Well, I have installed iTunes on win. My eyes see that you are wrong and I am right. If you would bother to install it, you would see the same thing.

      Of course god forbid a slashbot would actually CHECK something before blabing on about it.

      Besides, there could very well be technical reasons why only one app should access the iPod at once. Programming issues that myself, nor you, nor many other programmers have managed to solve yet.
      If you really want to bitch at apple for not doing something that no one else does, its just making you look all the worse for it.
      People wouldnt bitch about MS's lack of security if most other (all other?) OS's wernt better at it.

      Ever try to sync a palm pilot or other such device over multiple computers? Its not easy or fun to do. There is no one technical way to solve all of those problems, so you have to pick which features you give up to get other features (IE cant fully sync both ways if there are more than two end points)

      Actually its pretty funny. When apple did NOT do this, and the ipod connected to the mac erased the itunes library (as it should, if the ipod is empty, it has to sync and be exact, so the itunes lib should be just as empty) everyone bitched and moaned.
      So they fixed it so it did not work that way, and works the only one other way possible, and people still bitch.

      make up your mind, or stop using the hardware/software. real simple here.

    10. Re:This thread is full of apple apologists by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      Of course god forbid a slashbot would actually CHECK something before blabing on about it.

      You missed the point of my post. The original poster said "Internet Explorer doesn't diddle the network settings of Mozilla or Netscape when it installs so that they will no longer be able to communicate with the www" to which you wrongly replied with "Um, yes it does".

      IE doesn't "diddle the network settings". It changes some file associations after prompting. It does not disable the other browsers, it does not prevent the other browsers from working and most importantly, it does not require the other browser manufacturers to issue statements advising users to uninstall their application and then re-install it if they want to use it again.

      You are however right about the fact that it's difficult to sync a palm over multiple computers though. But there is no need for one manufacturer to make their application disable another one in such a way that only an uninstall and re-install will fix it.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  67. MusicMatch and XPlay by botono9 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Users of XPlay (third-party iPod software) may be familiar with a similar problem. If you have XPlay installed and then install the MusicMatch which comes with your iPod (I prefer XPlay to MusicMatch for interfacing with my iPod, but love MusicMatch's tagging utilities) XPlay will no longer see the iPod at all.

    Nothing really suprising here. There is only one driver for the iPod on the machine and when you install software that uses accesses the driver it will register itself as the default application.

  68. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the upper managment that told the developer to do this. I actually work at microsoft and spoofed the instructions via email. Sorry about the job thing, but isn't it cool we all come here and meet?

  69. heh by jared_hanson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I shouldn't try to see if I can't post a comment that wouldn't make sense if it doesn't use double negative contractions.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    1. Re:heh by pyros · · Score: 1

      what I find amusing about that is the senetences make complete sense to me until someone points out grammar and I try to re-read them!

  70. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of course, anyone who doesn't consider that it's very much a possibility is ALSO an idiot. If you close your mind out of loyalty to a multinational, you're truly weak.

  71. double standards? by obsid1an · · Score: 1

    Ok, I understand MM is a piece of crap and its store is no better but no piece of software should delete anything something else needs, period. When MS does this they are flamed to all hell. Apple does this and it is ok because they tell you they are going to do it? I just don't see the logic there.

    1. Re:double standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just don't see the logic there.

      uh... this is slashdot.

    2. Re:double standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-MS sentiment is hypocrisy at its finest.

      Case in point: They complain about constant upgrades from MS, and yet suggest installing nightly builds of software and are always first in line downloading the latest Mandrake iso's.

      A flaw in a 3rd party app on Linux is the fault of the 3rd party. A flaw in a 3rd party app on Windows is Microsoft fault.

      Plenty more examples everywhere.

  72. Re:Our announcement: Join the Jihad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like slashdot, why not just stop reading it? This jihad is a waste of time (hopefully mostly yours) and is pointless. It just shows how immature an asshole like you can be. That said, I don't give a fuck, if you find some pleasure by doing this, then good for you.

  73. hard to recommend iTunes/PC to friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This just bugs me. In 1999, I recommended to a neighbor that he install QuickTime to view some movies that I'd posted on the web. He was nervous, but I (being the computer "expert") assured him that everything would be OK. Well, it wasn't. Some of his software broke. He uninstalled QuickTime, and then *lots* of his software broke.

    I showed him iTunes last Friday, and told him it was availble on Windows. He said he wasn't too sure, after his QT experience. I had to agree with him...and it looks like maybe he was right to be nervous.

    Apple needs to be cool if they want to be accepted in the Windows world. If this is lazy programming, then please, Apple, do a better job. If this is an Apple conspiracy, then just knock it off!

    1. Re:hard to recommend iTunes/PC to friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple employees are crazy zealots

      Precisely what makes Apple products so good. I'm a software engineer, and have worked on the mac, windows, and red hat. There's something about my mac development that is better than the work I do for other platforms. Not entirely sure why, but it has something to do with the beauty and tightness of the mac os. Maybe I am sloppier on other platforms because those platforms feel slopier...I dunno.

      And I suspect that the Windows programmers at Apple get treated like crap.

      And I suspect you're right on the money. Apple needs to fix this somehow if its Windows products are to succeed.

      If only the zealousness of Apple's engineers could somehow be translated to their Windows development team...or maybe that's simply not possible.

    2. Re:hard to recommend iTunes/PC to friends by Anim8me2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So let's get this straight. You worked at Apple (where?), but you use a pc at home for programming in C#... ok cool, then we can assume a fairly high level of expertise.

      And yet... you can't get iTunes to run while very single one of my novice PC using family and circle of friends have no problem with it on any number of different systems.
      Sounds odd.

      I use both systems. Windows is fine, it does the job. But it is also a pain in the ass to use. When I use my Macs I just feel like the computer is working for me not against me.

      Use what you like but this post smells particularly FUDdish.
      Oh, and plug and play cameras were "WORKING" on the mac before they were on the PC. Let's not dredge up all those posts about plug and crash under Win95.

  74. Thank God it was Apple and not M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If M$ had done this, /.'ers would barely have been able to post comments due to the drool on their keyboards.

  75. I used the MusicMatch software and its bad, bad ba by JOW · · Score: 1

    I used the MusicMatch software and its bad in the way that its not able to rip about 40% of my CD's and even then some come out with issues that makes you hit the del, the Apple ITunes just works 100% supports list and a number of other neat functions. Yea I got the Unwanted e-mail from MusicMatch yakking about how the software don't work spam in my point of view, if you take the 19Mb download and install it, it might be because you want to use it. Anyway the Ipod is just Hot, just found the add on remote and I'm going for it, no need to boot the PC to get to any of my files, and yes I just love the HD function

    A Apple a day keep the MusicMatch away
    www.netnoise.com.kh

    --
    I just hate bit SPAM, (www.netnoise.com.kh)
  76. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Competition may lead to lower prices, but it can also lead to lower quality in an effort to cut costs. (Something about a "race to the bottom".)

    Macs are only more expensive than PCs if you compare a new dual G5 to some low-end, low-quality, last-generation Celeron in a cheap plastic box. It's hard to even find hardware comparable to a Mac in PC-land. A good start might be pricing it against some Dell or Compaq server-level stuff. Seriously.

    (See also WinModems vs. real modems, IDE vs. SCSI (Macs used to use SCSI. Imagine that.), 99 cent RTL NICs vs. 3Coms, etc.)

  77. You are incorrect wrt fidiciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    IANAL, but the following stikes me as being incorrect:
    Just in case you weren't aware, the primary responsibility of every public for-profit company (Apple is one) is to make a profit for the shareholders.
    While every public for-profit company has a fidiciary duty, the primary responsibility is to work toward the mission of the corporation as set by the board of directors. With most for-profit corporations, part of the mission is to maximize profit within one or more business sectors. This is not of necessity, but of practicality. Not many people would be likely to invest in a corporation that aims at something other than making money.
    1. Re:You are incorrect wrt fidiciary duty by wytcld · · Score: 1

      While every public for-profit company has a fidiciary duty, the primary responsibility is to work toward the mission of the corporation as set by the board of directors.

      Good point, and it can be taken farther: Public, for-profit companies have the freedom to do anything they want providing that their shareholders agree that the course pleases them enough to (1) continue holding the stock, and (2) to continue to reappoint the members of the board. A company is comprised of free individuals - some investors, some employees - freely engaged in whatever the heck they find rewarding for whatever reason, whether fiduciary, aesthetic, spiritual - whatever. There is no requirement that every for-profit corporation have as it's aesthetic and spirit a character comprised primarily of Mr. Greed. The myth that this is the case is nothing but that.

      The fiduciary responsibility of management is something narrower: not to purposely lose or loot money when that is in betrayal of the trust and instructions of the shareholders. But the shareholders have every right, with respect to profit, to instruct the company to take a long shot, or even no shot at all. It can be explicitly strategized to run for some years at a loss, gambling on a low-odds but high-payoff prospect. While that's more commonly the domain of venture capital, there is nothing at all in statute or ethics to prevent this from being the stature of a publicly-owned company. Nor is there anything to say that a firm cannot explicitly take a course where public responsibility is given greater weight than maximal financial reward.

      It is not even a law of economics - merely a superstition - that long-term maximal reward is made most likely by short-term social irresponsibility, however much that may be shown to correlate with the quick heist. Capitalism at heart is good, but the current popular theory of it has been perverted by bandits.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  78. Welcome to corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can believe this. Apple's internals are rife with petty managers that despise fans that write more powerful extensions for their software and chew them out rather than hire them. It's laden with executives that are directionless and do product kick off meetings when they haven't a clue what features are going into the very product they are kicking off and are already coding. It's chock full of managers that won't consider experienced personnel out of fear for their own jobs.

    Intelligent management would embrace creative fans' work and seek to hire them to grown the internal creative sources. They wouldn't kick off a product until that product was defined. And they'd seek experienced people because when those people met with success, they would have the credit for recognizing their skills.

    But alas, such is not to be at most large corporations, Apple included. Most management in these situations are skilled at just a few things: not ruffling feathers, saying "yes, sir", and covering their own asses. If what's best for the company happens to intersect with those skills, great. If not, oh well...

  79. Are you still able to use iPod on Windows? by StarTux · · Score: 1

    Can you use ipod on Windows without using either iTunes, or MusicMatch?

    If so, why not at least use a different service, such as http://www.allofmp3.com

    Apple seems a weird mix right now, some areas are pro-Open Source, others seem to be almost the opposite...

    StarTux

  80. I LIKE Musicmatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I actually like Musicmatch. I've had a few problems over the years, but nothing major. And the jukebox features and super tagging really are great features!

    1. Re:I LIKE Musicmatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to admit Music Match has good radio stations.

  81. Re:Uh oh... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "I'd like to hear a rebuttal from the dude who modded this post troll."

    Modding that as troll was cute, but I am seriously curious as to why the dude with the mod point was bugged by this guy.

    Seriously. What parent poster said is the impression I have too. Maybe 'lock' is a strong word, but Apple most definitely wants to entice users to stay with them. So, what exactly so trollish about this guy's comment? Seeking education, not argument here.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  82. Re:Same to you, too by Ceadda · · Score: 1

    It's Americans', not Americans. As he's expressing possesion of the spelling. I'm sure he also meant these-days. Since the rules on a dash in the middle of a word allow you to place one if you are unsure, there is nothing gramatically wrong with that statement. Your grammer was worse, since you started a sentance with maybe.

    --
    *There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape em off Jim!*
  83. Yeah why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would anyone want to do anything different or have a choice....Insightful my ass, panty waist wet virginal apple licking fanboy....

  84. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You deserve a cookie!

  85. Re:Make Good Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did people say about similar past behavior of microsoft?

    It's their OS, they don't have to let people piggy-back on their R&D...

  86. Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by goldspider · · Score: 0, Troll
    Is it any wonder where names like "fanboy" come from? It sounds to me like these guys put far more effort on trying to cleverly denegrate Microsoft than objectively evaluating the products they are supposed to be promoting.

    It always comes back to some variation of "Well, basically what we're offering isn't that great, but Microsoft is much worse!" It's going to take a lot more convincing argument than that before I will even be tempted to buy an Apple product.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that now you sound like the fanboy, because you can't understand humor when it comes up and smacks you in the face. Instead you get defensive.

      Now that's a fanboy.

    2. Re:Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but when I expect to get an honest evaluation of iTunes, and instead get some witty tripe from a pretentious snot, should I not be disappointed?

    3. Re:Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      You expected an honest evaluation from As the Apple Turns? You are an idiot aren't you? Let me guess, you also expect a comprehensive analysis of celebrity happenings from the Enquirer and the Sun

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by zpok · · Score: 1

      joke, joke, joke!

      jesus, with the amount of really idiotic mac-jokes around, I'd assume you'd get the odd windowsjoke...

      I thought it was pretty funny.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    5. Re:Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by dissy · · Score: 1

      > I'm sorry, but when I expect to get an honest evaluation of iTunes, and instead
      > get some witty tripe from a pretentious snot, should I not be disappointed?

      You read the onion instead of CNN for your world news too, dont you?

    6. Re:Mod Apple Turns -1: Immature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... wake the fuck up, dumbass. It's a joke.

  87. I want my mod points, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [More FUD]

    I was an employee of the Bush campaign. We cut a deal with the Supreme Court to rig the 2000 election.

  88. Re:Same to you, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sentence

  89. not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm getting kinda hungry, though. where should we go for lunch, burgers or mexican?

  90. My bias by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I first read this, I was thinking "big fat deal. Everyone knows Apple does proprietary stuff." Then I read some of the comments about how people would be attempting to storm the gates of Redmond if Microsoft pulled something like this, and realized that my attitude is hypocritical.

    And I still don't care.

    Apparently, my principles don't come into play when the software works seamlessly and efficiently and the UI is so pretty.

    This would bother me, but OSX is shiny and it's distracting me....

    -Carolyn

    --
    Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
    1. Re:My bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't worry too much. Apple is not in a dominate position like Microsoft. Being big entails its own risks, and Microsoft will just have to take it and like it.

