Slashdot Mirror


Apple Releases iTunes SDK for Windows

amichalo writes "Apple's recent release of an iTunes SDK for Windows provides the ability for third party programs, such as WinAmp and Windows Media Player, to support the AAC file format. Ars Technica has additional commentary. The SDK uses the COM interface and supports iTunes 4.5 only."

157 comments

  1. minor nag by LordSah · · Score: 5, Informative
    This SDK provides header files, documentation, and sample JScript files demonstrating how to use the iTunes for Windows COM interface. COM is the Microsoft technology, similar to AppleScript on Mac OS, that allows programmatic control of iTunes from languages like JScript, Visual Basic, C#, and C++. This SDK requires iTunes for Windows version 4.5 or later.
    Because it bugs me, I'm going to clarify this. COM is mainly a binary specification on how function tables should be laid out in objects. If various languages comply to that specification, then magically language A can create and call into objects programmed in language B. Apple could've provided a URL to an article talking about COM (a non-Microsoft article even), rather than define it as "similar to AppleScript on Mac OS, that allows programmatic control of iTunes". If this SDK is intended for real developers, they probably don't want such a dumbed-down description (assuming they've never heard of COM).
    1. Re:minor nag by irokitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone who has written even a simple game under Windows should know the basics of COM and how it works. Ditto for anyone who has done basic coding in C/C++/C# for Windows (and those who use VB for advanced coding instead of using it for a macro/prototyping tool). So quite a few developers are going to read that and chuckle. Of course, that was probably written by some marketing weenie who doesn't know any better.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:minor nag by LordSah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apologies for replying to my own post, but in case you're curious about COM:
      A technical overview about COM
      Comprehensive COM site

    3. Re:minor nag by LordSah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep. I didn't want the non-windows-programmers here at Slashdot to come away thinking COM was a special technology just to control iTunes :)

    4. Re:minor nag by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmmm.... while you are correct, I believe that Apple knows that real developers will understand exactly how to use this SDK.

      They also know that this news will get published internationally and be a major PR move for them... so, they use a dumbed down version that more laymen and would-be technology editors and reviewers can understand so as to get the most bang for their PR buck.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    5. Re:minor nag by REBloomfield · · Score: 1
      I like the bit that says

      Is provided on multiple platforms (Microsoft® Windows®, Microsoft Windows NTÃÂ

      I must have skipped that version of NT.... :)

    6. Re:minor nag by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take a little journey with me.

      When discussing Jobs's Apple, it's all about image and the ability to rally the troops. Many Mac users are savvy programmers, but in my experience most are not. Those rank and file users will hoop, holler and cheer at this announcement. It's a great illustration of Apple's innovation.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    7. Re:minor nag by astrosmash · · Score: 2, Funny

      What they mean is that the iTunes automation interface lets you control iTunes externally from script or other programming language, similarly to what you can do with AppleScript on MacOS, purple monkey dishwasher.

      Obviously there was a little bit of miscommunication between the marketing person who wrote the press release and the developer who told them what COM is. Just business as usual, I guess.

      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    8. Re:minor nag by should_be_linear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Anyone who has written even a simple game under Windows should know the basics of COM and how it works" Not true. I wrote many enterprise C++ applications and found COM ugly enough to avoid learning it. I prefere static linking. Applications in my opinion (and my life) should be self-contained, easy to deploy and portable. COM eliminates all 3 aspects. I think that even MS is trashing COM, only supporting it as "legacy" model (for .net).

      --
      839*929
    9. Re:minor nag by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      It's amusing especially considering that this SDK was written by someone that seems to have NEVER developed on a mac. Its naming conventions and other things are unlike any of Apple's other sample code for the PC (which largely follow mac coding conventions).

      So the conclusion seems to be some PR junkie (or Apple DTS employee) wrote this PR thing and sadly didn't know what COM was so they just reiterated what they were told by some person that told them what it was (but didn't know either).

      When I don't know crap about something, I at least try to ask Ed first.

    10. Re:minor nag by TwistedSquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having programmed games and used DirectX a lot (I assume that's what you're referring to) I still had no idea what COM was. You use it the same as using a class in C++ pretty much, except for the reference count thing, so why learn more?

    11. Re:minor nag by LordSah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can get away with packaging everything up into one nice executable for college projects and applications of limited scope (perhaps apps to serve html from servers). Client applications need to reuse code, dynamically link libraries to save on code size (page faults will kill you way more than loose loops), and interoperate with binaries made by different people (it helps if they're allowed to use languages to suit their needs). COM is a very nice way to accomplish all that.

      Realize that COM is, for programmers, a means to define a strict interface to an object. People can re-implement that object, improve it, fix bugs and swap it out with the existing one without having to send you a new .cpp file, .lib or even a recompile. It's the benefit of abstraction with a .h file, with none of the pain.

    12. Re:minor nag by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously there was a little bit of miscommunication between the marketing person who wrote the press release and the developer who told them what COM is.

      Erm, no. Not exactly. Rather, the developer told the marketing guy what COM is, and the marketing guy replied, "Nobody cares about that. Tell me why people should care." The developer then rambled for ten minutes about remote object invocation and locational transparency. The marketing guy got up right in the middle of a sentence and said, "Lets you control iTunes, kinda like AppleScript. Got it. Thanks."

      --

      I write in my journal
    13. Re:minor nag by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

      Here in my company we solve component interoperability with SOAP protocol (Axis on Java/gSoap on c++) and so far it works great on different platforms. Only COM we have used sometimes ago was MSXML and that was >hell. We had to reinstall and re-reintall it several times including hand-deleting registry to make it work. Now, I know that is likely problem of MSXML rather then COM, but many (most?) COM objects does not implement stuff that should be implemented, in my experience.

      --
      839*929
    14. Re:minor nag by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was used to control serial ports!

    15. Re:minor nag by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      I wrote many enterprise C++ applications and found COM ugly enough to avoid learning it. I prefere static linking.
      COM, from an application developers perspective, defines specificinterfaces for Classes to implement so they may be used by other programs. However, COM is not how dynamic binding happens on Win32. Dynamic Linking does not require COM. Dynamic linking can occur at load time via stub libraries, or at run time via calls to LoadLibraryEx() and GetProcAddress(). If you use COM these calls are just made indirectly and hidden behind layers of abstraction. Saying you don't like COM because of dynamic linking is like saying you don't like SWING because programs should be compiled into native binaries and not java byte code.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  2. Finally by cameronk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The original goal of the iPod was to drive Mac sales, although perhaps things are a bit upside down now. This SDK goes a long way, though not far enough, toward opening the iTunes music store and keeping the iPod (and therefore Apple) relevant.

    --
    "...What is good for General Motors is good for America." -Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense and fmr President of GM
    1. Re:Finally by Adian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this is just another sign that Apple actually benefits from cross-platform applications. The roll-out of the IPod, then ITunes, it's all ultimately to make Apple products easier to use on Windows, since unfortunately it is running on a large share of home users desktops.

      --
      Adian
    2. Re:Finally by lotsofno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A lot of Windows users have done pretty good without the SDK so far, in terms of iPod connectivity. If you need any proof, just look at ml_ipod, the open source iPod plug-in for Winamp. It integrates itself seamlessly into Winamp's media library and even has a couple hidden features you might not see with iTunes or even in other 3rd party applications like Ephpod. I know more than a few people who've already switched to Winamp for better iPod connectivity, including myself.

      Strangely enough, I've actually heard developers say they won't even touch the SDK: "The .h file is 10k lines. iTunes' bloat is infectious."

    3. Re:Finally by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple is only interested in cross-platform applications as long as they directly support the bottom line. iTunes allows more people to buy and use iPods, so it gets ported. There's no equivalent revenue stream for the other apps, so they wouldn't benefit from porting them and therefore won't do so.

    4. Re:Finally by NaugaHunter · · Score: 4, Funny

      OK, Bart, to the blackboard:

      Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
      Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
      Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
      Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
      Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
      Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
      Apple is a hardware company,

      As much as Apple gains from others' cross-platform applications, they don't generally gain much from making theirs cross-platform. The goal here is to tackle reasons to not use iTunes - you will probably still require an iPod to play this music on a personal player easily. (Other than using the CD-to-whatever route, of course.)

      --
      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.
    5. Re:Finally by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      yeah, because 70% market share in legal music sales on-line and 50% DAP market share and 95% HDD DAP market share are is such danger of becoming irrelevant.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:Finally by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Apple has an old habit of making themselves irrelevant.
      3% market share is enough!

    7. Re:Finally by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      "As much as Apple gains from others' cross-platform applications, they don't generally gain much from making theirs cross-platform."

      Except for the fact that popularizing iTunes (no profit) helps iPod sales (major profit).

    8. Re:Finally by bot24 · · Score: 1

      They are trying to get converts. Did you know that Darwin is being ported to the x86? People are unwittingly helping Apple to port OSX onto x86 PC's. First people will buy their music, and then they will need iTunes to play it. iTunes installs QuickTime. QuickTime hijacks browser mime-types. People get used to the Mac look, and then OSX runs on the x86 and people switch. The more programs that require Mac like software, the more people that will see it and the more often.

  3. I know it won't happen... by AvantLegion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... but I wish iTunes would support WMA.

    Not that I have any myself, but there are a ton of radio stations that broadcast in WMA that I can't import into iTunes (you can add new stations into iTunes by copying any station into a playlist, and then editing the URL of the copy in the playlist. The new station only shows up in a playlist, instead of the Radio area, but good enough!).

    1. Re:I know it won't happen... by LordSah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There exists a Windows Media Player SDK. Nothing stopping Apple from using it in iTunes.

    2. Re:I know it won't happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... but I wish iTunes would support WMA.

      I second this. About a year ago, I converted my entire CD collection to 256 Kbps VBR WMA files, because it seemed like the best format at the time for quality versus space. Now I've discovered iTunes and love how it organizes music. But I can't play my music collection in there directly; if I drag them in, it offers to convert my files to AAC or MP3 format for me. Well, if it is able to convert them, surely it would be able to just play them instead!

    3. Re:I know it won't happen... by irokitt · · Score: 0

      But does the SDK work on a Mac? Because if it doesn't, Apple won't use it and I don't really blame them all that much.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    4. Re:I know it won't happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ultimately, how you encode your file is your own choice. That said, you chose to use a proprietary file format (WMA), instead of a standard one (MP3). And now you complain^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hwish that this proprietary format would be fully supported by other firms ?

    5. Re:I know it won't happen... by byolinux · · Score: 3, Informative

      It converts them (on Windows only) so that people can use their WMA music on iPods.

    6. Re:I know it won't happen... by mblase · · Score: 1

      ... but I wish iTunes would support WMA.

      Like in most similar cases, you always have the option of burning your protected WMA files to an audio CD-R or CR-RW and then re-ripping them into iTunes as MP3 or AAC. It's not like it's the locked box Microsoft wishes it was.

    7. Re:I know it won't happen... by Puzza · · Score: 1

      Except business sense.

    8. Re:I know it won't happen... by Refrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now you know why you shouldn't use proprietary formats for archival use.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    9. Re:I know it won't happen... by SilentChris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And pride, and stupidity. Not necessarily in that order.

    10. Re:I know it won't happen... by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say, 'you chose to use a proprietary file format (WMA), instead of another proprietary file format (MP3)'

      I do remember a company saying they owned the mp3spec and seem to charge a fee to write encoders.

    11. Re:I know it won't happen... by N1KO · · Score: 1

      256 Kbps VBR... isn't that an oxymoron?

    12. Re:I know it won't happen... by dq5+studios · · Score: 1

      >> you can add new stations into iTunes by copying any station into a playlist, and then editing the URL of the copy in the playlist. The new station only shows up in a playlist, instead of the Radio area, but good enough!

      You do realise you can just hit CTRL+U or Advanced... Open Stream... to add a stream don't you?

    13. Re:I know it won't happen... by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Not really. It just means that it's VBR but the average BR is equal to 256Kbps. I think the songs at iTMS are 128Kbps VBR.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    14. Re:I know it won't happen... by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, you don't have to do the thing with copying a playlist. You can just choose Open Stream from the advanced menu and put in the URL.

    15. Re:I know it won't happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you should use AAC or MP3 because they're so free and open, right?

    16. Re:I know it won't happen... by Refrag · · Score: 1

      AAC and MP3 are standard, not proprietary. I didn't bring the question of free or open into this.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
  4. So when are we going to see some new formats? by DaedalusLogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So when is iTunes going to support ogg, flac, and shn thanks to or without the use of this of this SDK?
    I started using it last month over Winamp and kinda miss those capabilities... and where do you let it allow songs to flow into one another without pause? Is that option in the program?

    1. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that 99.9% of users out there have no fucking clue what OGG or FLAC is, why would Apple even give two shits about supporting it? Seriously! Think about it.

    2. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, iTunes for Windows actually uses Quicktime for playback.
      Theres this nice project over at SourceForge http://sourceforge.net/projects/qtcomponents/ with Ogg Vorbis components for Quicktime (and thus iTunes). It's still beta, and there is a pause when iTunes switch between formats, but it plays Ogg Vorbis.

      The crossfading can be found under Edit->Prefrerences->Effects.

    3. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by ender81b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is an ogg control that works double plus good for playing Ogg vorbis files under iTunes (at least on the mac and with 4.5).

      Clicky.

      I, personally, wish to god somebody would write some sort of plugin that would sort mp3's in some sane way. iTunes is absolutely horrible at handling mp3's and their various tags (or lack thereof) something winamp perfected years ago.

    4. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by silence535 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, not exactly a plugin, but you might want to take a look at mp3ql.

      regards,

      -silence

      --
      Dyslectics of the world, untie!
    5. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by wacko1138 · · Score: 1

      I don't have a windows box handy, but it should be similar to my mac. In the preferences there should be a tab or icon for "Effects". Under that should be an option to Crossfade Playback and a slider to adjust the amount from 0 to 12 seconds of overlap. At least 5 seconds is a good way to go if you've got any songs with those 2 second bits of silence on the ends.

    6. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I wish that the iPod would have, y'know, Vorbis support. iTunes support doesn't do folks a whole lot of good -- it's easy to use any audio playing application on the Mac, including one that can understand Ogg Vorbis, but when it comes to the iPod, you're stuck.

      What *I*'d like to know is why the iPod lacks both a hierarchical organization system (like, folders?) *and* the ability to enter search strings (quite doable with the jog wheel -- search results could be saved as a playlist).

    7. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Informative

      What *I*'d like to know is why the iPod lacks both a hierarchical organization system (like, folders?)

      Perhaps because an indexed database is faster at searching through upto 10,000 file records than scanning all 10,000 files & metadata?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look in the

      EDIT:PREFERENCES:EDIT menu

      you can crossfade playback with any amount of crossfading (including 0 if you jsut want them back to back)

    9. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Ogg Vorbis QT plugin has improved noticably with the most recent version. When I first tried it out, the delay in switching formats was such that it was basically unusable on a regular basis. The newest version, however, seems to work without any noticable lag at all on my Athlon XP 2200+. I can't speak for slower processors/other systems, but I was impressed enough that I actually imported my Ogg collection into my iTunes library for the first time. Truly a classy piece of work. Now if we could only get the iPod to support it, I might actually be able to justify buying one....

      --
      Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
    10. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Why would the existence of folders on the iPod ever entail looking through 10K file records?

      I mean, I can't think of a single instance where this would be necessary, not even for infrequent operations like the initial addition of the file.

    11. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Do you even read your own posts??

      *and* the ability to enter search strings

      I think this would require looking though all the file records, don't you? Especially if they're not indexed and/or in a database.
      Or for another, the random play feature.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by sjonke · · Score: 1
      and where do you let it allow songs to flow into one another without pause? Is that option in the program?

      Preferences -> Effects -> Crossfade Playback
      If you just want the songs to be played gapless, set crossfade enabled but time to 0 seconds.
      --
      --- What?
    13. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      I tried mp3ql and got the requirements it kept segfaulting. :-( no success for me.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    14. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      You only quoted the portion of my post where I was talking about having a hierarchical organization system, so I assumed that was what you were referring to.

      I think this would require looking though all the file records, don't you? Especially if they're not indexed and/or in a database.

      Okay, as for search strings, yes, you'd have to read the data for all the files (technically, you're wrong about reading all the file records, since using the Boyer-Moore substring matching algorithm could allow doing a search without looking at all the data in the content being searched through) . However, there's no reason not to extract the data to be searched -- album, artist, and title. It's a bit trickier that it might seem, since the iPod exposes a USB Mass Storage interface, which means it sees things as blocks rather than files until it's actively using the filesystem. However, it's pretty easy and computationally inexpensive to lazily index things.

      If you allow the iPod to extract id3 tags itself, then you have an id3 database. Say we have an average of 50 bytes (which is probably being over-generous) for those three things). For your 10K song example, that's 500KB to read. I've seen the iPod drive transfer rate conservatively listed at around 3-4MB/sec, which means that it should be able to do such a search in less than a fifth of a second (assuming it's I/O bound, of course, but searching is pretty computationally cheap).

      As for battery power, it's unlikely that people are going to search constantly -- just search and use the results, possibly leaving them on their drive as a playlist. So this is not a common operation compared to playing an MP3. In addition, the drive power usage would be about a tenth that of reading a single MP3 (ignoring the decoding and playback battery cost of dealing with the MP3, so I'm being even more conservative with my estimate).

      This is not a pair of features that Apple was unable to add to the iPod. It is a pair that they did not add.

    15. Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? by silence535 · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure the developer appreciates feedback.

      -silence

      --
      Dyslectics of the world, untie!
  5. I don't think this does what you think it does. by Temporal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all, there is already an iTMS input plugin for Winamp. It has been around for some time. It uses the existing QuickTime SDK to play the music.

    This new SDK has nothing to do with that. Now, I haven't exactly had much time to review it, so I could be wrong, but what this new SDK looks like is scripting support for manipulating the iTunes interface. For instance, you can write scripts which build playlists, tag files, etc. Basically, this allows you to automate tasks that you might otherwise perform through the iTunes UI.

    On Mac OSX, such functionality has been available via AppleScript for some time. In fact, many OSX programs expose functionality like this via AppleScript -- a practice I wish were more widespread on other systems.

    Of course, Windows doesn't have AppleScript, but it does have COM, which I guess can be used in vaguely similar ways. So, they have exposed all this functionality via COM instead. The download includes some example scripts written in Javascript for creating playlists, removing dead files, etc. Of course, since it's COM, you can use pretty much any language you want to access it (including C/C++, though I wouldn't recommend it for this sort of thing).

    Kudos to Apple for doing this. They could have been snotty and kept the scripting abilities exclusive to OSX, but they instead chose to support both platforms equally.

    But, no, I don't think Winamp or WMP have anything to gain from this. Sorry.

    1. Re:I don't think this does what you think it does. by irokitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something I think I'd like to see is for someone to creat a Mozilla sidebar that plays/streams using iTunes. So I can surf using FireSomething and listen to my playlists at the same time. Could be good stuff. But the thing I would really like to see is a simple, easy solution to playing .aac format files in Linux, and getting iTMS to work in said platform. It'll happen, sooner or later, but I guess I'm impatient.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    2. Re:I don't think this does what you think it does. by prockcore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In fact, many OSX programs expose functionality like this via AppleScript -- a practice I wish were more widespread on other systems.

      Other systems usually go with an object broker, which is much more powerful than (although not as easy as) providing applescript hooks.

      On Windows you've got COM, on KDE you've got DCOP, on Gnome you've got CORBA.

      DCOP is probably the easiest, most flexable, and most widely implemented (Practically every KDE app has DCOP support.. while under Gnome, very few use Corba, probably due to the real/percieved slowness of it)

    3. Re:I don't think this does what you think it does. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Practically every KDE app has DCOP support.. while under Gnome, very few use Corba, probably due to the real/percieved slowness of it

      Actually a good ORB (such as ORBit) walks all over DCOP for RPC speed, the main reason CORBA never took off for desktop scripting is because it's API is a pain in the ass.

  6. misleading quote by G�tz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apple's recent release of an iTunes SDK for Windows provides the ability for third party programs, such as WinAmp and Windows Media Player, to support the AAC file format.
    They mean the DRMed AAC format by apple, there have been winamp plugins for the AAC format of the MPEG standards for a long time, even open source (but patented).
    1. Re:misleading quote by Talthane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They mean the DRMed AAC format by apple

      DRM-capable. I have plenty of AACs ripped from CD that are wide open. It's important to make the distinction, because AAC the file format has nothing to do with DRM per se; that's a commercial decision by the iTMS. You can happily distribute your AACs free of all DRM and fees if you want to, so don't blame the file format.

      --
      "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
    2. Re:misleading quote by G�tz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, that's what I've stated in my post. There has been support for AAC before, but this is for Apple's AAC from itms, not the MPEG standard one.

    3. Re:misleading quote by blowdart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And the SDK doesn't even support that, it allows scripting/COM languages to drive iTunes

      There is NOTHING about supporting FairPlay AAC in any external programs.

      Of course Apple, like Real will whine about Media Player not supporting their formats, even though the DirectFilter SDK and specs have been around for years. Ogg supports it nicely, as does DIVX. Apple and Real just produce PR puff pieces, making bogus complaints. Of course they don't want people using Media Player, or WinAmp, as they loose the eyeballs and revenue they get forcing people to stick to their players.

      If you really want to think about it, MS have a WM SDK, and a DRM SDK which they give away for FREE, so anyone can write a player (although for DRM you have to have a code signing key). More open than Apple? Shocking huh?

    4. Re:misleading quote by Temporal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There have been Winamp plugins to support the DRM'd iTMS AAC's for some time as well.

    5. Re:misleading quote by lotsofno · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Also, the SDK should allow people to play AAC files (including those purchased from iTMS) through WinAMP"
      This is just a poorly researched article.

      Winamp has had AAC support for a while, natively and through plug-ins. Winamp has also been able to play iTMS' DRM-ed files as early as last OCTOBER, via plug-in. A quick search on the topic could've revealed that fact in seconds: Winamp Unlimited FAQ and Winamp forums

      The Winamp community really deserves more than that--they're more active and more involved with where Winamp is going than probably any other "closed source" media player community.
    6. Re:misleading quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No it's not, but you almost understood it. Try reading again.

    7. Re:misleading quote by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      Yes, and you've been able to play those files without a problem in Winamp for a long time. I too have about 10GB of .m4a files which I can play with whatever I want, because it's a standard file format. This lets you play the DRMed stuff.

      --
      -twb
  7. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone downloaded the SDK?

    It consists of just two files, plus documentation and samples.

    The two files are a 4KB .C file, and a 406KB .H file.

    Yes, 406KB. Good lord, that's one big header! :-) Is anything in iTunes not scriptable?

    1. Re:Hilarious by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ever seen Applescript applications? They even sell some of those commercially (shareware coders)! Its virtually possible to code a little game with applescript even.

      http://www.apple.com/applescript/

      The hilarious thing is IMHO, the Windows Scripting Language caused nothing but trouble on windows. I remember back in my windows days the first thing I did was disabling it after I do fresh install.

      For example, I use Applescript built in mail.app to check my IMAP box limits..

    2. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      406kb should be enough for anyone.....

  8. +N Informative by ModParentUp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    n/t

  9. Arrgh! NO! by EvilStein · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The Mozilla people need to scrap everything and start busting ass on *Calendar apps* - not sidebar music apps.

    Sorry, I'm just frustrated because Mozilla Calendar really does lack basic features that users have come to expect from Outlook's calendar (even without Exchange)

    Ugh. No more themes & silly crap. Focus!!

    1. Re:Arrgh! NO! by irokitt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, most of the themes and silly crap are done by independent developers, not the Moz team itself - they have more important things to do.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  10. COM on Mac too by edalytical · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or if you're curious about COM on Mac OS X:
    Component Object Model (COM) Development on Mac OS X

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    1. Re:COM on Mac too by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's worth noting that the implementation of COM on MacOS X is severely restricted compared to COM on Win32, in particular it's missing almost all of DCOM and OLE automation ...

    2. Re:COM on Mac too by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1

      Yes, because OLE is so often used.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  11. Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by RoderickMcDougall · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, even I like the idea of pure opensource, license free codec, I stay away from Ogg for "psychological" reasons.

      I got real, real tired of Ogg showing up on every single Real,Quicktime story and people being fanatical evangelists for Ogg format. I bet the authors doesn't like it too.

      Also with a little plugin on OSX, I can make iTunes use Ogg instead of AAC on my ripped cds... Well, I prefer AAC myself. Sounds more natural, especially on bass part.

    2. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Xyde · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, hydrogenaudio already debunked that one - ogg came second last out of a test including WMA (9), QuickTime AAC, Musepack, Vorbis and LAME. And this one is a bit more sophisticated than doing a frequency analysis too. http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results. html

    3. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by RoderickMcDougall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've linked a listening test. Its extremely debatable whether frequency based tests are better than listening tests. Apples and oranges.

      For one thing the frequency tests show quite well the relative rolloff at the end of the audible spectrum which is a very key factor in the sound sounding crisp. (128 to me is easy to spot)

      Furthermore the variety in the quality of the listeners ability to discern detail in audio will completely skewer the results - many people cannot even tell between 128 and CD let alone discern between relative codecs.

    4. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about either WMA or AAC, as both are closed formats.

      I haven't ever heard of Musepack.

      When comparing VBR LAME to Vorbis, doing double-blind tests, I've found that I can tell the difference between Vorbis and original audio at higher bitrates than MP3. However, the vorbis artifacts that I do hear are much less annoying -- percussion sounds slightly different, but MP3 turns cymbals into swooshy sounds.

    5. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ease up on the FUD, AAC isn't any more closed than the MP3 you're so eager to praise. They're both open MPEG standards.

    6. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The listening test is everything when it comes to lossy codecs, because the only thing that makes one codec better than another at the same bitrate is wise psycho-acoustic choices.

    7. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Xyde · · Score: 1
      There's no debate at all. The point of music is to listen to it, not to look at pretty graphs all day. Therefore the logical method of picking the most effective lossy compression algorithm is to have a large group of people listen to all the samples (double blind), and rate what sounds best. Which is actually what has been done here.

      What you are describing is as absurd as comparing JPEG codecs by looking at histograms and pixel plots of the images. The eye (and ears) just don't work like that, and when you're limited to something like 128kbps, a lot of the time you'll find that you end up with a better sound by, say, killing some frequencies rather than trying to preserve them and leaving less data for more important ones.

      I can assure you a 128kbps mp3 with no low pass filter will sound much worse than one with a 16 or 17khz filter applied.

    8. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by RoderickMcDougall · · Score: 1

      Oh please, what a tired argument to make. Maybe we should just do away with all forms of scientific measurement and just go with how we feel all the time because after all, we're the ones that have to live with the consequences!

      Fact of the matter is that THE EARS DON'T WORK WELL and in the realm of trying to quantify which codec is "better" at X bitrate we have to turn to scientific measurement if we want to draw any conclusions that can be trusted.

      Any frequency plot tells me an infinite amount more than a double blind listening test where the results are not conclusive whatsoever. Ear tests are flawed when people do not know what to listen for. Unless there are say twice as many people saying this codec is better than that codec it is unlikely that you can draw much stock in the results.

      Every person is different, some may be musicians and focus on one particular instrument, some may be completely inexperienced and have no idea what to look for or what a real snare is supposed to sound like. Like I said, personal deviation will ruin the test.

      As for killing the frequencies what is your point, you're just talking about increasing resolution at other frequencies due to more bandwidth available. What is your point. My point was that due to this filtration at 128 it is very easy for me to tell due to this rolloff (I can hear quite high). I'm not complaining its there, I'm just saying some people say they can't detect difference between 128 and say CD.

      I would trust say a group of sound engineers with very acute senses of what to look for (and hopefully knowledge of the psychoacoustic models of each of the codecs) but true tests will encompass all methods and used qualified sources (instrumentation, listeners etc) and that site is certainly not at the forefront of any of this.

    9. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the whole point of lossy compression (transform codecs) is to use a psychological model of human hearing to discard frequency bands which are physically present in the sound wave, but our brain can not percieve.

      A good lossy compression scheme SHOULD have a compltely different frequency spectrum from original if the codec is doing its job.

      All that matters is that the frequency bands that we are capable of hearing are preserved, and enough bits are allocated to those bands (by discarding inaudiable bands)

      The only way to evaluate the performance of the psychological model is with human hearing.

    10. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Ease up on the FUD, AAC isn't any more closed than the MP3 you're so eager to praise. They're both open MPEG standards.

      They are both MPEG standards -- but implementing AAC encoders or decoders requires purchasing licenses.

      Unfortunately, unlike W3C-approved standards, MPEG standards do *not* need to be either patent-unencumbered or have a blanket license granted for implementation purposes upon standardization.

      Fraunhoffer has claimed that it has patent rights over MP3. You can look at an analysis here. Basically, they have patents that cover encoders (but have been ignoring free encoders thus far), and while they claim to have patents that cover decoders, some folks have taken issue with this point, and concluded that decoders can be freely produced.

      Ogg Vorbis is not encumbered by patents.

    11. Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also not encumbered by a notable user base. Try and find a decent ogg portable player. You can't.

  12. COM interface by noelo · · Score: 1

    I may be mistaken but doesn't this mean that you can control ITunes remotely using DCOM.....

    1. Re:COM interface by jaguarul · · Score: 1

      Basically yes, but that it's true for any MS application (like MS Word) that supports COM. It's not as bad as it sounds, as usually the firewall blocks those ports anyway (part of the need for web services) and also because you can configure who is allowed to instantiate those COM objects. As long as "they" don't have an account on your computer, and that account is in the "allowed" list for that speific COM object, nothing will happen.

  13. iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by Vandil+X · · Score: 3, Informative

    iTunes 4.5 supports importing unprotected WMA files. You can import unprotected WMA files into an iTunes format of your choice, and play them on your iPod.

    While this won't help with playing DRM'd WMA files purchased from other online stores, it's a step in the right direction.

    Maybe someone out there will make a hymn-like program for unprotecting DRM'd WMA music purchases...

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still doesn't allow you to listen to WMA radio stations.

    2. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So bitch at the radio stations for only supporting a proprietary format. MP3 and AAC are standards, and AAC can have DRM built in. Heck, I even think MP3s can havea DRM wrapped around them.

      It's not Apple's job to support Microsoft's format, it's the radio station's job to support its listeners choices. Make sure they know what your choice is.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by kleinux · · Score: 1

      > You can import unprotected WMA files into an iTunes format of your choice, and play them on your iPod.

      I think this statement is exactly why you won't see WMA in iTunes. The whole point of iTunes to even extist is to sell iPods, so why would they have it play something that couldn't play on an iPod. That would just confuse the average user.

    4. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by twbecker · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Apple really should offer native WMA support for the iPod and iTunes. If their goal is to sell iPods, then the iPod needs to be the most compatible player available. "No matter what kind of music you have, you can play it on your iPod" That would be a powerful marketing tool.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    5. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      >> t's not Apple's job to support Microsoft's format

      It's Apple's job to make the customer happy.

      Demanding radio stations to change formats to support a small percentage of customers (particularly when there IS an option to listen to the station on that platform, just not in iTunes) is entirely unrealistic.

      Adding WMA support to iTunes IS realistic, and should be done. Even if the support is only for streaming radio. Importing/converting is fine for saved media.

    6. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Well, considering AAC has, by far, the largest percentage of downloaded music, I don't think it's a small percentage of customers anymore. And considering that AAC is a subset of the MPEG4 standard, I think that makes everyone who watches movies in that format a potential customer. That adds up to a large customer base. It's not a Mac vs PC base anymore. Apple changed the rules on you.

      Adding, not changing to, AAC format is relatively easy for radio stations and not unrealistic at all. In fact, throw in the cost of OS X server for the streaming platform, and I'd be willing to bet it costs less than the streaming solutions offered by Microsoft.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by ip_fired · · Score: 1

      the cost of OS X server for the streaming platform = $0!

      The best thing, is that they could get and use Darwin Streaming Server for free and use it on their current system.

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    8. Re:iTunes 4.5 supports unprotected WMA files by zpok · · Score: 1

      Not to say you're wrong, I'm not sure you're right. Before my wife had iTunes on her computer, she didn't even realize she could play radio. The apps were too confusing. And since it's my wife we're talking about: apart from the bad gui, the ugliness of these other apps - now that she uses iTunes - is a great deterrent for opening them ever again. That includes Windows Media Player.

      Who knows what % of the market really wants to listen to radio in WMA (meaning, not using iTunes).

      BTW, my wife is quite an accomplished computer user, just not a nerd or geek.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  14. So... by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Realnetworks wish has come true? This SDK is good for streaming too?

    Real was speaking about moving to Dolby formats from Sony Atrac3 (I bet Sony itself too).

  15. how about... by rozz · · Score: 0

    how about all the "SDK's for crackers" Apple is releasing lately with amazing speed ... looks like they wanna challenge Microsoft in all respects

    like this one for example

    --
    "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  16. Nice Apple by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's nice to see Apple recognizing their roots and giving back to the community that helped them create OSX?

    WTF? Where's the love Steve?

    People wouldn't have to 'illegally' be reverse enginineering your products if you would just let us USE THEM?!

  17. No. by fdobbie · · Score: 1

    Real wanted to get in on the Protected AAC thing behind the scenes as a provider of content. As has already been mentioned, this SDK is nothing to do with AAC at all (that functionality is already provided by the QuickTime SDK, this is merely for controlling/scripting iTunes' GUI).

    The QuickTime SDK merely allows you to play a Protected AAC music file to a given sound output device as a client of the system (which remains a proprietary black box). Not what Real wants at all.

    1. Re:No. by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Real also wants Dolby AAC for streaming. They are testing it on AOL radio already.

      I understand what you mean but a company who sells "broadband" stuff (radiopass etc) is also interested in such naturally sounding codec.

      Real and Sony (think about their electronics) want Dolby codecs, thats all.

  18. Win98 by Dachannien · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now, if only they released iTunes for Win98!

    1. Re:Win98 by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      They can't. iTunes relies on background services for access to the music store and cd burning, I imagine because of their similarity to UNIX background threads. The 9x kernel is too primitive for this, they'd have to come up with another way of using and interfacing threads, which I imagine is too much of a pain in the ass just to support a six year old deprecated operating system.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    2. Re:Win98 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The 9x kernel is too primitive for this, they'd have to come up with another way of using and interfacing threads, which I imagine is too much of a pain in the ass just to support a six year old deprecated operating system.
      WORD!
  19. Perhaps Apple won't have to... by Vandil+X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hewlett-Packard will soon be marketing its own hp-branded mp3 players based on iPod technology that will utilize iTunes. Perhaps HP, being a Windows PC provider, will utilize the Windows Media 9 Series SDK and add WMA support to iTunes.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    1. Re:Perhaps Apple won't have to... by DaHat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought that this was already debunked in a previous story.

  20. WinAmp already supports AAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Winamp 5.x already supports AAC out of the "box"; it will rip to AAC quite transparently.

    Check it out... www.winamp.com; its worth it for the shoutcast capabilities alone.

    1. Re:WinAmp already supports AAC by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      Winamp 5 was *not* able to decode iTunes AACs until I manually installed a plug-in from http://www.audiocoding.com/ .

      Maybe it only supports MPEG-2 AACs?

    2. Re:WinAmp already supports AAC by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, winamp supports mpeg-4 aacs, but it doesn't recognize them (for whatever reason) when they're wrapped in an mpeg4 container. There's a download that will let winamp "see" the aac in the mp4 container.

    3. Re:WinAmp already supports AAC by FuzzieNorn · · Score: 1

      The *latest* Winamp 5 decodes iTunes non-DRM AACs fine.

  21. song flow into one another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    edit--preferences--effects--crossfade playback. set it to a short time.

  22. Good job Apple! by arhar · · Score: 1

    Finally, they're learning their lesson from the original Mac vs PC battle for market share =)

  23. tags? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
    I, personally, wish to god somebody would write some sort of plugin that would sort mp3's in some sane way. iTunes is absolutely horrible at handling mp3's and their various tags (or lack thereof) something winamp perfected years ago.

    Can you specify exactly what your problem is? I find iTunes to be a fucking ninja with ID3 tags, so I'm curious.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:tags? by jred · · Score: 1

      Well, I've noticed that it doesn't always pick up on the id3 tags. I've had to go through a lot of my imported mp3s and mass-set artist & album.

      I suspect this has something to do with the way I ripped the original CDs, possibly difference in the different versions of ID3. I'm not sure, though. Because I can rip CD1 and CD2 on the same day, using the same settings, and iTunes will properly read the tags for CD1, but "miss" them on CD2. I've also had instances where songs 1-5 from a CD get picked up properly, but songs 6-10 don't.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    2. Re:tags? by Doogie5526 · · Score: 1
      wierd (but not entirely suprising)

      There are different versions of ID3, and iTunes supports the more recent versions that Winamp does not.

      for iTunes, you have to tell it to write the ID3 tags (it saves everything in an XML file), at that dialogue box you specify which version of ID3 to write. The higher versions wont read in Winamp.

    3. Re:tags? by dootbran · · Score: 1

      yeah, I've ran into problems with iTunes not wanting to add the v1 ID3 tags on the file. v1 has a more limited character count than v2.x so I can understand why there might be some hesitance to use both but for my Kenwood mp3/cd I needed the v1 tags and didn't want to cut the name short in iTunes.

      They can both exist at the same time. From what I understand v1 comes at the beginning of the file and v2.x comes at the end.

      I used Mp3 Rage to mass add v1 tags. Works awesome, probably can help fixing up your other tag problems too. Probably something similar for Windows if thats what you have.

      I've found that a lot of windows cd ripping stuff just ignored id3 tags all together and just named the files descriptively. And since winamp works some pretty nice voodoo on the filename to guess the info it can go unnoticed pretty easily.

  24. Finally! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now I can create an icon for the taskbar that will make it easy to control iTunes. This is how their icon should work now, but doesn't:

    Single-click: toggle play/pause (update icon when paused).

    Double-click: next song in playlist.

    Right-click: context sensitive menu (same as now).

    Hover: Display tooltip with album artwork and other information, including info on next track in list.

    Obviously these should be user-configurable actions, but those defaults would be nice.

    Then if they'd let me hide the program in the taskbar when minimized, I'd be all set.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    1. Re:Finally! by farmerbuzz · · Score: 1

      http://www.veridicus.com/tummy/programming/powerme nu/

      That is a simple utility that will add some useful features (including minimize to tray) to all your windows' system context menus.

  25. And more... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 0

    Who will be the first to get a webserver interface created for iTunes?

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  26. You didn't need the SDK by mactari · · Score: 4, Informative

    Though the header files, etc, are nice if you're a VC++ whiz, any two-bit Visual Basic 6 hacker like myself has had access to the iTunes COM objects for quite some time.

    Not only do you not need the SDK, aside from the sample code (strangely written in jscript of all things), the SDK is nearly worthless for VB6 hackers. All you had to do was open a new project in the VB6 IDE, select Project==References from the menus, and select iTunes 1.0 Type Library (the file is iTunes.exe no less).

    Voila. Instant COM compliant objects waiting for you to hack0rz. Hit F2 and search for iTunesLib and the documentation's already there (no SDK required) as well.

    If this SDK makes you aware you can hack iTunes, then great. But don't wait to download it to start hacking. Install iTunes, open VB6's IDE, and get a move on!

    To stick in a horrible Wizard of Oz (but thankfully not a Zardoz reference, I suppose), you've been wearing the ruby red slippers (or whatever) the whole time. "There's no place like ~. There's no place like ~."

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  27. AAC, don't they mean M4P? by mebob · · Score: 1

    AAC, don't they mean M4P??

    --
    =1000101
    1. Re:AAC, don't they mean M4P? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      M4p is the extension. AAC is the file format.

      M4a for unprotected media. M4p for drm'd media.

  28. I love it! by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead of screwing up iTunes with more bloat and features, Apple releases an SDK so Windows users can do it themselves! Brilliant!

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  29. iTunes - Preferences - Advanced - organize! by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

    what are you talking about?
    Preferences -> Advanced -> keep iTunes music folder organized

    i do that and my MP3 directory (that is just a partition on a second drive) is organized as:
    Artist/Album/Song

    what more do you need than that? last time i looked at a friend's winamp MP3 directory it was every MP3 file sorted by the file's name ALL in one huge directory.

    1. Re:iTunes - Preferences - Advanced - organize! by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      I have around 80gb of music that was organized by iTunes while I was on Windows, and my only major gripe is about it's naming scheme. I'd like it if iTunes let me use a slightly different order:

      Genre/Artist - Album - Number - Title

      That way, when I put songs on my player or copy them to another folder, I don't have incredibly verbose names like "03 Dream On.mp3". Is that Aerosmith? Depeche Mode? Some obscure punk band? It's nice that iTunes tries to avoid redundancy and long names, but I 'd like the option...

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    2. Re:iTunes - Preferences - Advanced - organize! by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      If you have a Mac, check out a shareware app called MP3 Rage.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  30. Shameless Plug by nukey56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I cooked up a script that converts all iTunes playlists to M3U playlists to import into Winamp in the case of a migration attempt.

    Hopefully this doesn't cause too much of a karma burn seeing that iTunes appears to be the preferred player around here.

  31. This isn't as spiffy as it looks by M$+Mole · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you dl it and try it out, it's just a scripting SDK for the iTunes interface (I think someone else pointed this out as well). I downloaded it...fired up Visual Studio and build a quick Windows app with a button to create a new playlist.

    Click the button and watch as iTunes opens up. In fact, aside from instantiation of the iTunes object, there isn't a single function that I've been able to perform without iTunes opening up.

    Not saying it isn't pretty cool...but the COM interface isn't going to let you build tons of plugins, etc. without iTunes running on your desktop.

    --
    Karma: Non-existant. Due mostly to the fact that you smell funny and nobody likes you.
  32. SlimServer Support? by theroterts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this will allow the Slim Devices' Slim Server to have the necessary hooks to stream DRMed iTunes songs? Their FAQ states that Apple has not provided hooks to stream protected files. Slim Server was developed for their Sqeezebox, but the server software is open source and will stream just about anything you throw at it. Good stuff.

    --
    ?SYNTAX ERROR IN SIG

    READY.
    1. Re:SlimServer Support? by papageorgio02 · · Score: 1

      That would be nice! The main reason I haven't bought anything from the iTMS, the songs won't play on my SLIMP3! (without burning the song and ripping it to MP3!)

      --
      -- I stole your sig!
  33. Re:I know it won't happen...(wma direct to iTunes by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not direct, but under OS X you can set up things like RadioRecorder

    I haven't looked closely so I don't know if it specifically works on WMA streams, but there are an awful lot of stream recorders out there, and then there's EasyWMA to convert to mp3.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  34. Has anyone gotten AAC or mp4 to work by SquadBoy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    with XMMS or Beep? I've been trying with no luck so far.

    Prefer Debian but any help would be good.

    --

    Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  35. SlimDevices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this help in allowing my SLIMP3 to play these files?

  36. You're right, the ears don't work well... by blorg · · Score: 1

    ...and that is exactly the property that lossy codecs exploit. What do you use to listen to your music, your ears, or a frequency analyzer?

    "Better" in the realm of lossy encoding means "sounds closer to the original to a human," not has less binary differences, has a more similar waveform, has a more similar frequency fingerprint, etc.

    You have half a point that non-trained ears can skew the result of public listening tests, but double-blind tests have been done with highly-trained ears also, generally with much the same results. And there is a remarkable amount of correlation between independent double-blind tests.

    But at the end of the day the best, most relevant, double-blind tests are the ones you do yourself, with the music you like to listen to... This will tell you a lot more than a frequency analyser.

    After all, if you can hear what a frequency analyser is telling you, you'll be able to hear it in a double-blind test... Right?

    1. Re:You're right, the ears don't work well... by RoderickMcDougall · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried what I can hear in a double blind test, I'm worried about what most people can't.

  37. Real already does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RealPlayer 10 has supported AAC since it's release... just FYI. :-)

  38. Worth Noting You're Wrong by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    Did you even *read* the article? Apparently not... for as you state ActiveX is not supported (and rightly so, what would Windows GUI objects do for you on Mac OS X), but distributed use of COM IS supported. In fact, the client-server example on the OReilly web page is exactly that!

  39. iAmp? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I don't see where the Apple SDK has an API for porting my WinAmp plugins to work in the iTunes app. Do you?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  40. winamp can already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    play and encode AACs. I think the advantage gained here is the possibility of playing fairplay DRMed AACs that have been purchased with iTunes.

  41. How to talk to iTunes using Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the JScript examples in the SDK, but I'd really like to write my program in Java instead of C#/C++/etc. Can someone point me in the right direction for how to do this? Thanks so much.