Slashdot Mirror
iTunes 4.2 and QuickTime 6.5
usr122122121 writes "iTunes 4.2 and QuickTime 6.5 were released today, available by Apple's Site and Software Update (respectively)."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I wonder...could they have fixed the hack that Mr. Johanson made? Even on the windows version?
Just a thought...
Any news on a Linux client yet for QT?
If you're going to post release notices on /. there either needs to be compelling new features (which should appear in the /. article) or it needs to be the reslease of Duke Nukem Forever.
any plans of a Linux version of iTunes? Since Mac OS X kernel is BSD, I guess porting to Linux wouldn't be that hard.
This is kinda like saying it would not be hard to port Internet Explorer to DOS. There are a number of problems with porting iTunes to Linux, mainly:
Granted, iTunes was successfully ported to an OS that has no real UNIX underpinnings in common with OS X (Windows), but the fact that QuickTime already existed in a mature state for that platform eased things a great deal I'm sure. It's not impossible, but there is little incentive for Apple to put the rather gargantuan effort required into porting iTunes Linux.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Non-unix based ?
Do you know what Mac OS X is ? It is a Window manager running on top of an open source OpenBSD dialect called Darwin. See www.opendarwin.org.
If Mac OS X is not unix, neither are OpenBSD and Linux.
If we are going to keep up with every point release of apache, bsd, linux kernel, etc.. we might as well start keeping track of point release updates of quicktime and itunes as well..
any plans of a Linux version of iTunes? Since Mac OS X kernel is BSD, I guess porting to Linux wouldn't be that hard.
I kind of doubt it.
They *could* do it - but probably won't for marketing reasons.
Apple makes it's money selling Apple hardware - if in their eyes they think that there are a few Linux users that will buy an Apple just to have Quicktime, iTunes, iMovie etc - then they'll just refuse.
Apple has to have a Windows version of Quicktime - othewise the movie studios woulden't bother trying to use Quicktime for Apple's 8% market share.
Apple make itunes for Windows to expose Windows users to the iPod and to the Apple "expeience" - they're hoping to get some coverts. "This iTunes is pretty cool - I really would like a whole computer that behaves this nicley, instead of all this windows crap."
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Same reason every tiny (.z) point release of Linux is front page news here - because the Geek Collective has deemed it cool.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but it definitely isn't "stuff that matters".
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I've been reading on some other forums that the new Panther update is increasing the battery life of iBooks and Powerbooks by about an hour. That, right there, is Apple's ability to control its hardware and software together.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
You've basically summed up why a lot of good commercial software doesn't exists for linux. Photoshop anyone? This isn't meant to be a troll, but he makes the point that companies want to release closed source software without jumping through hurdles. However, this is not an attack on Linux, but more so on the distros for not agreeing on standards. Make standards, then compete. This is why people hate internet explorer so much, it broke away from standards and tried to make the www a microsoft application.
But I'm not trying to be negative, things are improving...
The Quicktime ***PLAYER*** won't allow it to play in fullscreen. Its a minor annoyance, one that doesn't bother anyone, and is designed to allow the much beleagered (did I get it right) and always on the verge of bankruptcy company to collect cash so Microsoft won't have to 'bail them out' again. I think I summed up all the generally Apple conspiracies :-)
But, with a simple legal download, one that doesn't require a crack, one can get another media player that runs pretty much as yet another quicktime skin, and you can get fullscreen for free. I'm surprised your brother decided he had to break a licensing agreement to get this.
I on the other hand, felt $29 was a steal for QTPro and picked it up without giving it a second thought.
Could we tack on the end of these little iTunes stories that no Linux version is available still? Thanks.
Why should we do that when you're doing such a good job?
The kernel (Mach, in Mac OS X's case) doesn't matter much to a media player. Obviously things like hardware support and i/o latency make a difference, but more or less any modern OS will support something that supports MP3 playing. It probably wasn't a matter of a quick recompile, but iTunes works fine on Windows, which has a completely different hardware and low-level software architecture.
What makes the difference here is having a media architecture. iTunes floats on QuickTime, which Apple trusts to work really well with various audio codecs (and their DRM schemes). Besides that, it's (")just(") some GUI, network, security, and disc-burning code. QuickTime is the central issue here; Apple would not make iTunes for mpg123/ALSA/whatever.
But if you're asking "Why haven't they ported QuickTime to Linux yet?", I agree. I suppose they might be thinking like this:
In other words, they have to port to Windows if they want it to survive at all. But they're the powerful ones in comparison to Linux, and they can just try to borg its users.
Disclaimers: (1) this is pure speculation, (2) I use Mac OS X considerably more than Linux these days, and (3) I'm feeding a troll.