    2. Re:My bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So I am wondering -- would you approve of fascism if it was done properly?

    3. Re:My bias by Unknown+Kadath · · Score: 1

      Hmm...a clarification for the humor-impaired seems to be in order.

      1. I do not have a strong visceral reaction to the thought of Apple using DRM or other restrictive tactics.

      2. I suspect this is because they sell really good products, which means my reaction is pragmatic rather than ethical.
      (2a. I can't afford Panther yet. Please send me money.)

      3. This disturbs me.

      -Carolyn

      --
      Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
    4. Re:My bias by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 1
      Well, like all unreasonable monkeys, let's rationalize, then. It's about corporate culture. Apple is fundamentally less likely to screw someone over than Microsoft. It's just not the Apple way. Microsoft is built on screwing other companies. Apple always starts with cool technology. Microsoft always starts with paranoia, which ultimately means doom for any "partner."

      Not that Apple hasn't screwed people (I could name plenty of cases in the past, being a longtime Mac developer) or isn't screwing some subset of people now, just that it's not their modus operandi.

      I mean, I read about companies getting into "partnerships" with Microsoft and wonder what the hell they could possibly be thinking. Has anyone ever escaped from a partnership with Microsoft unscathed?

  91. Re:Uh oh... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

    How are customers locked? If anything, it's an expression of choice that you have the opportunity to buy an Apple computer.

    Yes, but when I buy an Apple computer, I have to buy an Apple keyboard, an Apple mouse, and an Apple OS (and a modem, wi-fi adapter, and ethernet adapter though I may only use 1 or 2 of them). Sure, I can use a different keyboard, mouse, and OS, but I can't buy the computer without them. As the prices of hardware have come down, they've started adding more to their base models, meaning that you get devices you don't necessarily want and the base model is more expensive than it would've been with less of the expensive hardware (yay, SuperDrives for everyone, even though their cost is 25-50% of the total cost of the computer). If I don't want to pay the premium on RAM from Apple, I can't buy a computer with no RAM, or with someone else's RAM (though I can buy one with whatever their current minimum is and buy more and/or replace it from someone else). There's nothing keeping you from changing a lot of things once you have the computer, but actually getting the computer means buying a lot of things you might not actually want. On the x86 side, if one OEM doesn't give me the choices I want, I go to another, or I buy the parts myself.

    Yes, I use a Microsoft mouse and keyboard, but it's certainly not because it came with something else I bought from Microsoft, or because the software only works with the Microsoft hardware, it just happened to be the best choice for my requirements (and they're lagging on wireless trackballs, so I'm starting to look around for another brand that I can use, and bundling mice with their good wireless keyboards, so I will be looking around in that department, too).

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  92. choice by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    xp is disabling third party applications with their own--hence the concept of a monopoly. if you install windows media player, the option of resetting your preferences to use this player for certain types of files is presented. likewise with most other media players, quicktime included... there is a distinction--though subtle--between the two types of applications mentioned. one is extending a monopoly, one is choice.

    additionally, my understanding is that music match still functions, though not with the ipod. drm is complex enough, and this of course is the main issue with microsoft drm. if it is installed with the os, it is extending the monopoly, because how can differing drm systems interoperate? the will take decades to sort out. but, this slashdot article does not discuss the whole issue and of course sensationalizes the problem. musicmatch still works! so it is funny that quite different concepts of monopoly are in play here, though apple cannot quite be considered a monopoly with 3% of the market, whereas microsoft with 95% of the market can.

  93. Allow me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the HELL is wrong with Americans' spelling these _ days

    What the HELL is wrong with Americans' spelling these days?

    Asswipe.

  94. indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yuo aer all teh ghey!

    1. Re:indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are all gay to the max!

  95. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We at Apple would like to apologize once again. Those responsible for sacking those who were responsible for sacking the developers, have been sacked.

  96. monopoly by 2057 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    i know im going to hit some strings with this but, hasnt anyone else noticed how the apple monopoly gets worse and worse? it may use *Bsd as its source but other than that its not friendly, their license sux, they force you to buy their products, force their operating system, now their web browser, their office applications..i mean if microsoft was doing this there would be millions of people bitching and moaning that bill gates is an evil whore. thats just my opinion and im never wrong...

    --
    For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
  97. Re:This was not an accident by iamweezman · · Score: 1
    i guess English spelling wasn't a requirement then, (is this a run-on?) let me guess you are a student and American

    As an American student I feel it is my duty to stand up and defend my stereotyped group by pointing out your own grammar. I would also think that someone as egotistical would know that "I" is always capitalized, and use some end punctuation man!

    So make like your sentence and run-on...

  98. iPodService.exe by Zekaric · · Score: 1

    I unfortunately updated 'Quicktime' and downloaded the iTunes for windows as well. Now I notice in my processes a iPosService.exe is running and can't get it to terminate. I don't even own an iPod so this process is just taking up memory.

    I copied my Music tunes directory from my Mac to my PC and tried to see if the iTunes would recognize the library. Even after setting the preferences for it to look somewhere else I still get a blank iTunes screen. Bah. I think I'll stick with WinAmp for now.

    1. Re:iPodService.exe by plj · · Score: 1

      I unfortunately updated 'Quicktime' and downloaded the iTunes for windows as well. Now I notice in my processes a iPosService.exe is running and can't get it to terminate. I don't even own an iPod so this process is just taking up memory.

      I feel sick every time I see someone complaining about some trivial software usage problem on /. and finally blaming "it's all software's fault", only to tell everyone that just like some average Joe, they have not even attempted to find a solution by themselves - in this case, for example, by googling for ipodservice.exe. I did, and that is what I found behind the second link:

      "How to stop the iPodservice.exe:

      Go to your control panel > Administrative Tools > Open Services > Find iPodService.exe and right click on it. Stop the service and set it from Auto or manual whichever its on to Disabled. This will keep it from starting and attacking CPUs and killing god or whatever it does."

      I can add to that that to do the trick you must be logged on with administrative rights.

      Hell, I had to told that and I'm running a Mac!

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
  99. Si Senor! by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Only a few more hundred years of this and it'll be all over...

    --
    Blar.
  100. Re:Uh oh... by byolinux · · Score: 1

    This is not trolling, I'm being serious.

  101. No actually..... by jkabbe · · Score: 1

    this thread is full of people making poor analogies

  102. You had a choice! by NaugaHunter · · Score: 3, Informative

    iTunes warns during install that it will disable Musicmatch. You're choices are a) iTunes for the iPod with Musicmatch not using it, or b) Musicmatch only. And Explorer most definately "diddles" with default browser settings. Hell, I ran the Word demo on my new Powerbook and suddenly Explorer was my default browser and I had never even launched it.

    Just because you don't like the choices doesn't mean they aren't there. Since iTunes likely launches when an iPod is plugged in having Musicmatch also recognize it probably causes problems. While one might lament that Apple had somehow worked it out that you could choose each time, I'd argue that they had no real motivation to and from an ease-of-use point of view went for iTunes taking over the iPod completely.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    1. Re:You had a choice! by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      Despite IE being the default browser, you can still launch Mozilla or Netscape to access the www and they STILL WORK. Now if Microsoft had decided instead to not only make IE the default, but had changed the network settings in Netscape/Mozilla to go through "proxy at 0.0.0.0", would that be right? That is what apple has done with iTunes. I have no problem with iTunes automatically launching, but you ought to be able to launch MusicMatch manually and access the iPod if you want. Is there not some way to "lock" the device so they don't both access it at once?

    2. Re:You had a choice! by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

      I understand your point, I just look at it differently. The internet is not a Netscape, Microsoft, Apple or anyone's single product, so for one of them to prevent the others from using it, or even interfering in any way, is not a nice thing to do.

      However, an iPod is an Apple product. Presumably, their troubleshooting is now done only against iTunes on both platforms, and they would prefer users on both platforms to only use iTunes to access it. As far as 'locking' the device, there may be a way or there may not, but from Apple's point of view they'd rather not. It's likely they are now shipping iPods with only iTunes and whatever deal they had with MusicMatch will soon be over. So MusicMatch is now just one of a dozen other music programs that can write a way to use the iPod if they want to, which Apple will probably eventually call unsupported and will start all support calls with 'Switch to iTunes'.

      And whatever one may think of that, it is no more or less than what any company would do with their product. I haven't yet heard much about other MP3 players, but they likely come with their own software and will start there as well for support calls. And I could probably go on with mice, scanners, etc. but if I haven't belabored my point yet then I never will.

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    3. Re:You had a choice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OT: Marathon kicks ass.

  103. Spyware by newMe · · Score: 0

    Isn't MusicMatch spyware/adware?

    If so, good for iTunes for wrecking it.

  104. Re:Uh oh... by byolinux · · Score: 1

    Okay, so you have to buy an Apple keyboard and mouse with an Apple computer, but I don't think any of the brand name computer companies would ship a computer without a keyboard and mouse. Why? Cause Joe Public needs one.

  105. Re:Same to you, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lesson 2:
    How to read tree-style threaded comments.

    Never mind, it's too easy to explain.

  106. Just in, MS Office deletes OpenOffice system files by obsid1an · · Score: 1

    So let's say MS decided that their office products would delete the OpenOffice system files that allows OO to interact with the MS proprietary file formats. It wouldn't disable OpenOffice, just stop it from opening and saving in .doc, .xls, etc. Could you imagine the uproar that would happen on /.? I love how Apple does this and it isn't all that bad.

  107. X Play by PPGMD · · Score: 1

    As an X Play user I am unhappy to report that it is not working with the iTunes either.

  108. If they messed it up Apple did RIGHT! by E1v!$ · · Score: 1

    Musicmatch sux, it should be deleted. The whole company should be deleted!

  109. Re:This was not an accident by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

    Well, there have been two new versions since release, so they might have already done it...

  110. Ladies and Gentlemen, a /. first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG, someone on slash actually spelled the word "lose" correctly in the parent posting.

    Heck hath truly frozen over. Next thing you know, something crazy will happen like, oh, I dunno, Novell will buy Suse, or Redhat will denounce Linux in favor of Windows!

    Wow, it's been a while since I read slashdot, things must really be improving if the posters can now spell. Guess I'll go check out some articles, see what else is happening out there ...

    Aaaaaccckk!!

    http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/05/0133259.sh tm l?tid=126&tid=143&tid=163&tid=187

    http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/04/2312225.sh tm l?tid=110&tid=126&tid=163&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190& tid=201

  111. That's nothing ... by john82 · · Score: 1

    If you own an iPod and use it with MusicMatch on a Windows machine and then install iTunes, strange things happen: after the installation, MusicMatch is unable to communicate or even find the iPod anymore.

    Big deal. I installed iTunes for Windows 1.0 on a Win2K box. After some 30 minutes, iTunes crashed ... hard. When I rebooted, the computer couldn't talk to my CD-RW/DVD unit or my sound card. Registry is corrupt. Multiple efforts to fix go nowhere.

    Now that's a problem. And you folks are griping about mere software!

  112. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right. And the Slashdot editors are HARD AT WORK fixing the bugs that cause us to cycle so many pages when we try to post, thus increasing their ad revenue with each failed attempt. You wouldn't give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but you do for Apple. Really impartial.

  113. Is iTunes REQUIRED to use an iPod? by freeweed · · Score: 1

    Just curious, Apple's site doesn't seem clear on this:

    I know you can use the iPod as a portable hard drive; just drag and drop files in Explorer and you're done.

    My question is, can you do this with your mp3s, and still have your iPod play them?

    Quite honestly, as much as everyone raves about the features in iTunes, I don't really see the need for it - it would be cool to just be able to treat it like a portable drive that plays music without installing software in order to use it. My digital camera works this way, and it's handy to share photos with people when I don't feel like carrying HP's installation CD around.

    Anyone?

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Is iTunes REQUIRED to use an iPod? by Torgski · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is.

      You can copy mp3's to it using explorer/file manager of your choice, but the ipod won't be able to play them.

      It uses some internal database to store the mp3's in, that only iTunes (And some of the apps written before iTunes for windows came out) can read/write to.

  114. Musicmatch vs. iTunes by sabin1001 · · Score: 1

    No one seems to bring up the networking issues of iTunes. Hasn't anyone ever noticed that is scans your mapped drives even if you tell it not to look for shared music? There's also the fact that we aren't allowed to use it at work since it seems it filled up the outgoing translation buffer on our NAT and brought down our internal internet, and that was just having it running on 3 computers. Doh. Of course, it's faster, better, and better looking that Musicmatch. So I personally use it at Home for fun (well except when it starts complaining that the cd services aren't working...guess I should stop trying to disable the iPodService and the iTunesHelper application :) ). Of course, Musicmatch has the Fraunhofer codec, so that's just wonderful for making 128kbs mp3s that actually sound good, and therefore is how I rip my CDs.

    1. Re:Musicmatch vs. iTunes by coolmacdude · · Score: 1

      Of course, Musicmatch has the Fraunhofer codec, so that's just wonderful for making 128kbs mp3s that actually sound good, and therefore is how I rip my CDs.

      iTunes uses Fraunhofer as well.

      --

      -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
  115. Here's why. by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lots of people have complained that if you have an iPod for Windows, and you have a Mac, when you plug the iPod into the Mac, the Mac wants to reformat it. And when you have an iPod for Mac and you plug it into your Windows machine, MusicMatch doesn't work with it without reformatting.

    This is because the iPod looks like a disk drive. On the Mac, it's formatted as an HFS volume. On Windows, it was formatted as a Windows volume.

    Now, with iTunes for Windows, you can share your iPod between Windows and Mac. This is because iTunes for Windows knows how to deal with HFS volumes. But unfortunately, MusicMatch for Windows does not know how to do this.

    So you lose something, and you get something. Depending on what you want, you may prefer one solution or the other. If you prefer MusicMatch, stick with it. If you prefer iTunes, stick with it.

    The point is that this was not just an arbitrary attempt to shut MusicMatch out of the business. It was done for a good reason. If MusicMatch wants to maintain iPod compatiblity after you install iTunes, this is doable, because HFS+ is a documented standard, and the source code to read and write HFS+ filesystems is available from Apple - it's part of Darwin, which is open source.

    So yes, Apple did make an incompatible change. And it sucks for people who really like MusicMatch. But there was a good reason for making the change, and I personally think the end result is a significant improvement. YMMV.

    1. Re:Here's why. by asparagus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's slightly simpler than that...the Windows version of the iPod/iTunes uses Fat32 as a disk format. Not HFS+.

      If you get a new iPod and want to use it across both platforms, format it for PC. Then you can use it on either system interchangeably. Best way to go, as it makes it into a nifty portable external hard drive as well. It's how I've got mine set up.

      -Brett

    2. Re:Here's why. by kennylives · · Score: 3, Informative
      You got it backward:

      Now, with iTunes for Windows, you can share your iPod between Windows and Mac. This is because iTunes for Windows knows how to deal with HFS volumes. But unfortunately, MusicMatch for Windows does not know how to do this.

      iTunes for Mac can deal with a FAT32 iPod, but iTunes for Windows cannot deal with an HFS iPod. This is true even if you've got XPlay installed, which includes the HFS driver. iTunes/Win requires a Windows formatted iPod. Period.

      I know this because until that fateful Thursday, I had a Mac iPod and used XPlay to use it on Windows, and felt all sick and dirty having to reformat my precious to FAT32... My Macs (running OSX 10.2.6/10.3) were all perfectly happy with a FAT32 iPod after the reformat, BTW.

      Disclaimer: I never installed MM, so I don't know what fun bits it added to the equation here, but I doubt it does anything interesting. AFAIK, MM needs a FAT32 iPod (no HFS drivers included).

      --

      Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...

    3. Re:Here's why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technical reasons always sound impressive...but this time, it's all about marketing...

      The REAL reason Apple dumped Music Match is that Music Match made a deal with Dell to be the primary program for the new Dell music player (which is priced lower than the iPod).

      So if Apple continued to use MusicMatch, they had no obvious competitive advantage over the Dell player. iTunes, which most people recognize is a better program, gives them that advantage.

      Plus, Jobs hates Michael Dell. And I'm sure the feeling is mutual...

  116. More whining. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simple. The contents of your iPod are synchronized with your library of mp3 and AAC files. This is an anti-piracy measure. You can't take your iPod to your friends computers and quickly assimilate their music... it requires a little more work. Regardless, it would undoubtedly cause trouble to have iTunes and MusicMatch performing this function. You'd be re-synchronizing every time you wanted to use one application or the other.

    So Apple has done the logical thing. They have told you that iTunes and MusicMatch cannot control the iPod at the same time. If you continue with the install, then they have no choice but to assume that you want to use THEIR SOFTWARE. Fuck, is this really that difficult to understand?

    So pick the service you want to fucking use, install the software, and stop bitching. I don't see this as a political move on Apples behalf. None of the comments have offered anything but speculation...

  117. Except When It Isn't by Llywelyn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    DRM Program from Apple? What the fsck are you smoking?

    iTMS uses the FairPlay DRM. I have a lot of songs and I can't think of a single instance when FairPlay got in my way or kept me from doing anything. I can burn the songs to as many CDs as I like, play the music on up to three computers (at a time), and transfer it to as many iPods as I like. How exactly is that restricting me?

    If I get desperate I can rip it off a burn, but I don't even see why I would do that (for my situation).

    The rest of iTunes has no DRM incorporated. What this entire story is about is not any form of DRM, but Apple replacing MusicMatch's functionality with their own. You can still use MusicMatch, you can still use your iPod, you can still use MusicMatch with your iPod (with either a hack or by reinstalling MusicMatch), but there are some very good /technical/ reasons why Apple would want to disable MusicMatch's syncing with the iPod.

    I fail to see how you are being restricted, even exempting that Apple tells you what iTunes will do /when you install it./

    Besides, if you own an iPod and you've download iTunes, /chances are good/ you will want to use iTunes for syncing with your iPod anyways should you continue to use iTunes (not guaranteed, but likely).

    So would you and whichever moderator modded you up remove your tinfoil hats?

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Except When It Isn't by Hobbex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      iTMS uses the FairPlay DRM. I have a lot of songs and I can't think of a single instance when FairPlay got in my way or kept me from doing anything. I can burn the songs to as many CDs as I like, play the music on up to three computers (at a time), and transfer it to as many iPods as I like. How exactly is that restricting me?

      This is like saying: "I never wanted to go out at night anyways, so how is this curfew a restriction." I have no desire at all to read comic books - yet if somebody decided that I could never read comic books I would still be angry.

      The fact of the matter is that there are restrictions ("up to three computers") and the only way that ITMS can enforce them is by making sure that the software controls how you can access the data on your own computer. What I am saying is that that relationship between ourselves and our computers (the one where they place restrictions on us, however innouxious those restrictions may be) is one that we should never accept in the first place.

      Just like I demand freedom of speech as a principle, not as something on which I will accept restrictions as long as I don't notice them, I demand control over my own computer and the data in it as a principle.

      The rest of iTunes has no DRM incorporated. What this entire story is about is not any form of DRM, but Apple replacing MusicMatch's functionality with their own.

      I wasn't replying to that, I was replying to the person who linked to an article about (among other things DRM) and tried to use that as a reason to make Macs better than PCs. The simple truth is that as of ITMS Macs have embraced the idea that users should be subjects to their computers just as much as Microsoft has with WMP and Palladium.

      (Of course, I wasn't moderated down as being offtopic but rather overrated, as any comment critical of Apple invariably is if it reaches a score greater than three. At least this time the similiarly inevitable +5 modded flame quoted my entire post...)

      Besides, if you own an iPod and you've download iTunes, /chances are good/ you will want to use iTunes for syncing with your iPod anyways should you continue to use iTunes (not guaranteed, but likely).

      This is the argument I am uninterested it. As far as I am concerned, this just sounds like the typical antics of closed software programs, and is one of the reasons I only use free software. But, I want to comment that you are falling for the same fallacy here as you are with DRM.

      It is not OK to break into somebody's house and replace a belonging with something else even if everybody you do it will like what you leave better than what you took (I don't want to argue whether this is a case of that, but in the quoted text above you are saying "this would be ok even if it was.") Our freedoms, our integrity, and our self determination are principles of humanity - it is not OK to step on them even when it isn't inconvenient for us.

      So would you and whichever moderator modded you up remove your tinfoil hats?

      Since I have gone from being scared to deeply depressed about this issue (mostly after seeing the majority of Slashdot suddenly embrace the concept of DRM once they realized they could get something in return for it) I wish it wouldn't worry me, but I see nothing "tinfoil hat" about it.

      It is Microsoft and media industry's stated aim to have remote attestation built into the fabric of the web, so that websites will use DRM for their content, so that communication will only be possible between DRM enabled users, etc etc. I thought Slashdotters and maybe even Mac-heads would fight the takeover of our computers by programs hostile toward us, but instead they have become the backers and defenders of the process. It seems little other than inevitable now that we will not in a few years face a closed, proprietary, and restricted Internet.

    2. Re:Except When It Isn't by yerricde · · Score: 1

      Owners of iTunes Music Store purchased tracks can record the tracks to CD-R media free of any digital restrictions management. In what way would Apple's mild restrictions prevent iTMS customers from making non-infringing use of purchased tracks?

      It is Microsoft and media industry's stated aim to have remote attestation built into the fabric of the web, so that websites will use DRM for their content, so that communication will only be possible between DRM enabled users, etc etc.

      Where do you get this? Microsoft has repeatedly stated that Palladium will be optional, that the owner of the machine can turn it off at will, and that it won't require any changes to the Internet at OSI levels 3 and 4. How do you conceive that Palladium will prevent a GNU/Linux user from communicating with the non-Palladium side of the memory curtain?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    3. Re:Except When It Isn't by nyquility · · Score: 1

      One of the few times I really wish I had been around and active enough to have earned some modpoints to spend.

      Where is this sudden shift of thinking from which seems to have swept /. recently. Or is it just the other side of the coin which happens to have been dominating these (in this case off-topic) discussions lately?

      We go from "DRM is the end of freedom" to "Copyrightholders have every right to castrate all you dirty rotten thieves" within 5 or 6 weeks? In fact all this anal potholing of RIAA, music-industry execs et al is becoming even more of a bore to read than the original tinfoilhat rants.

      And thats the next point, every time someone even dares to try and argue for personal freedoms he is instantly drawn as being a paranoid loon watching for the next CIA/MOSSAD/KGB hitman thirsting for his blood. You know what, just because someone doesn't share your particular form of bovine acceptance level, doesn't mean they are stark raving mad. If noone did any worrying for you, you would have been turned into GoldenArches(C) Hamburgers by now.

      I can't help shaking the feeling this site should be renamed Sheepdot to accurately reflect the level of "follow that bundle of wool" being shown here.

    4. Re:Except When It Isn't by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      Owners of iTunes Music Store purchased tracks can record the tracks to CD-R media free of any digital restrictions management. In what way would Apple's mild restrictions prevent iTMS customers from making non-infringing use of purchased tracks?

      If I was to write a program that accessed and converted M4P files directly, I would be sued under the DMCA. You must see how absurd it is to argue that there are no restrictions in light of this.

      You are installing a program on your computer that that then conspires against you to keep things secret.

      Where do you get this? Microsoft has repeatedly stated that Palladium will be optional, that the owner of the machine can turn it off at will, and that it won't require any changes to the Internet at OSI levels 3 and 4.

      There is no need for changes at levels 3 and 4. The point is that the common protocols will be enhanced to add the ability to attest that one is communicating with a trusted client (like good old ITMS).

      How do you conceive that Palladium will prevent a GNU/Linux user from communicating with the non-Palladium side of the memory curtain?

      Since everybody here seems to have decided that DRM is not only great, but "the way it should be" (as +5 post above said), I'm worried it is going to be very lonely on that side of the curtain.

    5. Re:Except When It Isn't by yerricde · · Score: 1

      If I was to write a program that accessed and converted M4P files directly, I would be sued under the DMCA.

      Define "directly". What, specifically, do you want to do with a purchased track that 1. iTunes won't let you do, 2. you can't do by recording the audio to a CD, and 3. you may otherwise do under copyright law notwithstanding 17 USC chapter 12?

      You are installing a program on your computer that that then conspires against you to keep things secret.

      What "things"? The audio itself is no secret once you've recorded it to a completely DRM-free CD.

      The point is that the common protocols will be enhanced to add the ability to attest that one is communicating with a trusted client (like good old ITMS).

      And my point is that a good number of people will still be willing to publish works that can be viewed with attestation turned off.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    6. Re:Except When It Isn't by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      Define "directly". What, specifically, do you want to do with a purchased track that 1. iTunes won't let you do, 2. you can't do by recording the audio to a CD, and 3. you may otherwise do under copyright law notwithstanding 17 USC chapter 12?

      There are obviously plenty of examples of such things (play the files on Linux machines without having to go through the bother of burning, reripping, setting all the id3s manually) but that is beside the point. I do not have an entitlement complex: I don't demand that services should offer me exactly what I want all the time.

      My point is that one should not run software that does not act in ones own interest. Just like one should not consult a doctor who does not act in ones interest, or hire a lawyer who does not act in ones interest. There is a simple way to see whether software is acting in your interest: _could_ it be implemented as open source on normal hardware.

      If software is acting in my interest, then it won't matter to it whether I can change it, so having the source makes no functional difference (it might matter to the company for competitive reason, but that is unrelated). iTunes could not be open source, because then I could simply remove the DRM restrictions (and if that doesn't matter: why did Apple spend time and money developing them?)

      If you people argued for user hostile software (like the first responder to my post did) then I could at least feel I was arguing an intellectually honest position. But you people are so busy trying to convince yourself that this DRM somehow isn't DRM because the rules are less bad. Like people arguing that a dictatorship isn't a dictatorship because the dictator is a nice guy.

      What "things"? The audio itself is no secret once you've recorded it to a completely DRM-free CD.

      The encryption keys and algorithms used on the m4p files.

      And my point is that a good number of people will still be willing to publish works that can be viewed with attestation turned off.

      My point is that eventually they will not have a choice. For "security reasons." It's going to be all or nothing (or going outlaw and circumventing the restrictions).

    7. Re:Except When It Isn't by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      DRM is not evil if it is applied in the crrect manner. Just like laws which prevent you from stealing, killing and raping are not inherrently evil, provided they are applied in the correct manner.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  118. You DO have a choice - warned at install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


    You DO have a choice. Simply cancel the installation when it warns you about disabling Musicmatch.

    And if you're already happy with Musicmatch, you can go on your merry way.

    A little strong-handed in forcing the choice? Yeah. But far better than what IE/Office has pulled on me over the years. And yes, IE/Office sure have switched settings behind my back without so much as a simple AfxMessageBox() telling me I've just been screwed.

  119. Library conflicts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like its simply to avoid sync problems between different libraries. Anyone whos ever used an ipod with 2 seperate computers has probably noticed that when you try to (for instance) sync a full ipod with an empty library bad things happen. Considering apple distributed MusicMatch with Windows iPods, it would be somewhat responsible, at least in terms of support, when and if people began having issues with using 2 libraries at once. This is a rather large mess that normally would be resolved by patching or whatnot, but seeing as they're introducing a whole new product, they've opted to simply disable the prior product (which they provided) to ensure continued functionality. If you don't like it as a previous post pointed out you can take it upon yourself to get a non-Apple distributed copy, at which point Apple doesn't have to support whatever problems you have. If they were to allow the musicmatch software that they provided to continue to interact with the iPod, however, they would have to support whatever problems arose.

  120. Re:Same to you, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the funniest thread i've read in a long time.

  121. Only if you tell it! by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1, Informative

    When I installed iTunes (Mac and PC) there was a checkbox asking you for permission to reorganize your files. (Organize library). If you didn't check it, there was no problems! It would just leave the files alone. iTunes doesn't need to reorganize your files to work. If you install iTunes and check it, allow it, to organize your files, then it's only doing what you tell it to do!

    1. Re:Only if you tell it! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I was presented with a dialog box whose meaning was not clear. I thought it was going to reorganize the catalog within iTunes, not reorganize my carefully-crafted filing system. That really pissed me off.

      Should I have known better? Maybe. If a very experienced computer user like myself can make that mistake, maybe the mistake should be harder to make.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Only if you tell it! by rco3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In all fairness, Moofie, you're obviously using iTunes for Windows on .. (wait for it).. a Windows machine. This puts you in a mindset of ignoring dialog boxes, and not bothering to read them fully, because so many Windows dialog boxes are on the level of Clippy - totally fscking useless.

      Should it be less easy to miss important messages in a dialog box? Yes. How should it be done? By programs not crying "Wolf!" all the time. If you want to blame someone, don't blame Apple. Blame the people who write programs that pop up dialog boxes for things like, "You have requested a web page from the Internet. Are you sure you wish to continue?" in web browsers.

      Oh, and blame yourself for not reading the dialog box. Asking OS mfg's to protect you from your own stupidity only fosters more stupidity.

      Sorry. Tough love, and all that.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    3. Re:Only if you tell it! by Otter · · Score: 1
      If a very experienced computer user like myself can make that mistake, maybe the mistake should be harder to make.

      Honestly, this seems like a mistake *only* a very experienced user could make. To most people, the implication of a dialog that asks permission to reorganize your files is that it's going to reorganize your files. I couldn't have even thought of an alternative understanding of it.

    4. Re:Only if you tell it! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, it asked me if I want to reorganize my "collection" which, to me, meant the catalog within iTunes.

      Was it a stupid mistake for me to make? Sure. Normally, I'd just thump myself on the forehead and hit the "Undo" button...

      which was not available. Yeah.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Only if you tell it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why didn't you, being the very experienced computer user that you are, just restore your MP3 collection from your backup?

      After all, surely a very experienced computer user like yourself keeps regular backups...

    6. Re:Only if you tell it! by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      Oh, and blame yourself for not reading the dialog box. Asking OS mfg's to protect you from your own stupidity only fosters more stupidity.

      Before you blame him for not reading the dialog box, you should have read his comment closer.

      He said that the "meaning was unclear". That doesn't imply he didn't read it, it implied that he read the box and didn't understand what it was trying to tell him. After all, "reorganise your collection" is hardy descriptive.

      I've never seen the dialog box, but how about this as an alternative:

      Would you live to reorganise your music collection?
      Warning: This will change the directory structure and location of your music files. For more information, click on the "help" button.
      Far better, far informative and trivially easy to implement.

      So therefore, the fault can be seen two ways - Apple didn't provide clear enough information on the dialog box (including a very clear warning about what "reorganise" meant) and Moofie didn't stop and, based on the lack of information, go find out what this dialog box really meant.

      So yes, it was party his fault, but it's also partly Apples. So cut him some slack and don't be a dick (tough love right?).

      That kind of attitude only serves to encourage developers to produce cryptic and uninformative dialog boxes forcing users to continually refer to user manuals. Which is not they way we should be heading.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    7. Re:Only if you tell it! by gse · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, Moofie, you're obviously using iTunes for Windows on .. (wait for it).. a Windows machine. This puts you in a mindset of ignoring dialog boxes, and not bothering to read them fully, because so many Windows dialog boxes are on the level of Clippy - totally fscking useless. This got modded "insightful"? This is a ridiculous troll.

      --
      wordclock records :: flailing since 2000
    8. Re:Only if you tell it! by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Right. "'Reorganize your collection' is hardly descriptive". Is that the exact phrasing he was given?

      If so, I agree. Completely. That is insufficiently descriptive. That did not accurately and unequivocally describe what it was going to do.

      So he did it anyway.

      He *is* partially to blame. Which is what I said, and what you said.

      So why am I the dick?

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    9. Re:Only if you tell it! by rco3 · · Score: 1

      Troll? Not in the slightest.

      That is an opinion which I am prepared to defend. I personally believe that it is accurate.

      What is the point I made? The point was that people are used to dialog boxes that don't accurately describe the situation. I believe, based on experience, that Windows the OS and Windows programs in general are major offenders in this area.

      I firmly believe that people become accustomed to dialog boxes that don't mean anything, or that they don't understand, and just click through them. I believe that this behavior begins with the click-through license and is reinforced in the normal usage over and over.

      Don't agree? Fine. Tell me why not. I'll listen. I might even be convinced. Calling me a "ridiculous troll" is nothing more than a gratuitous insult, and says nothing good about you.

      Do you have a reasoned response to my original post, or are you incapable? Can you support your conjecture that I am a troll? Note that I did not post AC - you are welcome to examine my posting history.

      Perhaps you need to be further educated re: the meaning of the word "troll" here on /.. Hint: it does NOT mean, "person with whose opinon I disagree and whom I wish to annoy." You've got a pretty low /. ID # - you should know the difference by now.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    10. Re:Only if you tell it! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Of 15gb of data? What backup medium can YOU afford? Sorry, dude, I'm not made of money.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  122. Whooshed! by rjung2k · · Score: 1

    "It sounds to me like these guys put far more effort on trying to cleverly denegrate Microsoft than objectively evaluating the products they are supposed to be promoting."

    To quote from the disclaimer on every page at As The Apple Turns:

    AtAT is not a news site any more than "Inside Edition" is a "real" news show. We make "Dawson's Creek" look like "60 Minutes." We engage in rampant guesswork, wild speculation, and pure fabrication for the entertainment of our viewers. Sure, everything here is "inspired by actual events," but so was "Amityville II: The Possession." So lighten up.

    Site best viewed with a sense of humor. AtAT is not responsible for lost or stolen articles. Keep hands inside car at all times. The drinking of beverages while watching AtAT is strongly discouraged; AtAT is not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers."


    Or, in other words, it's a joke, idiot!

    1. Re:Whooshed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not only is it a joke! Its a bad stupid one!

      Do you get angry at monkeys in the zoo for flinging their own poo? If not, then why do you get angry when Mac-owners do the same?

  123. Here is my choice as an IPOD owner by mrondello · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Music Match for the following reasons. I use MP3 Music as a wholesale replacement for my entertainment center in my living room:

    1. MMJ: Library is seperated from the player/playlist. Because of this I can sort by album, genre, artist, track, bitrate, year and a plethora of others while still keeping my play list clear. If I want to listen to 2 albums, I right click on the tree and add both to the player, then play only those selected. Later I can add more singles songs, or albums to the player. I don't have to create a playlist to do this, but I do have the option to save if I want. MMJ also lets me preview a track outside of the playlist/player. This lets me quickly view a track before choosing to add it to the player.

    1. iTunes: everything is one big library. I have to CREATE and SAVE a new playlist, even for temporary use, and drag items to the list from the browser to play. There is no seperate player distinction. There is a browse function, but I can only play one album at a time when highlighting an album to populate the main player. (well not true, I can by browsing by all albums, then ctrl-click multiple albums at the same time to add the the player. But this has to be done at the same time, there is no option to add later to the main player). I then have to delete the SAVED list to keep the interface from being cluttered. Most often there is no use for me to keep every session of what I listen to. Itunes also does not let me preview a song outside of a list. So if I am listening to the one album I can listen to without creating and saving a NEW list, the player is hijacked with that song, unless I start over and do some fancy sorting and ctrl-clicking. Actually it does not seem possible to add 2 albums + 5 tracks to the main player with CREATING and SAVING a new list, due to the limitations of the browser not even being able to sort by song outside of the main player.

    PS: It seems that iTunes is insistent on being a large mix tape interface of single songs. This coincides with the "purchase single song interface". MMJ can be either or, and is flexible when choosing to look at a library in terms of "album".

    2: MMJ has the "smart list function" and is slightly better than iTunes at it. MMJ has the ability to TAG music with arbitrary data that reflects mood, tempo, and rating. You can add any textual data you wish to the TAG. You can then use the "Auto DJ" function to create smart lists based on data YOU provided, in addition to the standard id3 tag.

    2: Itunes: provides 1-5 rating for smart lists and that is it.

    3. MMJ: Music Match provides a method of having multiple DBs to store music. This is great when dealing with different situations of music storage. For example, I have a DB for music that I do not have physical media, a DB for songs downloaded from emusic.com, a DB for music I have media for, and a DB for music on the iPod. This makes iPod and iPod synch easier for me, as I have a separate DB and can remove items from the DB at will. The iPod will synch that data. The multiple DB works well when doing things, such as ensuring that all music for which I have media is encoded at a certain quality bitrate. To do this I simply load up the DB, sort by bitrate and identify the low bitrate offenders.

    3. Itunes: So far it looks like there is only one DB for iTunes. I can synch the entire DB to the iPod, or make the laborious task of clicking a check mark on only the tracks I want out the current 7500 I have. I do not seem to have the ability to create a DB for separate instances of music. I cannot use iTunes to tell me what emusic.com downloads are encoded at 128, so I can revisit emusic.com and download the new 192VBR versions.

    4: MMJ has the ability to skin the interface. This is critical to me, when using a TV at 640x480 as an output. I need the ability to change colors and font sizes to better suit my output environment. MMJ is also modular and can turn pieces of its interface off.

    4: iTunes does not have to ab

  124. music-blah by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    dunno why apple would package MM with the ipod....it's like beauty and the beast (ipod is the former btw).

    Ephpod and Xplay work wonderously with it, loads better than MM.

  125. Re:Uh oh... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

    I've got a Dell here with no Dell mouse or keyboard, but that may have been IT's doing, since I told them I wasn't getting rid of the keyboard and mouse I already had.

    Whether or not the big companies would do this for home users I do not know, since I don't buy computers from them. I do know that I can go down to almost any local computer shop and buy a computer with Windows installed on it without a keyboard and mouse (and completely to my specs in terms of what parts are used) if I choose to do so. Actually, that makes me wonder if the Apple stores might do the same, as I've never seen one of those stores, yet, and don't remember if the local Apple retailers did it before Apple opened their own stores.

    Why? Cause Joe Public needs one.

    If Joe Public bought a computer 3 years ago and is buying a new one to replace it, he certainly does not need a new mouse and keyboard. Of course, he probably doesn't need most of what he's buying, but then he's Joe Public, so unless he knows John Geek next door, he's SOL because he bent over for Jim Dell.

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  126. No problems on my systems by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    I've installed iTines on two Win2K Pro machines and have no problem at all. But, I've always used CDPLAYER.EXE to listen to CDs.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  127. Nah, that's not it. by shotfeel · · Score: 1

    It couldn't possibly be bad for a single device to have two different drivers trying to control it. I'm sure everything works perfectly fine that way -at least as well as when my wife and I both try to drive the car at the same time.

    CRASH!

  128. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could you know, when you're fired?

  129. Why is Apple cool?... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a sentiment I have never understood..."Apple is cool, so people only use Apple computers to be cool"...It almost defies logic...If Apple were "cool" why wouldn't they have more market share, or at least mindshare?...As a long time Apple user, I can say, anecdotally, that I have never once had a conversation with another Apple user regarding how much cooler our computers are than others.

    People who choose to use Macs have always dealt with 'less' options...I don't see how being on the fringe is cool...If anything we have generally felt marginalized -- sure we have steeled our resolve with a belief that we get more done, or that we work more efficiently, but that really just helps to fortify our own conclusions...does that make us 'different'...I could care less...does being 'different' make us 'cool'? Again I could care less.

    It always seems like it is the people who do not use Apple computers who have an obsession with being 'cool' or not. I myself, just continue to do my work on my Macs as I have done for many years now.

    BTW, do you really think Apple users think they are 'cooler' than Linux user think themselves. If you cannot acknowledge that there are vastly more Linux poseurs out there than Apple poseurs, you are fooling yourself. I can support this simply by the fact that Mac users, as lame as you want to see them, by the lowest common denominator, at least run productivity/creativity apps most of the time. Most Linux wanabees just spend their time installing the latest release, do no coding, no produuctivity/creative app work, and then post AC drivel on /. spewing fictitious nonsense about a platform they know nothing about -- and I'm not talking about Apple either...

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
    1. Re:Why is Apple cool?... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      This is a sentiment I have never understood..."Apple is cool, so people only use Apple computers to be cool"...It almost defies logic...If Apple were "cool" why wouldn't they have more market share, or at least mindshare?

      Porsche 911s are cool but most people around here drive Fords. Do you think that defies logic too?

  130. Really really redundant article by zpok · · Score: 1

    The iTunes installer clearly stated this would happen. I repeat, you got a warning in big letters and simple wording that this would happen.

    What the article should have told us:

    1) iTunes is made to support the iPod. You expect Apple to bend over to accomodate the competition - even if it was an ex-partner? There are tons of considerations and technical issues. It would be stupid for them to do it otherwise.
    If you think that's "unfair", look at it this way, iTunes is a free upgrade for iPod owners, if you don't want the upgrade, don't install.

    2) iTunes doesn't disable MusicMatch, it disables syncing only, which is the only logical thing to do (see above).
    iTunes can also "import" all your music with the click of one button, which means you don't really need to use MusicMatch anymore.

    3) If you still wish to use MusicMatch, you're left with two choices:
    - don't install iTunes
    - install iTunes and use musicmatch without iPod syncing.
    And I guess, enjoy buying WMA files in the MusicMatch store.

    Apple is sooo bad, it's a conspiracy. Right.
    Meanwhile try finding a music store for mac users that isn't called iTunes.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  131. Re:Just in, MS Office deletes OpenOffice system fi by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    On what planet does iTunes delete MusicMatch?

    It just stops MM from connecting to the iPod - you can still use MM if you want, or reinstall it to restore the iPod connectiveity (which then breaks the connection with iTunes but you can't have it both ways).

    Also, iTunes warns you that this will happen at the install.

    It's a far cry from deleting software without asking you.

  132. Who uses MMJB anyways? by vonsneerderhooten · · Score: 1

    I use XMMS through Cygwin, I thought all of the 1337 M0F0's used that!

    -D

  133. Didn't Apple write the iPod conduit? by EvanKai · · Score: 1

    I'm confused here. If you bought MusicMatch without an iPod, it didn't support the iPod. The only version with iPod support came with the iPod... from Apple. This leads me to believe it was Apple that wrote the iPod conduit, not MusicMatch.

    MusicMatch would have a legitimate complaint if they had a stand alone product that supported the iPod that Apple's software conflicted with, but that's not what happened.

    Apple wrote a conduit for the iPod and decided to change how that conduit works.

    1. Re:Didn't Apple write the iPod conduit? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      So if you download iTunes and decide you would rather use MusicMatch?

      Did someone forget to tell Apple that it's possible to write software so that it's backwards compatible?

      I don't own an iPod, so I don't know every little detail about how this is happening, but I do know that they have done some things with iTunes and the iPod service that are very much non-standard for Windows applications, and breaking other software tends to look very bad, even if you wrote the functionality that broke yourself. That's sortof why Microsoft is really big on keeping published APIs the same as long as possible, and making announcements when they plan to break them. While Apple may not have published the API that MusicMatch used (because Apple wrote the add-in or whatever), they shouldn't have changed it in such a way that the previous software stopped working even after uninstalling the new software. If you need new interfaces you add them, you don't change the existing ones.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  134. That is not what defines a monopoly... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    This has been gone over many times...Apple is not a monopoly in the way MS is. I don't have the energy to go into this right now, but needless to say, you are mistaken.

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
    1. Re:That is not what defines a monopoly... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      You're right, Apple is not a monopoly in the way MS is, because there are two different types of monopolies. It's just a matter of horizontal vs. vertical. Apple's a monopoly in that they tie their hardware and the software needed to run it. MS is a monopoly in that they tie their software to other software they develop. Either way, for each platform there is only one OS with a vast majority of the market share.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  135. yeah... but you might want to use two different by freejamesbrown · · Score: 1

    online music stores/programs. plenty of them don't have all the coverage. if you want to get all the music you're looking for, you have to be sub'ed to several different services.

    sometimes you buy records and you buy cds and sometimes you listen to tapes.

    until these services standardize on a format, you'd hope they'd at least play nice.
    m.

    1. Re:yeah... but you might want to use two different by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      My point was simply that you can't have drivers from two different applications (iTunes and MusicMatch) for the same device (the iPod) being loaded into the system. If it doen's simply crash the system, it would be quite the show to see which one would gain control of the iPod when its plugged in.

      So IMO it would be bad for Apple not to disable MusicMatch after giving the user fair warning.

  136. Paranoid delusions by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, I've been using Musicmatch and Itunes consistently since Itunes was released, they work flawlessly. The fact that the Ipod won't connect is just bad programming (or reusing drivers... or whatever)

    This needn't be deliberate, In fact a perfect example of this would be Installing Ethereal (in win2k) and then deciding you want to connect to your OpenVPN network. As soon as the fake tap drivers are loaded Ethereal breaks. (Uninstalling both and reinstalling the one you want doesn't work either.) Now just because having them together doesn't work, doesn't mean the author of OpenVPN went and made sure I couldn't enable Ethereal anymore.

    Albeit yes, Itunes and Musicmatch are competing, the formats are different, the contracts with artists are (slightly if only) different. Why would Itunes disable Musicmatch (A piece of software, in my opinion, perfect for proving that Itunes is the best music *store* online.)

  137. Who useses Musicmatch? by joelav22 · · Score: 1

    seriously, who uses that crap? OHH! can I please have some more spyware on my machine!! I really love programs that own your computer on start up, hog resources, bug you for "upgrades" and updates every 5 minutes, and take over file associations without permission. Apple did windows users a great service.

  138. Re:Just in, MS Office deletes OpenOffice system fi by obsid1an · · Score: 1

    I never said it stopped OpenOffice from working. I only said that it stopped it from accessing propietary formats.

  139. Um, yeah by Twon · · Score: 1

    It says this RIGHT IN THE INSTALL WIZARD.

    You did READ the screens, didn't you?

  140. Now if Microsoft had done this..... by groberts65 · · Score: 1

    ... everyone here would be screaming about it and a full scale justice dept. investigation would ensue. Why is it "cool" for Apple to be a monopoly and awful for Microsoft ?

    1. Re:Now if Microsoft had done this..... by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Following your line of reasoning, would you also argue that Epson have a monopoly on producing drivers for Epson printers (if we ignore GIMP Print)?

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  141. Letter to MM... by chaeron · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the email I sent to MM after receiving their whiny "notice" that MM would stop talking to my iPod if I installed iTunes. I did install iTunes....but MM don't work because I shitcanned it. ;-)

    Sirs:

    Hmmm...iTunes is faster at ripping, has better integration with my iPod, has a cleaner, more intuitive interface with less of the glitzy crap that MM comes with. iTunes also starts faster, only uses a single window on my desktop and integrates with Apples music store and proprietary music formats. I also don't use either for playing music on my PC, prefering the QCD player.

    Apple didn't make the choice...I did. I uninstalled MusicMatch and have no intentions to go back to your bloated, cumbersome, slow, unreliable package when iTunes does everything I need and more.

    The only reason I used MM was because it was the only option on a Windows box. Now that iTunes is here....MM is history as far as I am concerned.

    After living with MM for about 6 months, I can truly say that I do "get the best possible experience when managing your MP3 collection and transferring music to your iPod" to quote your words. By using iTunes for Windows.

    Your implication that MM is better than iTunes is both insulting and incorrect based on my experience.

    --
    .....Andrzej

    Chaeron Corporation
  142. Re:TRINITY DIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is she as dead as *BSD?

  143. What this guy said. by sulli · · Score: 1

    It's why I haven't used iTMS yet. On principle I object to Apple or anyone else controlling media I have purchased. So I stick with CDs and MP3s ripped by me for my iPod (which I use daily).

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  144. No on HFS+ by denjin · · Score: 1

    Nope...

    iTunes on Windows cannot read HFS+ iPods. I have one and I know. You can install the PC software, but it will format it to Fat32, unfortunately. Check the support boards on Apple if you want more info (don't have a link on me now).

    Your whole argument is based on an incorrect assumption... I wish people would research before they moderated here.

    1. Re:No on HFS+ by mellon · · Score: 1

      Urk. You're right - I should have looked before I leapt. However, the point is still the same - iTunes has its own way of formatting the iPod, and it would be a major hassle to switch to MusicMatch's way of formatting the iPod - a hassle that would project out into the forseeable future, since then Apple would have to continue to maintain compatibility to MusicMatch's resource formats. My argument is a bit weaker because of my mistake about HFS, but I think it's still essentially correct. Of course, I *would* think that... :')

  145. I thought I'd done something wrong by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    I hated iTunes and returned to MusicMatch straight away. I thought I'd accidentally uninstalled the iPod software rather than iTunes, but all I had to do was re-install the iPod plug-in for MusicMatch to get it working again and in fact an intermittant "service isn't running" error didn't return.

  146. Re:Just in, MS Office deletes OpenOffice system fi by j-turkey · · Score: 1
    Also, iTunes warns you that this will happen at the install.

    I don't remember seeing this warning when I installed iTunes. Have you actually seen this, or is this just what you've read? Was it in the original release?

    --Turkey
    --

    -Turkey

  147. WTF... by z-kungfu · · Score: 1

    .. quit your whining people. For all intensive purposes limiting it to iTunes is part of the DRM that allows these downloads anyway. It's not like there aren't ways around it. And it's the superior product for once that disables the inferior product.
    If you don't like it go use a Rio...

  148. MusicMatch can find an iPod? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think mine managed to successfully detect about 5% of the time. I had to use shit like EphPod before iTunes came around.

  149. Re:Uh oh... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

    I am strongly suspecting that what we see here is the all to tempting "I don't agree with you so I'll mod you down" syndrome. I must admit that I have fallen for it's evil spell in the past myself - but at least I modded down as 'overrated' and not as 'troll'. It is one of the weak points int he moderatorsystem I think...

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  150. Monopolies by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
    You can't "act" like a monopoly. You either are one or not.

    It's not a black/white issue, there are degrees of being a monopoly. The cut and dried idealized monopoly occurs when cost barriers which impede the entry of competition are inifinite. The strongest monopolies in the real world have erected a cost barrier that is "high enough" (though not infinite) to effectively shut out all competition. To say that a company either is or is not a monopoly is to assert that there is a precisely measureable cost barrier to competition above which there is a monopoly, and below which there is none. True monopolies happen by degrees.

    And being a monopoly is not a problem. The problem is if a monopoly abuses it's power.

    Technically true, but not tenable in the real world. First, that is somewhat like saying that granting police the right to search homes without warrants is not a problem, it's when the police abuse that power; examples of unchecked power (market-based or otherwise) that aren't abused are very few and far between. Second, there's the problem of even knowing what abuses have occured; if a company has a market monopoly, who knows how many would-be competitors have decided not to get past the what-if phase of developing their own products, due to the prohibitive nature of the monopoly? These things can be very hard to measure, but the generally harmful nature of a monopoly is not in consequent doubt.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  151. The Questions is ... by mockaman · · Score: 1

    How long before M$ come along and breake iTunes or QT? It seem to me that the bigger the fish the more rights you have.

  152. Re:This was not an accident by gantrep · · Score: 1

    I don't have an iPod, and I don't see why you would want to use one with that bloated piece of shit instead of iTunes, which is beautiful, but I did notice after I installed iTunes there was some new "iPod Service" installed in the services tab under msconfig. I suggest disabling it if anyone has problems.

  153. You wanna talk bad programming??? by jemenake · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Of course this might be a coincidence or bad programming on the Apple side...
    If you want to talk about bad programming, feast on this. When I used to sync my iPod with MusicMatch, it would promptly gobble up about 700MB of ram as it scanned through about 5,000 mp3's.

    I could watch it in the Task Manager's "Performance" tab, as my memory consumption gradually went from about 250MB to 1GB until the sync finished.

    Then I found EphPod, which is better than MusicMatch *or* iTunes....
  154. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a Dell here with no Dell mouse or keyboard, but that may have been IT's doing, since I told them I wasn't getting rid of the keyboard and mouse I already had.

    That is IT's doing. All Dells come with a PS/2 keyboard, and I imagine most IBM, Gateway, Sony, computers do to. So you're shooting your mouth off after you already know that you're wrong. Brilliant.

    If Joe Public bought a computer 3 years ago and is buying a new one to replace it, he certainly does not need a new mouse and keyboard. Of course, he probably doesn't need most of what he's buying, but then he's Joe Public, so unless he knows John Geek next door, he's SOL because he bent over for Jim Dell.

    Unless you're a computer genius like yourself, you obviously don't have the mental capacity to decide your own technology needs.

    In fact, why is it even legal to buy a computer without checking with Painkiller-CE first? He's the first to spew up high quality invective about things he half-understands on Slashdot!

  155. I think you're all missing the point by goldcd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MusicMatch was a completely awful program. I'm reasonably computer literate and I just gave up on it half an hour after buying my iPod and found Ephpod. For my own personal needs, synching correctly filed MP3s with my iPod, Ephpod was perfect and as I don't want yet another 'media centre' is still better than iTunes. iTunes and Ephpod work quite happily together though so I use both. Disabling Musicmatch is boon to all.

  156. But you are still bitching, correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are still pretending you weren't asked.

    Every dumbass hear says,"It did ask you, I understood it."

    You claim, "I'm very smart so this must have confused everyone."

    Everyone replies, "No, what the fck else could it have meant?"

    You reply, "Should I have Known Better? Maybe"

    The ASNWER is MOST DEFINITELY.

    But the question remains: WHY DID YOU PRETEND THAT IT DIDN'T ASK YOU, WHY DID YOU POST FUD THAT YOU KNEW WAS UNTRUE, WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SO SMART?

    1. Re:But you are still bitching, correct? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Uh, what I said was "If I remember correctly, it asked me if I want to reorganize my 'collection'".

      Where exactly was I claiming I wasn't asked? And why has Apple changed the way they do this in the current rev of the software?

      Yeah. Reading comprehension is your friend, indeed. I misunderstood what I read. You didn't even bother to do the reading part.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  157. PLEASE CONTACT APPLE WITH STORE INFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is true as you say that "the copy of Panther...was already opened, and they admitted they'd made copies of it for their own use (store and personal)" Then you should contact Apple directly and report the conduct of this reseller.

  158. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad Bungie started out being a MAC COMPANY, you little cocksucker, and the only reason Halo isn't out for Mac yet is because fucking Microsoft (!!!!) BOUGHT Bungie! Christ, you picked an example that actually fucking PROVES THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S POINT even more! LOL!

  159. copyright holders do not have unlimited power by CoughDropAddict · · Score: 1
    The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be.

    Bullshit and bullshit.

    Copyright holders have a specific set of exclusive rights, among them:
    1. The right to make copies
    2. The right to create derivative works
    3. The right to publicly perform the work

    This is not a complete list, but the point is that there is a specific, enumerated set of what rights copyright holders can deny to other people. They cannot decide "what you can and can't do." If a CD says on the packaging "you can only listen to this CD on Thursdays," you can give it the finger and say "I have legally obtained this CD, there is no law preventing me from listening to this CD whenever I please."

    It's really, really disturbing to that people have this perception that copyright holders have some kind of blank check to institute whatever kind of regulations they want on the use of their works.
    1. Re:copyright holders do not have unlimited power by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      So many responses, so little time.

      Honestly I didnt 'mean to come off that way. I know what rights copyright holders have. The DRM in iTunes barely prevents copying. Derivative works isn't possible to protect in hardware, as someone who can listen can create. Public performance protection isn't easily implemented either.

      My point is iTunes make it a contorted, roundabout way to achieve something. Copying. It can be done, but it's not straightforward. In my eyes that's not a bad thing. Too many people have gotten used to just "taking" what isn't really free, and no matter how great or significan the technology that makes tha possible is, they're still seeing it that way,

      I'm not siding with the strongarm tactics of the RIAA here, either. I understand why they want to do what they want to do, even if they make a life-and-death matter out of that which is not.

      The point is: People copy music illegally. Here is a service which makes the illegal part a pain in the ass, though not impossible. Fair use is maintained. The folks who deserve it are paid (well, kinda, label fees and what have you, but better than straight piracy) , and everyone should be much happier. iTunes is no where near Palladium, and my overall point is that no one should feel controlled by it. It's not that much of a pain in the ass to avoid, and it discourages people from performing illegal actions, which has really become a problem. I've seen with my own two eyes.

      It's not like I want to offer control to OTHER areas, but music piracy has taken off wether you like it or not, and dispite fanatics on both sides, this is honesly a rational solution as far as I'm concerned. I hope you folks can see where I'm comming from.

      No flames or trolling intended, and believe me, I'm much more on your side than I probably sound.

      I forgot just how much I need to revise and watch my wording on Internet discussions, especially Slashdot. My bad.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  160. why would you even need musicmatch? by iLeader · · Score: 1

    Why would one even need MusicMatch if they have iTunes?

  161. Movie studios own the news media by yerricde · · Score: 1

    What is "fighting for my beliefs in the manner described in said Constitution" in an age when motion picture studios own the news media with the biggest reach (Fox News = Fox Pictures, CNN = Warner Bros. Pictures, ABC News = Walt Disney Pictures, CBS News = Paramount Pictures, and soon NBC News = Universal Pictures)?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  162. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Maybe 'lock' is a strong word...So, what exactly so trollish about this guy's comment?...

    You've got the start of the idea there already. Primarily, it was inflammatory.

    Secondarily, it's arguably wrong. But it's hard to even get to the argument when it's stated like it was.

    Perhaps flamebait would have been more accurate. Not that that matters much. (-1, Whatever)

  163. Undo is an inverse transaction by yerricde · · Score: 1

    There has never been an undo option for changes to file locations on the drive.

    There is in Microsoft Windows 2000 Explorer. I can move or copy a file, and when I press Ctrl+Z, Explorer will perform the inverse transaction. Why can't iTunes store the inverse of the file system transactions involved in organizing my audio files and then play back that inverse in response to an Undo command?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by cygnus · · Score: 2, Funny
      There is in Microsoft Windows 2000 Explorer. I can move or copy a file, and when I press Ctrl+Z, Explorer will perform the inverse transaction. Why can't iTunes store the inverse of the file system transactions involved in organizing my audio files and then play back that inverse in response to an Undo command?
      because the obvious opposite of the "Organize" command is "Disorganize," and they can't be asked to spend the time impliment that in a manner tailored to everybody's personal disorganization scheme.

      sheesh! :)

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    2. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Think about it for a second. You move one file (or multiple files at once) hit undo, and it undoes the last move.

      How many moves do you think iTunes does? Between creating a new directory structure, and moving each song to it's new location, what good would an undo do you? Take back the last song it moved?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    3. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by yerricde · · Score: 1

      what good would an undo do you?

      What would prevent iTunes from logging all the hundreds of file moves as one transaction for undo purposes?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    4. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Well, time for one, having to record all the information about where each file was stored, what it's name was etc. It would either eat memory, or create a huge log file. You may only have a hundred files, but there are people with several thousand files. And of course, it would need to keep the log file until you manualy delete it since you may decide after a day that you don't like the new scheme.

      And of course there is the matter of, should it undo the organization if you uninstall? Or should it leave it like that? What happens if you add some new files? Should it remember where those were too?

      Doesn't it seem more sensable to assume your user is intelligent enough to process the question "Do you want iTunes to organize your music?" It stands to reason if you like your current organization scheme, that you would say no.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    5. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by wastaz · · Score: 1

      I reckon this could create really cool buffer overflows when trying to move like 10k mp3's at once :D

    6. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by yerricde · · Score: 1

      It would either eat memory, or create a huge log file.

      Assuming that each pair of paths could be stored in 200 bytes after deflation, a 10,000-move log file could be stored in 2 MB. This is smaller than the stereotypical MP3 file (4 minute recording, 128 kbps).

      should it undo the organization if you uninstall?

      Checkbox, and possibly leave a small (16 KB or so) program behind whose sole purpose is to replay the log file to revert iTunes's reorganization of MP3 files.

      Doesn't it seem more sensable to assume your user is intelligent enough to process the question "Do you want iTunes to organize your music?"

      Given the discussion in threads such as this, no.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    7. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your hard drive isn't big enough to store a 2 MB log file, as yerricde pointed out, your hard drive isn't big enough to store 10,000 MP3s.

    8. Re:Undo is an inverse transaction by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Checkbox, and possibly leave a small (16 KB or so) program behind whose sole purpose is to replay the log file to revert iTunes's reorganization of MP3 files.


      Even better, we can have iTunes leaving programs on your computer after you unintall it. Yeah that will go over real well.

      And you still didn't answer the practical questions about what to do with files you add after the first reorganization etc.

      Given the discussion in threads such as this, no

      The only people I see with this problem are "experienced" users who blindly clicked through the questions without reading and comprehending them. I'm sorry that Apple assumed that you would read a dialouge box before you clicked OK, and I'm sorry that Apple's program did what you told it to do, and I'm sorry that your organization scheme was so complicated you cant take 10 minutes to write a script to automate the reorganization of your files. In the end though, it's still your fault.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  164. MORON! 100%, APPLE IS AT FAULT: by thufir · · Score: 1

    MORON!

    It says COLLECTION, not FILES.

    Unless you are a mac bigot, you might not be familiar with the terms (Collection?!?!) that Apple likes to rename already standardly named things to.

    In this case, it is APPLE's fault for using the MORONIC word COLLECTION instead FILES or FILE AND DIRECTORY STRUCTURE. Using FILES would have made both power and l(that means you) users happy.

    1. Re:MORON! 100%, APPLE IS AT FAULT: by sholden · · Score: 0, Troll

      I realise this is a big call, but you are the dumbest person I have ever read a slashdot post by.

    2. Re:MORON! 100%, APPLE IS AT FAULT: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      !!!!!

      You've been here since, what, 1998? Don't you remember the guy who flamed John Carmack in an article about video cards? For that matter, the jackass who accused me today of being a Microsoft plant is dumber than anyone posting in this thread.

    3. Re:MORON! 100%, APPLE IS AT FAULT: by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      WTF?!?!

      What do you call the mass of MP3 files you own? Everyone that I know and their mother calls it a collection. Likewise, the dialouge box mentions specificaly that no files will be deleted in the preocess. If you are so dumb as to have such a failed command of the english language, perhaps you should return your computer to the store before you hurt yourself.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  165. You can have BOTH by bartenderpho · · Score: 1
    After you install iTunes just reinstall music match and viola both applications will respond when an iPod is plugged in.

    The fun part is getting one of them to stop.

  166. Note from Red Chair... by Buhaina · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read this: Red Chair Software's statement on changes made to the iPod software. According to them, there was no intent to harm and the needed changes can be made by competent programmers.

  167. Yar Yar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IPOD communications protocol:

    Start up control ( Initialization Handshake )
    Before communication starts, the link must be established. This is done by executing the handshake sequence. At this time, the handshake sequence involves the client sending then receiving a "portalplayer" string. The connection is not considered to be established until this sequence happens. Before this sequence occurs, the device will not respond to any commands. If a command is sent that does not conform to the frame format, the connection will close and the handshake sequence must be executed again before the device responds to any commands.

    Line Control
    The application protocol is designed specifically for half duplex communication. This is because the protocol is expected to be used over a USB connection that must conform to the USB Master/Slave specification. Although, the application layer protocol should be relieved of any knowledge about the lower layer protocol(USB), the decision to tailor the application protocol for half duplex makes the design of the lower layers easier.
    Command Packet Format

    Command Identifier Field Command Sub Command Version Data Length Data
    2 Bytes 1 Byte 1 Byte 1 Byte 4 Bytes 0 - 8K Bytes
    Command Identifier Field
    This field is used to specify vendor specific fields. All the base command fields will begin with "PP".
    Command
    The command field is used to categorize the type of command.

    Command Value Command Category
    0x00 State Commands
    0x01 Content (file) Operation Commands
    0x02 Transport (record/playback) Control Commands
    0x03 Parameter Storage Operation Commands
    0x80 Reply to State Commands
    0x81 Reply to Content Operation Commands
    0x82 Reply to Transport Control Commands
    0x83 Reply to Parameter Storage Operation Commands
    Sub Command
    The sub command is used to define a specific command within the command category.
    Version
    This field is used to upgrade specific command/sub command sets.
    Error Control
    This field contains information regarding the errors that occurred when a particular command was sent.
    Data Length
    This field is an unsigned value corresponding to the amount of bytes that are to be expected in the data field. This length does not include the Synch, command, sub command or data length fields.
    Data Field
    This field contains all the relevant information that is formatted according to the command and sub command fields.
    Time Out Control
    At this layer, a timeout should be implemented on each command. Depending on which command is being executed, the response time will vary.
    Error Control
    Each command response in the application layer is expected to have an error field in the first 4 bytes of the data field. This field will be defined and generic to all of the command replies.

    Error Value Error Description
    0x0000 0000 Successful ( no error )
    0x0000 0001 General Error
    0x0000 0002 Command/Sub Command Specific Error, check data field for details
    0x0000 0003 Command not defined
    0x0000 0004 Parameter in command not valid

    Sequence(Flow) Control
    The importance of sequencing at this layer depends on the operation that is being performed. The sequence control will be build into each command as needed to carry out a particular operation. An example of where sequencing is important would be during a down/up loading.
    Addressing
    Currently, there is no mechanism for supporting multiple clients. An addressing scheme may be appropriate for command/reply synchronization to occur between multiple clients. This would be equivalent to a session layer and should be implemented at a lower layer and initialized during the start up(handshaking) phase.
    Command Overview
    The commands included at the time of this document are included in this section. Each command will have a response. The value of the response will be the command value + 0x80.
    State Commands
    Command Iden

  168. Re:Just in, MS Office deletes OpenOffice system fi by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I read it when I installed it.

    It mentioned that installing "would break dependencies of portable music players on their current software" or something like that.

    I wasn't paying much attention since I only installed it so my sister could stream my music on her PC - I use my iPod with my iBook.

  169. Re:Uh oh... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Secondarily, it's arguably wrong. But it's hard to even get to the argument when it's stated like it was."

    Fair enough. Just wish he would have come and responded to my naieve question instead of modding me as a troll as well.

    Lotsa modelling, not enough discussing.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  170. Re:Uh oh... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Modding, not modelling. Sorry, been playing in Lightwave too long today.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  171. ..who live w/ ass Windows shouldn't thro Apples by danieleran · · Score: 1

    Waa, Apple is denying users a choice by giving iTunes exclusive access to your iPod. Or not. Using a sync device from two apps is retarded. You don't want that option if you've ever tried!

    You can't sync your Palm to two sets of databases (not if you don't want everything hosed), or say have two conduits trying to use the same data. On windows, you can't even connect a serial Palm if something else is using your Com port/IRQ.

    Apple is doing the best they can given Window's shitty architecture. The registry, hardware chaos, et all.

    The fact that you can easily uninstall iTunes, and then install whatever else you want to use (free, commercial, whatever), is what makes it different from Internet Explorer blowing away potential rivals.

    What a non issue piece of fluff. Linux users aren't familiar with applications and hardware that work seemlessly from the same vendor. Guess what? Its a good thing.

  172. Post, reply, and my reply by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

    First Poster: See! Apple goes out of its way to destroy competition too.

    Second Poster: Microsoft has 95% mkt share while Apple has less than 5%. This is an okay practice.

    But I think we all know if Apple had the 95% mkt share it would be just as bad or worse considering that they control a lot more of their computer system than Microsoft does. All this does is once again prove that corporations will do just about anything to grab an extra dollar and one of their main tactics is to destroy competition.

    Everyone here agrees that Itunes is the best music service. A lot of people would say the Ipod is the best device. I think we are seeing what happens when Apple gets any kind of power. If Itunes becomes the next Napster will suddenly music downloads go to $1.50, then $2, and then only the Ipod will work with Itunes due to "software upgrades." Whatever the outcome I think everyone agrees that competition rocks and that any destruction of competition hurts the consumer.

  173. What they didn't announce by Daath · · Score: 1

    Was that some people would have to start iTunes just to "eject" the iPod... If I use windows to eject it, the pod crashes/hangs - iTunes ejects it normally - VERY annoying - It's not like that for all people apparently...

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
  174. No, I think you're mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be."

    This is a strange view of copyright. Copyright law was intended to prohibit commercial duplication of books, or other non-tangible works.

    What you're suggesting is that copyrights give rights that trump all others.

    Its the equivalent of saying "I own this piece of property, therefore, I will stop airplanes from flying over it, I will prevent radio waves from traveling past it".

    Of course you wouldn't say this because you recognize that there is no ownership right that is absolute, even with physical property.

    So what's the deal with copyright. Despite appearances, copyright does not imply ownership. That's for two main reasons, first ideas can't be owned, and second copyright is a limited time license allowing the author the right to profit from his work. There are limitations on this right to profit. Fair use is an exception, and a fairly broad exception.

    So in a practical sense if you sell me a CD of your tunes, you can't control how I listen to it. You may wish you could, you can try wacky EULA's, but in the end, I have the right to listen to that CD anyway I want. I can listen in my car, in my boat, I can make a copy to avoid scratching the original, I can rip it to MP3 (or AAC, if you're into Apple stuff), you've sold me the right to listen to your music, but that's all. What I do with that right is up to me, not you.

    This isn't about free music, its about the law, intent of copyrights and common sense.

    Just ripping my CD to MP3 and listening to it on my iPod doesn't make me a criminal, and it shouldn't subject me to wacky lawsuits designed to protect an incumbant monopoly.

    Time to get over it.

  175. f'ing idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bunch of retards. This type of articlue usually gets the 'borg' picture. Don't get it? Then don't bother checking your IQ.

    1. Re:f'ing idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's just great. Make a bunch of spelling mistakes in a post like that. Who's the retard now.

  176. Re:This was not an accident by ricosalomar · · Score: 0

    Ignorant people look at advertising. 1 word privoxy.

  177. Yes.. I realize. by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can make all the excuses you want for why it wasn't that good, including just blaming apple for poorly supporting windows.. but the fact remains..

    It is extremely rare for things in windows to integrate as smoothly as they do on the mac.. WHY isn't important.

    Take something as simple as a mouse.. even when you plug a usb mouse into windows XP the first time, it says "Detected new USB device " " initializing " "Detected HID mouse" "initializing " " starting mouse" or whateve.r. then it works.
    So even though it did't ask for any drivers or anything.. it grinded and flashed several popups of technical info the end user doesn't need...

    When I plugged a usb mouse into my mac, it just worked,within about 1 second. There were no popups or indicators, other than the mouse now controlled the cursor.

    IT's hard to design things to work to the level apple wants in windows, simply because windows is so varied.. you don't know what the user already has, so it's hard to decide what will work smoothly.

    1. Re:Yes.. I realize. by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      You can make all the excuses you want for why it wasn't that good, including just blaming apple for poorly supporting windows.. but the fact remains..

      It is extremely rare for things in windows to integrate as smoothly as they do on the mac.. WHY isn't important.


      Why is very important when the problem is fairly limited to one particular vendor. There are many programs from many developers that work very well in Windows, and there is a lot of hardware that works very well in Windows.

      Take something as simple as a mouse.. even when you plug a usb mouse into windows XP the first time, it says "Detected new USB device " " initializing " "Detected HID mouse" "initializing " " starting mouse" or whateve.r. then it works.
      So even though it did't ask for any drivers or anything.. it grinded and flashed several popups of technical info the end user doesn't need...


      But the user at least knows it's doing something. On the other hand, I generally find that I can usually use the mouse the whole time it's doing this.

      When I plugged a usb mouse into my mac, it just worked,within about 1 second. There were no popups or indicators, other than the mouse now controlled the cursor.

      Like I said, I've found that under Windows I can usually use the mouse while the 'popups' are on the screen. The real difference is whether or not the OS informs the user of what it's doing. At best, Microsoft just needs to make the information on the screen more useful to the average user.

      IT's hard to design things to work to the level apple wants in windows, simply because windows is so varied.. you don't know what the user already has, so it's hard to decide what will work smoothly.

      You start with the assumption that the user has nothing but the base OS, and then once your software is working, you test assuming the user has all kinds of crap on their system. Other people have done this already. I spend a good amount of my day writing software in this environment. Apple even took the additional step of limiting their software to 2k and XP, and still went in directions with their software that caused problems for users and were not required.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  178. help me! by cookiepus · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if Apple's anti-competitive practices are behind my Creative Nomad Jukebox not turning on after I got it soaked?

  179. That's kinda my point... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    I agree Porsches are cool. While it is not a good example of market share, it is a good example of mindshare -- Ford owners don't usually criticize Porsche owners for driving Porsches -- I really don't want to equate Macs with Porsches BTW, it opens up a new can of worms -- Ford owners for the most part probably respect Porsche vehicles.

    The point is, as a previous Porsche owner, I didn't buy mine because it was cool. I bought it because I felt it was the best car on the road for my needs/desires. There were cars that were more expensive and less expensive. Ones that were faster per dollar and slower per dollar. No one ever accused me of trying to be cool, or aligning myself with a cool brand.

    More to the point, I think most Linux users are like Ford owners who have read about Saleen/Shelby models...have memorized the specs, but have never driven the car if you know what I mean. They like to align themselves with the Shelbys(the coders, the kernel hackers) but in fact couldn't tell you if Linux is monolithic or a microkernel...then they come here and start holy wars between people whose interests and passions are closer to each other than they are far.

    P.S. thanks for the thoughtful response.

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
  180. Re:Uh oh... by Starship+Trooper · · Score: 1

    Um, Cocoa (nee OpenStep) is an open standard too.

    --
    Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
  181. Re:The Age Old Solution... by flagweb · · Score: 1

    Hey Moofie,
    There is one easy solution to this problem.
    BACKUP your files!

    I have multiple copies of my music files. It is the only way to go. The main copy is the working file. This is the one I organize. The second copy is on an external hard drive (dedicated to music files only). I copy the working copy to the backup when ever I have done major work on the master file (add, rename, delete, etc.). I also bring the backup copy to work w/ me every once a while. Where I borrow some of my employers hard drive space (they will never know or care) for a third off-site backup.

    Any time that iTunes did something disruptive to the working file I just over wrote it from my backup copy.

    As an avid user of iTunes/iPod, (They have been my entire music/stereo system for several years) this has been invaluable. There have been at least 7 would be fatal action over the course of this time. They ranged from entire loss of the working file to just loosing rating type information. To be fair, some were caused by pilot error, others by iTunes preference changes. But regardless, they all were recoverable because of the extra copies. Because my entire collection is now converted to digital, I would have lost my whole music life, had I not backed-up regularly.

    Now Moofie, as a very experienced computer user should know...
    "If it is Important to you... ...Back it up, and back it up often."

    --
    Ernie Dambach
    "It is no small thing to celebrate a simple life -Tolkien
  182. Marketing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marketing.

    And that's all it comes down to. Apple have managed to create positive spin by presenting themselves as an alternative to the "evil empire". If those who derided Microsoft so much actually *used* Microsoft software, they would realise that it's not too shabby... it actually works well 99% of the time and you'd save a bundle on decent hardware.

    You have to remember, Apple traditionally markets themselves to people who don't know much about computers. Any computer is going to be a wonder box to somebody who doesn't know how it all works. And when Apple dumbs things down to cater to the technologically inept, they're going to get a positive word of mouth.

    Linux is the opposite. I agree with your sentiment about Linux poseurs though. Kids cutting their teeth on installing a new OS.. even if they end up not being able to do anything with it. I keep myself up to date with FreeBSD every now and then. KDE still has bugs that make using Windows a better option for somebody like myself with limited spare time - but someday, I promise myself, I will make the switch full time on my desktop at home.

    PS: I thought Apple desktop share was at 3%, whereas Linux was at 1%?

  183. Anyway MM is crap!! by DrBungalow · · Score: 1

    Finally good news! MMJukebox is one of the worst programs i have ever seen! If you don't believe me check the user comments on download.com.
    I bought an iPod (I have a windows box) and was totally frustrated with MM: slow, bloated, buggish! Almost as bad as RealOne! I tried the trial versions of XPlay and EphPod, and they were quite better. Now I'm very happy with iTunes.

  184. Specious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    DRM is not evil if it is applied in the crrect manner. Just like laws which prevent you from stealing, killing and raping are not inherrently evil, provided they are applied in the correct manner.
    Laws against theft, murder, and rape do not render anyone less capable of those acts; more importantly, they do not proscribe charity, self-defense, or consensual sex. Digital restrictions do pose a real barrier to access and cannot discern whether that access is legitimate.
    1. Re:Specious by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      All right, then how about fences that keep you out of private property, security filters that make it difficult for you to read a screen in an office building unless you are directly in front of a computer, and barricades that prevent you from driving over the median and on to the other side of the road?

      Are these inherrently evil? They render you less capable of taking the intended action, but they can't dicern whether you have a legitimate reason to be preforming that action.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:Specious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your alalogy is only correct *if* the scenario is that YOU put the fence round *my* property.

      Can I fence YOU in?

    3. Re:Specious by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. If you and I are neighbors, I can put a fence up on the dividing line between our respective properties. Such is the same with the music and DRM. The DRM must be placed at the boundry between your property (the music file and it's contents) and their property (the music and the rights to distribute). For the most part, it seems Apple's DRM is on that boundry. The fact that if you created a program to remove the DRM to play it on your linux box is a violation of the DMCA is an issue with the DMCA and not with DRM specificaly.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  185. This is another misconception I never got... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    "You have to remember, Apple traditionally markets themselves to people who don't know much about computers."

    I have never understood the logical assumption that gets to that thought...Apple might make the things we need to do on computers simpler, but that does not therefore mean the users of Apple computers are simple themselves...please no trolls...my point is that simplifying the complex things is generally a 'good thing'. There is no point in doing things the hard way just for sake of doing them the hard way -- and I don't mean new and different difficult things, but rather the previously charted territory-type things -- set-up, consistency of use, configuration of new hard and software...

    I don't think Apple has ever targeted grandmas and newbies...I think they targeted people who wanted their computer to get out of the way when they want to get work done. I love that Linux exists. I would rather chew off my foot than use it on a day to day basis. I don't have a personal jihad against MS...I would rather chew off my foot than use any MS products on a day to day basis...Not for reasons of philosophy, but because I find their products to be consistenly troublesome. Also, I don't use spreadsheets and I don't work with .doc files(RTF baby:))

    I just set up my grandfather(a writer & a very computer literate PC-guy for many years) on a new 17" powerbook -- ridding him of the laptops and towers he had that had always plagued him with problems -- if one of his printers wasn't working, then it was his Clie. If it wasn't his Clie, it was Windows itself. Thankfully I did not have to support his previous system -- that was the job of my PC-championing uncle. Needless to say, my G-father, after having watched me for years on my Macs, was floored at how well his new system worked -- an HP all-in-one unit that never worked properly, worked instantly...his screenwriting software was cross-platform and looked and worked better than ever. I set him up with Word(blech) and it too looked better and worked better than ever.

    Again, I feel there is a difference between choosing a system that simplifies the commonly difficult things and one that keeps the commonly difficult things difficult...

    Also, "Marketing" is most definitely the provenence of MS. While Apple may have 'saucier' marketing, MS absolutely relies on Marketing and spin to keep itself where it is. Why else would new users by percentage, choose MS products if they weren't presented as 'easier to use' -- Most Apple user I know are vastly more technically adept than the PC users I know -- if for no other reason than that there are so many PC users and they could not possibly all be savvy.

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
  186. Thank you... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    Dear Anonymous Coward,

    Thank you for your kind response regarding my post. As you can imagine, I receive so many positive responses regarding my posts, that I cannot possibly reply to them all. But once again, thank you for your kind remarks regarding my post.

    Sincerely,

    ErnstKompressor

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
  187. Oh, goody. by Millennium · · Score: 1

    If this is in fact intentional on Apple's part, then it is very much Not Cool. Competition is good, deliberately breaking a competitor's product is not.

    However, given Apple's abysmal QA as of late, I can't deny the possibility that this is just another supremely-idiotic bug that somehow slipped through.

  188. Google? by Giggle+Stick · · Score: 1

    What is this 'Google' you speak of?

  189. Have you ever used MusicMatch to sync an iPod? by Polaris · · Score: 1

    If you had you would know the answer to this. MusicMatch told me my iPod was "full" after loading about 100 songs. When adding a directory of songs to the library it doesn't check whether any of the songs are already in the library, it simply adds them all again. Making a playlist is a royal pain in the butt compared with iTunes. Apple doesn't need to force people to use iTunes. (And it doesn't anyway: as a previous poster pointed out, disabling access to the iPod by MusicMatch is logical to prevent the chaos caused by two programs independently syncing one iPod.)

  190. How is it different from patents? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Devil's advocate:

    There are obviously plenty of examples of such things (play the files on Linux machines without having to go through the bother...

    The fair use defenses to copying of sound recordings, as defined in 17 USC 107 and 17 USC 1008, does not guarantee a lack of "bother."

    ... of burning, reripping, setting all the id3s manually)

    Why would it have to be manual? Couldn't a Windows program automate making 74-minute playlists of purchased tracks, telling iTunes to burn tracks to CD-RW, and then running CD audio extraction?

    My point is that one should not run software that does not act in ones own interest.

    Then choose not to run iTunes Music Store.

    There is a simple way to see whether software is acting in your interest: _could_ it be implemented as open source on normal hardware.

    Do you claim that programs that perform one-click ordering, LZW compression in Europe and Canada, MP3 compression, and accurate transformations to output devices' color spaces, and other patented algorithms do not act in the user's interest? Free software implementing those algorithms would violate subsisting patents on those algorithms, making them just as unlawful to distribute as DeCSS or any other DRM-breaking program. Even if there were no DMCA, and even if iTunes used no DRM, it would still be unlawful to write an AAC decoder and publish it as free software because AAC is patented.

    But you people are so busy trying to convince yourself that this DRM somehow isn't DRM because the rules are less bad.

    I agree that iTunes fits the definition of digital restrictions management, but the rules it implements are so thin that they do not get in the way of fair use.

    Like people arguing that a dictatorship isn't a dictatorship because the dictator is a nice guy.

    Have you shown that near-absolute rule always produces violations of human rights? If a dictator does a good job, then she's still a dictator, and the government is a dictatorship, but it's not a tyranny.

    The encryption keys and algorithms used on the m4p files [are secrets].

    Analogy: The algorithms used for branch prediction in the Pentium 4 processor are secrets as well, but I haven't read any complaints about them on Slashdot.

    My point is that eventually they will not have a choice. For "security reasons."

    Does the Congress have the right to roadblock free speech in such a way?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:How is it different from patents? by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      The fair use defenses to copying of sound recordings, as defined in 17 USC 107 and 17 USC 1008, does not guarantee a lack of "bother."

      If you are going to throw around law codes so as to pretend you understand them, you could at least make an effort. You asked for an example of something legal that iTunes overtly and purposefully restricts you from doing, and I gave it. I never claimed that any law "guaranteed" my right to do anything: if iTunes wanted to never play any music at all, that would be perfectly legal as well, you know.

      Why would it have to be manual? Couldn't a Windows program automate making 74-minute playlists of purchased tracks, telling iTunes to burn tracks to CD-RW, and then running CD audio extraction?

      Why couldn't a windows program simply crack iTunes and figure out how to remove the encryption from m4p files without changing anything else.

      Oh yes. Now I remember: Because the author of the program, and potentially anybody who ran it, would get in legal trouble for the audacity of telling their computers to do what they want them to do rather than what Apple does.

      Do you claim that programs that perform one-click ordering, LZW compression in Europe and Canada, MP3 compression, and accurate transformations to output devices' color spaces, and other patented algorithms do not act in the user's interest? Free software implementing those algorithms would violate subsisting patents on those algorithms, making them just as unlawful to distribute as DeCSS or any other DRM-breaking program. Even if there were no DMCA, and even if iTunes used no DRM, it would still be unlawful to write an AAC decoder and publish it as free software because AAC is patented.

      Whether an algorithm is patented has absolutely nothing to do with whether a program using it can be implemented as open source. It might affect what license can legally be used to distribute the software, but my point had absolutely nothing to do with licenses.

      I agree that iTunes fits the definition of digital restrictions management, but the rules it implements are so thin that they do not get in the way of fair use.

      This isn't about fair use: I never even used the word. This about whether we should be subject to the authority of our computers, or they should be subject to our authority. ITMS users have decided on the former, and should at least stop lying to themselves and others about it.

      Does the Congress have the right to roadblock free speech in such a way?

      (a) Government need not enter the picture. When all Microsoft and Apple operating systems will not talk to computers that serve their users, and most ISPs will not let others connect to the Internet.

      (b) Yes.

    2. Re:How is it different from patents? by yerricde · · Score: 1

      You asked for an example of something legal that iTunes overtly and purposefully restricts you from doing, and I gave it.

      I agree that there are restrictions. Here's another restriction: The Pentium 4 processor doesn't let a program access the processor's microcode directly. And here's a similar example: iTunes prohibits the user from buying music unless the user owns his own computer. But what problems does iTunes Music Store introduce that burning purchased tracks to a CD doesn't solve, other than for those few iTMS customers without a CD burner (which the System Requirements recommend)?

      Whether an algorithm is patented has absolutely nothing to do with whether a program using it can be implemented as open source. It might affect what license can legally be used to distribute the software

      The owners of the patents on the algorithms I mentioned have maintained emphatically that they are not willing to license the algorithms royalty-free. Royalty-free licensing is one of the requirements for OSI Certified(tm) open source software.

      This isn't about fair use: I never even used the word.

      Most DRM opponents claim that DRM is bad primarily because DRM gets in the way of fair use.

      ITMS users have decided on the former

      You seem to have implied throughout this discussion that choosing to ignore iTMS entirely is not an option.

      When all Microsoft and Apple operating systems will not talk to computers that serve their users

      For one thing, Microsoft has maintained that Palladium will be optional. For another, in the case you conjecture, such operating systems won't be able to talk to Yahoo!, whose servers run FreeBSD.

      and most ISPs will not let others connect to the Internet.

      Universities started the Internet. I know of no university that doesn't have at least one POSIX conforming machine used as a public server. Besides, what law prohibits private citizens from setting up their own parallel Internet?

      Yes[, the Congress has the right to roadblock free speech in such a way].

      How, specifically, would a ban on computing devices that serve the user pass judicial "strict scrutiny"? During the CBDTPA debate, the Federal Trade Commission (which administers most of the Commerce Clause regulations) stated that it didn't want to get involved with copyright issues.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    3. Re:How is it different from patents? by Hobbex · · Score: 1

      I agree that there are restrictions. Here's another restriction: The Pentium 4 processor doesn't let a program access the processor's microcode directly. And here's a similar example: iTunes prohibits the user from buying music unless the user owns his own computer.

      That the Pentium 4's internals are hidden is no different the situation with any closed software. One can argue about whether that is good or not, but it is hardly relevant to this discussion. The point is that nothing in current x386 instruction set to implement control over the user. It would be conceptually possible to have a processor just like the Pentium 4 that was completely open and could be changed by anyone.

      When/if Intel implement the Palladium and TCPA in their processors this will change: the remote attestation features of these technologies essentially depend on the chips being closed and tamper-resitant. Remote attestation could never be implemented by an open chip, since the whole point with the technology is that the user and owner cannot control the response. Just like the DRM in iTunes. I have a very hard understanding how you can fail to grasp the conceptual difference here.

      I don't understand what you mean by the second part at all.

      The owners of the patents on the algorithms I mentioned have maintained emphatically that they are not willing to license the algorithms royalty-free. Royalty-free licensing is one of the requirements for OSI Certified(tm) open source software.

      Like I said, I was not talking about licensing or distribution. I was talking about open source, as in the source code is available, so users can create modified versions. The source code for PGP was available from the begining, even though the algorithms it used were patented and could not be used in software with OSI or whatnot licenses.

      Since PGP acts only to enable it's user, there is no conceptual problem with the users having access to the source code. Since iTunes acts to restrict it's users, there is.

      Most DRM opponents claim that DRM is bad primarily because DRM gets in the way of fair use.

      DRM is bad _fundamentally_ because our communication devices should not be instruments of control. All practical concerns are secondary.

      You seem to have implied throughout this discussion that choosing to ignore iTMS entirely is not an option.

      Not using iTMS is, of course, an option. Saying loud and clear that we reject the concept on which DRM is based is an option. Thinking that the meme of the user hostile computer is going to go away by itself is naive.

  191. Too many trivial alerts by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Even better, we can have iTunes leaving programs on your computer after you unintall it.

    OK, I admit that was a bad suggestion. Replace it with recognizing that Windows users typically understand that an "uninstall" function cannot be undone and that such feature would be a checkbox: "Do you want to undo all reorganizations that iTunes has made to your audio files?"

    And you still didn't answer the practical questions about what to do with files you add after the first reorganization etc.

    Add those to the log file.

    I'm sorry that Apple assumed that you would read a dialouge box before you clicked OK

    Easy. Microsoft Windows and popular Windows applications display more trivial "Are you sure?" alerts than Mac OS apps do, giving Windows users a more ingrained "just click OK" reflex. For example, Windows asks for confirmation both for "move file to trash" (Delete) and for "empty trash" (right-click recycle bin and choose Empty), while Mac OS skips the confirmation for "move file to trash" (Cmd+Backspace) and gives useful information (namely the total amount of disk space that trashed items take up, in addition to the number of items that Windows displays) in the "empty trash" alert.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Too many trivial alerts by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      such feature would be a checkbox: "Do you want to undo all reorganizations that iTunes has made to your audio files?"

      But then aren't you again relying on the user to read a dialouge box? I thought we already established this was a bad idea. After all, you'd wind up in the situation where someone wouldn't read the box, and depending on what the default set they would bitch either that iTunes left it that way when they uninstalled, or it moved everything on them again when they uninstalled. You really can't make everyone happy.

      Easy. Microsoft Windows and popular Windows applications display more trivial "Are you sure?" alerts than Mac OS apps do, giving Windows users a more ingrained "just click OK" reflex. For example, Windows asks for confirmation both for "move file to trash" (Delete) and for "empty trash" (right-click recycle bin and choose Empty), while Mac OS skips the confirmation for "move file to trash" (Cmd+Backspace) and gives useful information (namely the total amount of disk space that trashed items take up, in addition to the number of items that Windows displays) in the "empty trash" alert.


      And Apple learned that lesson the hard way. As such, all versions of iTunes now come with the option to reorganize the music unchecked in teh dialouge by default. Consider all of this a free lesson in proper computer usage.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  192. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then where's the influx of Mac-originated applications quickly and easily ported over to Linux? From what I see, it's a one-way street. Prove me wrong, please.

  193. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, Apple uses software modems as well, at least in the TiBook, which is what I have.

  194. let me requote by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

    So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them.

    Now if he said, "so many codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them," I could mabey see some sarcasm in the statement. Even then though, it would be untrue, as it plays MP3, AAC, WAV, and AIFF. I think there is a plug-in by the Vorbis team to support OGG, though I have not tried it myself.

    I suggest you read the great grandparent and then witness the utter lack of sarcasm.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  195. Hard links! by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    Yeah, no undo is really obnoxious.

    Keeping your tunes organized in more than one way is one of the few good uses of hard links. All you have to do is hard-link all your mp3s into one directory, then import and organize that directory. Of course, this won't work on a Windows box...

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    1. Re:Hard links! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'll be sure to remember that when iTunes for Linux ships. Oh wait. : )

      No, that'd be a good idea for a smart BSD geek to implement on his Mac.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  196. Have the program read it aloud by yerricde · · Score: 1

    But then aren't you again relying on the user to read a dialouge box?

    Apple's iTunes is an audio player. It could come with a low-bitrate recording of a person reading the text "Do you want to move your audio files back to where they were before you installed iTunes?" (:06, 24 KBytes at 32 kbps) and pause the uninstaller until iTunes has finished reading the text aloud.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Have the program read it aloud by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      That's just getting obnoxious now. and in all, it's more complicated and convoluted than just making the user take responsibility for their own system. I swear, for a group of people that used to bitch about how macs sucked because they did everything for you and didn't let you have control, you people sure don't want to do anything yourselves.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  197. Not *that* long by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    "It took Apple *how long* to get a fully preemptive operating system with protected memory?"

    Well, AUX was around in early nineties, so not really that long. Remember that Apple also had to switch from the 680x0 chips to PPC, and that took a lot of effort.

    And frankly, Microsoft didn't really accomplish the feat of marrying a decent UI to fully premptive/protected memory until Windows 2000. I suppose you could argue Windows 95 met that criteria, but it was not terribly stable. And you could argue Windows NT 3.5 Workstation met that criteria, but the interface was pretty horrible (win3.1), and it lacked compatibility with most hardware and Win16 software.

    So Microsoft can't boat about their track record either.

    Now to be clear, Mac OS 9 was pretty awful IMHO, but with OS X, Apple really has a home run. Its really good, is very stable, and about the only complaint you could make is that it runs marginally on the G3 chip.

    But as much you want to dislike apple, they write really outstanding software for the most part. And their hardware is quite striking.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  198. Your principles get violated all the time, right? by ianscot · · Score: 1
    I have no desire at all to read comic books - yet if somebody decided that I could never read comic books I would still be angry.

    Thankfully the iTMS's restrictions aren't anything like as aggressive as this analogy makes out. The DRM in iTUNES is more like "You can let as many friends as you want to read this comic book, but you can't use a color photocopier to make copies of the comic which you then sell (or give away for free) in a kiosk at the mall."

    ...this just sounds like the typical antics of closed software programs...

    No flame intended, but "typical antics" would be a pretty good description of the position that we should accept NO restrictions whatsoever on our use and re-use of copyrighted materials -- because we own the computers, or the paper, on which they reside. I'm not allowed to perform an author's plays without paying a royalty. Nor am I allowed to distribute copies of the script to 15,000 of my friends. Nor can you distribute free copies of Duke Nuke 'Em Forever -- not even if you bought the first copy. The iTunes store has found a nice little common ground that's basically not odious to anyone -- barring you. You see *any* compromise as inherently vitiating and therefore negating your principles. I'm all for free speech, I give to the ACLU for Crissakes, but there are genuine limits to that right. Old, old discussion you might want to have with any law student.

    Hey, I'm nobody's prude on this; I've done my p2p thing, still will in a pinch, and had no especial moral qualms about it. But seeing your objections to this pretty well-thought-out service makes me shudder. It'd be spiffy if bands and music labels were to voluntarily adopt a new business model based on free software's -- but you know, it would need to be, um, voluntary. If you concentrated on showing them the benefits, you might stand a ghost of a chance of convincing someone who isn't a free software convert already.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  199. Re:Your principles get violated all the time, righ by Hobbex · · Score: 1

    No flame intended, but "typical antics" would be a pretty good description of the position that we should accept NO restrictions whatsoever on our use and re-use of copyrighted materials -- because we own the computers, or the paper, on which they reside. I'm not allowed to perform an author's plays without paying a royalty. Nor am I allowed to distribute copies of the script to 15,000 of my friends. Nor can you distribute free copies of Duke Nuke 'Em Forever -- not even if you bought the first copy. The iTunes store has found a nice little common ground that's basically not odious to anyone -- barring you. You see *any* compromise as inherently vitiating and therefore negating your principles. I'm all for free speech, I give to the ACLU for Crissakes, but there are genuine limits to that right. Old, old discussion you might want to have with any law student.

    Why is the difference between there being restrictions on what we can do with copyrighted material, and having our own computers enforce those restrictions so difficult to understand?

    I have said nothing - not a word - in this discussion regarding copyright law. It is completely beside the point how strict the legal restrictions on what we can do with copyrighted material are or should be: what matters is that our computers should not be the ones enforcing those restrictions.

    COMMUNICATION DEVICES SHOULD NOT BE INSTRUMENTS OF CONTROL. This stands on it's own, completely independent of whether there is strong copyright law or not, or whether the control they excert in their current form can be considered fair.

    (If you don't mind, could you respond to this and explain to me what it is about what I am saying that makes it so impossible to grasp. Because everybody keeps responding about copyright law, fair use, whether ITMS is nice or not, etc etc, when I have not even mentioned these things. My only - only - argument is that with ITMS you accept that your own computer controls and restricts your access to information, and that that idea, which is the same as the idea behind Palladium, is fundamentally wrong. Why do you feel that discussions on what constitutes fair copyright law enter into this?)

  200. serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they could have just written a music player that doesn't SUCKASS, and then apple probably wouldn't care

    seriously, musicmatch is a total chunk of dung

  201. On informing the user. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Interesting point.. but let me say, why exactly does the user need to know that the OS just installed and activated a bunch fo meta devices to get the USB mouse to work? Sure, some geek might like to know that a new internal driver was now in use.. but joe average just wants his mouse to work. I do NOT need to konw five facts along the way.
    As you said, you plug it in, it works.. that's all you should need to know. Whether or not some mysterious thing called a "driver" was involved isn't something you need to know, especially if it was included.

    I'm sure apple has a hidden agenda, making windows look bad.. but then, it's not hard.

  202. When is the govt. going to setp in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly iTubes has a monopoly on the music download market, and Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by diabling alternative instead of allowing them to coexist. Furthermore, they don't support WMA, which is clearly an attempt further their monopoly on mp3 player sales. People would probably agre with the above bs if MS was doing it.

  203. Re:This was not an accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This person is lying his/her ass off. iTunes 'breaks' MusicMatch because no one had time, nor cared, to make sure it didn't. You wouldn't believe how many iPod users cry about the POS MusicMatch is (see ipodlounge.com). It was a blessing that Apple let it go.