Linux arguably has a larger installed base of desktop users than Apple
Highly doubtful. And even if this *was* the case, due to the fact that Mac OS X comes with iTunes, the majority of Mac users also use iTunes. If a Linux version were to be released, there's no reason for us to believe, apart from possibly facilitating uploading to an iPod, that even a fraction of Linux users would choose iTunes.
I hardly think it's the case that Apple "supports" Windows. I think it's more like Apple is trying to make its product (the iPod) available to as large an audience as possible in as convenient a fashion as they can manage, and seeing as the majority of computer users are Windows users, this seems like a sound marketing strategy to me.
I've come to the conclusion that due to the diversity of Linux (which is one of its so called strengths), in terms of things like GUIs, DEs, distros, etc..., the lack of standardization makes it virtually impossible for a company to provide a product, along with support, for Linux users. There's just too many inconsistencies from one distro and desktop to the next. And I think it's likely that even if Apple did release a version of iTunes that relied on, say, Qt, then you'd hear griping from the GTK+ community as to why Apple didn't support GTK+.
Personally, I'd highly recommend your next computer being a Mac running OS X. I'm typing this from my new PowerBook (which I've had for about a week now) and I'm loving it. I used to be a Linux advocate, but with the release of OS X, I'm not looking back (well, except for servers). My opinion is that Mac OS X is not without its faults, but it has far fewer faults than Linux or Windows... and it's just such a relief to play with applications that are usable and have been designed with the intention of being usable, unlike nightmares like the GIMP (powerful, but impossible for an amateur to accomplish the simplest tasks as I can attest to) or the KDE control panel (the most convoluted thing I've ever seen in my life).
Performance improvements are a serious thing, though. I seem to remember the main gripe when iTunes for Windows was first released was mediocre-at-best performance.
How big are the performance improvements, has anyone gotten the chance to try this under windows?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Resist your fondness for shiny objects and don't install updates the instant they come out. Wait a few hours, or even days, then install. That way you can install them all at once.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Mmm, but iTunes is mainly used to buy music online, not to play music, QuickTime maybe used to preview music, but I think they can use Linux OSS or something similar, or just give the user the preview file to play using MPlayer or Xine, so I think QuickTime isn't that important in porting iTunes.
If you're only speaking in terms of what it does that can't already be done well by something else in Linux, then yes, iTunes mainly is just for buying stuff from the iTMS. However, the way that's worded, it sounds more like a comment on what people who use iTunes use it for. People who use it, in my experience, do not use it primarily to buy things. It's been the primary MP3 player/organizer on the Mac for most people for years now (probably since SoundJam was discontinued), kind of like how everyone uses WinAmp on Windows, but with a less profoundly odd interface (which is a whole different story...don't get me started on using ZXCVB for play/stop/ff/rw/etc. or how unintuitive that is).
If it were to be ported, I don't see Apple just porting the store and not the rest of the features iTunes has. From what I've seen, they seem to want to keep everything together in products like that, because the presentation and the total package are a vital part of their image.
The point of iTunes isn't to buy music, it's to have a completely integrated music experience where everything is handled in a simple, streamlined way with a consistent interface. The only single missing feature from other software is the iTMS, but passing files between different apps in Linux to accomplish the same thing isn't the "Apple way". In iTunes, you can seamlessly buy songs from the iTMS, have them automatically added to your master playlist and your music folder, create a new playlist of songs (even automatically based on criteria you specify, if you want), then burn it to a CD and have it all synced to your iPod, with maybe a dozen mouse clicks, all in the same familiar interface, pretty much straight out of the box.
So no, it probably wouldn't be that hard to just port the iTMS frontend itself and write something to handle the AAC files (with their minimal DRM...I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to play normal AAC files already), but that just isn't how Apple works. If you don't get the full experience of it, where's the incentive to go out and buy their products in the future? There won't be Linux iTunes unless they can use it to entice enough people to use OS X on Apple hardware to make the cost of porting the full app worth it.
Hmmm.
Linux DOES probably have more machines on its side. However, that's not necessarily relevant. Linux's overwhelming number of machines is not because they have a gadzillion desktop users. They run a lot of servers. When it comes to Linux desktop usage, I've yet to see a figure that puts it significantly ahead of Apple in desktop use.
Feel free to show me some reliable figures to prove me wrong on this.
People running servers don't need fancy MP3 playing software. The majority of deployed linux boxes are servers. So long as tenant 2 holds, the majority of linux boxes wouldn't run iTunes.
Apple supports iTunes with Windows for some good reasons. Firstly, it's the same reason that BeOS started supporting x86 machines. They like money, money is good, and therefore they try and get more of it. The huge spike in iTMS sales suggests this was a good move. Secondly, Quicktime was already out for Windows. Since iTunes relies on Quicktime, their sound code should be trivially portable.
The third is a bit more uncertain. Apple was originally capable of moving OpenSTEP code to Windows via Rhapsody. I'm willing to bet there was some weight there.
MS isn't actively trying to destroy Apple any more than it's trying to destroy everyone else. MS is too faceless to get personal with things, so don't take it personally. They're a mega-giant that steps on people every day, they can't help it. They're just intrinsically Big Business.
As for not contributing back to the open source movment. Umm.. hello? Apple has kicked back a lot of stuff to the open source community. Apple really doesn't owe Linux in particular anything. Apple owes most of itself to BSDs.
The fact is, you reconsidered and changed your mind based on unreasonable standards and data. If you don't want an Apple computer, that's your call. Many people would argue it's your loss though.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Blaming Apple for this system is crazy - it's a shitty system, but there's plenty of blame to go around. I'd rather buy music legally from good bands that put effort into making quality albums where I get my moneys worth, whether I buy online or at stores, and focus my effort on defeating the unconstitutional measures the entertainment industry has supported (the DMCA for example) to keep their monopoly and prevent me from using the music that I already legally bought.
You can't get it becuase the songs cost .99 cents U.S., which is $1.31598 Canadian as of today. Imgaine the nightmare of that marketing campaign.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
IT'S ONLY CENSORSHIP WHEN THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTS SPEECH, Mr. Wolf-cryer.
So if your ISP starts blocking web sites they disagree with, it isn't censorship? If your local tv station blanks out part of a show they deem inappropriate, it isn't censorship? After all, they aren't the government.
I will agree that Walmart is in their rights to sell only certain versions, as long as they post this fact. But that doesn't change the fact that it can be the start of a long slippery slope.
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.
What??? ....I mean...what a crock.
The HD's in iPods are some of Toshiba's best laptop drives, and there's no way you can 'burn out the hard drive' by booting from it...sheez.
The thing that baffles me with Quicktime is that you still have to PAY to have the privilage of doing what every other free player out there already does... show a movie in fullscreen.
I'm all for Quicktime charging to be able to author quicktime movies, but to be able to watch them in fullscreen baffles me.
(And I love how on their website they demonstrate it as some amazing feature to be able to do so and call it their 'Theatre' mode or some such crud...)
Yeah, because business desktops and engineering workstations are right in the middle of iTunes' target audience.
Get over it. Apple is not going to do your bidding. There will be a Linux client if and when Apple percieves that to be in their interest. Right now, it's not.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
However, 10 points lost for giving a damn about slashdot karma. :P Anyways...
All your article says is that it's hard to count linux users. Claiming it's uncertain does nothing for your argument, so I'll just move along. It's also important to note that not all linux users, even in the desktop realm, are going to be iTunes users. The linux world is very diverse, I think we can all agree.
Err, this kind of thinking is pretty standard, and it's also why Apple is doing quite well right now. Who gives a damn about the machines? I'll say it again, in bold: Who gives a damn what the machines can do? The answer is people like me, who are engineers.
Most machines are potential linux machines. However, most users are not potential Linux users! This is important. A machine may be capable, but if a user isn't, then who cares?
Apple sure doesn't. Apple has philosophy and style, but at the end of the day, they have a bank account that needs to be full enough to pay their engineers.
Umm. Tell me, because I'm interested... How should Apple implement a consistent product on Linux. Remember, Apple's entire marketing strategy is based around the EXPERIENCE of use, and its consistency. These are important things.
Should apple use SDL? Straight OpenGL? Make their own library? What GUI toolkit? GTK+? Motif? Should it be a KDE App? A Gnome App? Neither?
Apple cannot make a consistant and reasonable player app in Linux. If they choose toolkits and run with it, they get nailed. If they make their own toolkits, they get nailed.
This is not even mentioning the huge amount of porting they'd need to do.
As for your complaints about movie trailers, I suggest you get over it. There is a small price to pay for freedom man. When I started using Linux, I couldn't even watch movies at all.
What Apple is doing with Quicktime is no better or worse than what MS and Real are doing. They're trying to make money with a quality video/audio encoder and decoder. The end quality of the product isn't important, it's the intention that dictates the reasoning here.
They make money by spreading the quicktime decoder and convincing people to use it. Then professionals (you know, commercial use of software to make products) will buy the encoder software to publish their work.
Do you remember how business works?
Umm. For the same reason there isn't a Linux one. I'm sorry, Apple has kicked back to the community in other areas. Areas that are arguably more important than a media player.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense