Slashdot Mirror


Apple Quietly Releases iTunes 4.8

trmptblwr writes "Apple has quietly released an iTunes update to version 4.8 for Mac OS X and Windows. Release notes say 'iTunes 4.8 includes new Music Store features and support for transferring contacts and calendars from your computer to your iPod (requires Mac OS X version 10.4 on your computer).' There also appears to be a some sort of new video functionality as you can now import QuickTime movies. I speculate that this has something to do with the 'new Music Store features.'"

169 comments

  1. I wonder by InfallibleLies · · Score: 2, Interesting
    if this means the next iPod will have video?

    And maybe they're planning on releasing it soon?

    1. Re:I wonder by CptChipJew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jobs said that video on portable devices was a bad move (or something). I remember it sounded like he was implying such a thing would never happen.

      --
      Vonal Declosion
    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true... I simply CAN'T watch a movie in a 2" screen... it's ridiculous...

      And... I don't want a swiss army knife that isn't good at anything... I want something that I can use to listen to songs (and that does that well)

    3. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind Jobs bad mouths everything up until Apple releases a product that does it 'better'. Flash based music players, and the iPod Shuffle are a great example of this.

    4. Re:I wonder by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      if this means the next iPod will have video? And maybe they're planning on releasing it soon?

      You've been able to import Quicktime files into iTunes for the last few versions. I've been ripping Quicktime files out of the Music Videos section of the iTunes store, then importing them back into iTunes to get free songs for almost a year.

      Oh, yeah... Don't steal music.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    5. Re:I wonder by Golias · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't want a swiss army knife

      I dunno.

      The iPod Photo didn't really rock my world, because I'm not much of a shutterbug... ... but the ability to watch downloaded Doctor Who episodes in the ice-fishing house or while waiting in line at the DMV sounds pretty sweet to me.

      It's not often that I disagree with the Almighty Jobs, but I think that the only thing really preventing video on hand-held MP3 players was that the technology was not quite ready to do it right just yet.

      IMHO, we are rapidly approaching the point where introducing an "iPod Movie" will be nearly as trivial as the extra $50 or so to create the iPod Photo was.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    6. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure the MPAA would be really, really happy you'd be able to watch your pirated entertaiment while sitting in the ice fishing house / waiting in line at the DMV / jerking off furiously (and occasionally all three at once).

      I think the MP3 player market, prior to iPod, was a case of engineers designing products for engineers, not a company designing a product for the mass market. Those products are still around today, and are frequently mentioned on Slashdot (because engineers like products designed for them).

    7. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. who?

      Sorry ... that one always gets me...

    8. Re:I wonder by killtherat · · Score: 1

      I think Steve Jobs thinks of himself of something like a magician. He does some sort of distraction for the audience so he can pull a rabbit out of his hat. And like any magician he gets mad when people try to spoil the secrets of his tricks (in fact he'll sue your ass).
      But I'm sure one day, presto, there's an iVideo.

    9. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I posted this in another discussion and am re-posting this here too, as it also applies to this discussion)

      I don't think a video iPod would work well -- I mean, video on a 1-2" screen? No, I think that the Next Big Thing would be a video-out capable Airport Express (sp?). Imagine it comes with a remote and is not that much more expensive than the current AirPort express. Imagine it can get videos from your iTunes-running 'puter and display it on your TV. Imagine that it could be used as a remote menuing display for iTunes. Imagine it has been properly designed to avoid the need for fans and other moving parts. Imagine iTunes can feed this remote gizmo DiVX/XViD files. What does all of this accomplish?

      (BTW, I'm not sure how they would deal with the bandwith needed to deliver steaming video from your 'puter to this gizmo, but I'll assume for argument's sake that they did.)

      (1) Steve sells AN APPLIANCE that is CHEAPER and MORE RELIABLE than a "media centre" pc.

      (2) Steve sells AN APPLIANCE that is QUIETER than a "media centre" pc.

      (3) Steve sells AN APPLIANCE that works with BOTH a Mac or a pc. No need to chuck everything you own, switching platforms and file formats.

      (4) Steve sells AN APPLIANCE that, when mated to iTunes 4.x/5.x, JUST WORKS. Joe Sixpack, who also started using iTunes 4.8+ to manage his DiVX/XViD/MPEG video collection, buys this gizmo, plugs it in his TV and in the wall socket, and within *minutes* (if not less), shazam, this magic menu appears on his TV and he can start watching his movies and recorded TV shows right away! OK, I'm a bit enthuasiastic here, but you get the idea.

      I don't think a portable video device makes much sense, as we already have those mobile DVD players and, really, I don't see how it apply the "iPod treatment" to such devices. I think the Next Big Thing will happen in the living room and has to do with our TVs. If you think the iPod was the perfect trojan horse for Apple to get into people's mind, this "Airport Video" would be even bigger.

      The key is to get more Apple technology in people's homes, to create even more "halo effect". And to augment people's TV (without having a noisy, dusty 'puter in the living room) is a good way of reaching them.

  2. Will it run on linux? by DrJonesAC2 · · Score: 1

    I mean seriously. When are they going to get around to porting it?

    1. Re:Will it run on linux? by Zemplar · · Score: 1

      Two options:
      1) Wine
      2) Codeweavers

    2. Re:Will it run on linux? by DrJonesAC2 · · Score: 1

      Yep already use it under Crossover Office but the CD burining doesn't work. Not that it's really that big a deal but it would be nice if Apple started taking Linux platforms more seriously. I mean both Apple and the various linux (linuxii?) out there have a common goal. The way they go about it now they are treating Windows as a superior OS to Linux.

    3. Re:Will it run on linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never. There is no market for it, or at least one that will earn them any money.

      Sure - It may be really quite simple for them to port it since it's running on OS X, but c'mon - Just how many Linux users are going to buy something from the the iTunes store?

      Why would they want to attract linux users anyway - I'm sure they are quite happy trying to convince you to run it on one of their macs with OS X instead :)

    4. Re:Will it run on linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's goal is to sell more Macs, whatever your supposed goal of the Linux master plan, it's not that.

    5. Re:Will it run on linux? by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Since when is the goal of any Linux to make money for Apple?

      Apple is a corporation. Their only goal is to make profits. They don't see porting iTMS to Linux to be a good business move, the same way most game manufacturers don't see making games for either OS X or Linux to be a good business move.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    6. Re:Will it run on linux? by nosferatu-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Approximately 10 seconds after some bright spark ports the Quicktime framework to Linux. Which is to say, never.

      --
      To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
  3. Exansion... by kenthorvath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe it will go something like music -> music videos -> movies? One can only hope...

    1. Re:Exansion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite what you may have been told, amn't is a word and it's high time that it made a comeback.

      And what, pray tell, does "amn't" mean?

      Jeez, if you can't even be bothered to spellcheck your sig file, how lazy are you?

    2. Re:Exansion... by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      It's a contraction for "am not"

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  4. Not in software update, it seems. by BigZaphod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does Apple usually delay putting updates into software update or was slashdot just amazingly fast getting this news story published?

    1. Re:Not in software update, it seems. by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes. this is normal procedure.

      they roll out updates to a small section of the net at a time, usually over the span of a day so that their servers don't die the instant they release a patch.

      it's not a bad idea... Microsoft used a similar scheme for SP2, but did it over the course of several weeks leaving many customers high and dry for a few weeks until they got enabled to receive the update.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:Not in software update, it seems. by ioErr · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is normal. It always takes a few hours for releases to apear in software update. Don't ask me why.

    3. Re:Not in software update, it seems. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think that makes sense. A minor addition: If you had to have iTunes 4.8, you can download it directly now, from apple.com.

      I thought Microsoft's XP SP2 was available through downloads.microsoft.com that way too. I really don't know for sure as I didn't have Windows XP at that time.

    4. Re:Not in software update, it seems. by davidstrauss · · Score: 1
      Microsoft used a similar scheme for SP2, but did it over the course of several weeks leaving many customers high and dry for a few weeks until they got enabled to receive the update.

      The full install for SP2 was immediately available to everyone. The Windows Update nag was slowly rolled out.

  5. After you buy a Mac Mini by mogabog · · Score: 1

    Then they will care about you. Why should they port to a competing *NIX variant?

    A

    1. Re:After you buy a Mac Mini by discstickers · · Score: 1

      Linux being a "competing *NIX" has nothing to do with it. Apple has decided that it isn't worth the effort to port iTunes (and thus QuickTime and most of Carbon) to Linux. Deal.

      --
      I have a shitty sig!
    2. Re:After you buy a Mac Mini by thephotoman · · Score: 1

      Besides, it's not like they're actually doing anything against PyMusique, which makes them money off of a market to which they're not actually catering.

      Granted, being able to use the same program to rip, burn, play, and export to my iPod would be nice, but I'm a Linux user. I can deal.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  6. Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Cecil · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, seriously.

    qtcomponents has not been updated in almost a year and has to my knowledge never really worked. It is open source, but according to a bug posted by an Apple developer, it uses the now obsolete SoundManager and will have to be rewritten to use CoreAudio before it'll work again.

    The other component, while being even longer since it was last updated, worked great. Although it had a few annoying bugs, it was quite usable right up until QT7 landed, and now it doesn't work at all. It is not open source, so you're pretty much out of luck.

    Has anyone found any alternative way of getting oggs to play in iTunes?

    1. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by minus_273 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      WHY? no, seriously, why another format? AAC and MP3 work fine.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    2. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by PaxTech · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In this week's I, Cringely column there's some talk about an unused Ogg iTunes icon embedded in Tiger. Official Ogg support could be on the horizon..

      Looking at the unused iTunes icons that shipped with your new version of 10.4, you'll notice icons for currently-not-supported ogg vorbis and Windows Media Audio (wma), as well as several others including a variety of video formats, too.
      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    3. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1
      Looks like Apple's going to unleash some geek love soon:
      $ ls -l /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/iTunes -ogg.icns
      -rw-rw-r-- 1 root admin 43825 Oct 4 2004 /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/iTunes -ogg.icns
      (the spaces aren't really there - Slashcode likes to reformat code, defying all logic)
      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      seriously, who uses Ogg why would they bother? Is there any financial benefit from it?

      Also, if it supports ogg in itunes, then they would need to support it on the ipod which is not possible because of that wonderful floating point issue.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    5. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean anything. Those icons have been there for almost a year now.

    6. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      The icons were there about a year and a half ago. I wouldn't count on actual ogg support being "on the horizon", as it hasn't materialized in that time.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    7. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by DLWormwood · · Score: 3, Informative
      there's some talk about an unused Ogg iTunes icon embedded in Tiger.

      That icon's been present in the last few releases of iTunes. It seems to have devolved into a running gag at this point. During the OS 9 era, iTunes included icons for MODs, S3Ms, and other "sound module/track" formats.

      The rationale once seemed to be that since iTunes is playing files via QuickTime, iTunes could potentially play OGG or WMA files via a new codec component provided by a third party. Apple used to encourage developers to create codecs and make them available for distribution via QuickTime Update. There has been some effort at making an OGG codec, and the the first verison of WMA (then called NetPlay, IIRC) used QuickTime hooks for the Mac version of the player.

      However, Apple hasn't done much with QuickTime Update and it appears to be going the way of QuickTime TV. (Does anybody out there use stuff like Axel, On2, or ZyGoVideo?) It seems there is no market or widespread enough interest in third-party enhancements to QuickTime...

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    8. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      Heh, I didn't know that, Cringely made it sound new. Maybe it's a really BIG horizon.. :)

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    9. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Don't get all foamy just yet. The OGG icons have been there for a long long time. At least a year. There are also Windows Media icons, but that doesn't mean crap either. Yet.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    10. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      the spaces aren't really there - Slashcode likes to reformat code, defying all logic

      It's to keep the morons from using it for page widening.

    11. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Scaba · · Score: 1

      It's very possible to support Ogg on portables; I know this because I own one that does (Rio Karma). That wonderful floating-point issue has been solved now for at over two years, when Xiph released Tremor, the integer-based Ogg decoder.

    12. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by minus_273 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Rio Karma and Ipod arent the same device. Look at the linux ipod that pays OGG and you see how god awful the playback is.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    13. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything Cringely just noticed is new, especially if it's something that most other people have also not noticed before now. That's his bread and butter.

    14. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems there is no market or widespread enough interest in third-party enhancements to QuickTime...

      Are you kidding? Without the DivX codec for my quicktime player, I wouldn't be able to play bootleg .avi files for fansubbed anime and Doctor Who which I download from torrents and newsgroups!

      Well... not without using VLC, anyway... which I usually do...

      Come to think of it, there's not really much demand for thrid-party enhancements to QuickTime after all. Never mind.

    15. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Scaba · · Score: 1

      Well, I was really speaking to your claim about iPod not being able to support Ogg Vorbis due to the floating-point issue, not how well some hacker shoved Linux onto an iPod to play Ogg Vorbis files. (Which contradicts your own assertion that the iPod cannot support Ogg.) And, really though - using a hobbiest's hacked-up iPod as an example of why Apple's hypothetical support of Ogg Vorbis hypothetically sucks, what with Apple's paid engineers and extensive testing, is kinda specious, dontcha think? The Linux iPod is just a bad implementation. I'm sure if these players can support Ogg Vorbis, Apple's engineering wizards can make iPod support it, too.

    16. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The OGG icons have been there for a long long time. At least a year. There are also Windows Media icons, but that doesn't mean crap either.
      Precisely. I suspect that they tossed in icons for just about every format they thought they might ever consider supporting at any time in the future to eliminate the possibility that someone might forget to remove it in the case where they experimented internally with a given format, then decided against it.

      Not like the icons take up a lot of room or hurt anything

    17. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, seriously.

      Yes, seriously - I realize you and your 5 friends care, but y'know what - nobody else does.

      It simply doesn't make any sense to spend thousands of dollars to implement a feature that may be used by less than 1% of their installed base, realistically won't sway many users their way (average Ogg user: "corporations bad! Fire Bad! Rarr!"), and of course there's a chance some RIAA member will get pissy over .ogg for no reason whatsoever, which won't stop the RIAA from raising a flag and marching their army of lawyers down to 1 Infinite Loop.
    18. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Apple's going to unleash some geek love soon:


      Those icons have been there for years. There's also one for WMA, and other types that iTunes doesn't support. You could even make your system use that icon by modifying iTunes' Info.plist. It's not a sign of things to come, necessarily -- just a sign that the icon designer was thorough.

    19. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by _|()|\| · · Score: 1
      iTunes could potentially play OGG or WMA files via a new codec component provided by a third party

      There is such a component. However, QuickTime 7 broke it. I don't know that Apple is helping the project, but it seems to be aware of it. See the most recent comment on bug #1144430, "Ogg Vorbis Support Broken in Tiger," which includes comments from the QuickTime engineering group.

    20. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      qtcomponents worked quite well for me up to itunes 4.7, now I have 400 ogg files I can't play anymore, annoying as all hell.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    21. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a plugin for Quicktime that magically enables iTunes to play oggs.

    22. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      the ipod linux implementation can't really play oggs, it just tries to (badly) . As for xiph thing, i didnt know about it as i like most other people dont follow the ogg scene.
      Ogg really is an obscure format used by a niche for various political reasons instead of main stream alternatives which work perfectly fine (AAC, MP3 etc )

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    23. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean like qtcomponents? Or perhaps jordy@illadvised.com's Ogg Quicktime plugin? The two that I mentioned don't work anymore?

      GG reading comprehension!

    24. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by Piquan · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the deal as far as I've noticed.

      Try running Jordy's and qtcomponents' plugins against ogg files. Look at the stack traces when they crash; you'll notice that they're the same. I seriously doubt that Jordy just happened to use the same function names and line numbers, so I figure he's adapted the qtcomponents code to use CoreAudio, and fixed some of the more glaring bugs. (The original was BSD licensed, so it's his perogative to not release his source.)

      But it looks like the interface that QuickTime uses into the component changed somehow. (It's likely that the original author was unknowingly using an undocumented quirk.) If you look at the forums on qtcomponents, you'll see that somebody found that the sample count being sent into the component was 0. I played around with the qtcomponents source, but haven't yet gotten anywhere useful.

      Since I did that, I saw the analysis from Apple in the qtcomponents bug #1144430. It looks like there's probably some significant work to be done here, rather than a simple patch. I did ask Jordy to open his source, but I don't know if he'll do it.

      Well, I've been looking for a Mac coding project; maybe this is the thing. But it's probably over my head.

    25. Re:Yeah, but will it play oggs? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Good point - some client-side DOM manipulation could easily toggle a 132-character mode for ecode sections. Assuming modern markup, that is.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. iTunes 4.7.1 and video by Mikito · · Score: 1

    iTunes 4.7.1 (and maybe prior versions as well) can show QuickTime music videos from the iTunes store, but I don't know offhand if it's making a call to the QuickTime program or processing the QT file itself. I know that there are AppleScripts that will let you save iTunes music videos to your hard drive.

    You can play a local QuickTime file with iTunes 4.7.1 but you'll only hear the audio content. Doing so also makes a copy of the QT file in your Music folder.

    --
    Anakin Simpson: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy--ooh, donuts!
    1. Re:iTunes 4.7.1 and video by cryptochrome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      QT is a framework, accessible from any program. I think the idea here is you can now store and play video from iTunes. It makes perfect sense. Audio jukebox -> video jukebox. Why not? The catch is video consists of large files you probably can't and don't keep around on the hard drive very long. This could be just for early adopters with gigabytes to spare.

      But it could also foreshadow the rumored iTunes subscription service which must of necessity handle temporary audio files. Such a system could handle temporary VIDEO downloads just as easily - AKA, online rentals. Something the iTunes store could easily accomodate. This new feature may be to prepare for that release.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    2. Re:iTunes 4.7.1 and video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those scripts may not work any more.

      With Quicktime 7, all files are now cached in the Quicktime cache rather than in the /tmp/50x/TemporaryItems hidden folder.

      They are also now encoded differently. Before, they were standard movie files that just had to be renamed to have a .mov extension. Now they are ".qtch" files that have about 500 bytes of header (and other information) missing or changed.

      Until someone works out how to change .qtch files back, anyone with Quicktime 7 is unable to keep the downloaded movies etc.

      Damn sucky, if you ask me :)

  8. New Apple Lossless format by georgewad · · Score: 1, Informative

    from the link:
    Use the new lossless encoder to import music from CDs and achieve sound quality indistinguishable from the original, at about half the original file size. Plays in iTunes and on iPod.
    Yum.

    --
    Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
    1. Re:New Apple Lossless format by CptChipJew · · Score: 2, Informative

      That encoder was in the last release of iTunes. It isn't new.

      --
      Vonal Declosion
    2. Re:New Apple Lossless format by georgewad · · Score: 1

      Thanks for bursting my bubble. I guess I should pay more attention to an app that I use every day...

      --
      Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
    3. Re:New Apple Lossless format by kitzilla · · Score: 2, Interesting
      At least you've noticed now. Give Apple Lossless a try. I was using variable-rate MP3s before, but have completely switched over. Unless you have really crappy speakers or headphones, you'll hear the difference.

      Be read to buy more hard drive space, though. ;-)

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    4. Re:New Apple Lossless format by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      That was introduced with iTunes 4.5, on iTMS's first anniversary, April 28, 2004. :-)

    5. Re:New Apple Lossless format by flawedgeek · · Score: 1

      Not helpful for the music you get from the itunes music store, though.

      --
      My other Sig is .40 caliber.
    6. Re:New Apple Lossless format by Kichigai+Mentat · · Score: 1

      I whole heartedly agree. one of the problems with buying music from iTMS is that you're buying music at sub-CD quality. I believe that the store should offer the option to download in either AAC or ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec), giving you the option as to how much hard disk space you want to sacrifice, as well as bandwidth. Can you imagine downloading an Apple Lossless song via dial-up? But a Broadbroad user with a couple extra hard disks sitting around...

      --
      Rawr
  9. Any downgrades? by fname · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems that with every iTunes release, Apple quietly removes some useful feature to placate the RIAA. They eliminated internet streaming, disabled some plug-ins, restricted you to sharing songs with 5 computers a day, and so on. Any word yet about whether has removed any features this time?

    1. Re:Any downgrades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      They removed the ability to play music.

    2. Re:Any downgrades? by outZider · · Score: 1

      *streams some audio*

      Well, that works. What on earth are you talking about?

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    3. Re:Any downgrades? by mcknut · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the original poster meant that you used to be able to specify the IP addresses of other machines running iTunes, but now you have to use the likes of RendezVous Proxy.

    4. Re:Any downgrades? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      He's just another troll out looking for something to sink his teeth into and hoping someone will take his anti-RIAA bait. Go away, troll!

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    5. Re:Any downgrades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure wish they'd go back to allowing multiple computers per day to access iTunes. I haven't changed from 4.6 because I enjoy sharing my collection with the 2000 people here at work. Of course most don't have iTunes, but there is a small community of online people here.

    6. Re:Any downgrades? by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      They probably "removed" PyMusique compatability again. Does anyone know?

      --
      badness 10000
    7. Re:Any downgrades? by vandan · · Score: 1

      I hadn't noticed that 5-computers-a-day thing, but I only have 5 computers on my home network, and I don't use iTunes to share my music, so I don't really case. I use daapd ... you'll need mDNSResponder as well. It was as simple as 'emerge daapd' on my Gentoo box ( little Celeron 333 beast ). You can share your music with as many people as you want.

      Alternatively, you might even be able to get the above setup running on OS X without too much trouble. I haven't tried it, and I imagine iTunes might get a little bitchy if it can't bind to the port that daapd runs on, but there should be ways around this. Perhaps just turning off music sharing will stop daapd from running?

      But yeah ... you're right about Apple and their arse-licking of the major media power-that-be. I still can't get over the fact that they can't include some open-source encoding apps such as mencoder, ffmpeg, transcode etc. It would be trivial to get these supported , if not included in iMovie / iDVD. They aren't shy of using open source technology when it suits them of course.

    8. Re:Any downgrades? by thephotoman · · Score: 1

      PyMusique works just fine. Purchased a bit of Spinal Tap off of them just now through PyMusique.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  10. MOV import by dynayellow · · Score: 1

    Just tried it out: it imports MOV files, all right, and creates a full copy of the file in the iTunes library.

    However, it doesn't (or I haven't yet figured out) play the video portion of the file in iTunes: only the audio.

    1. Re:MOV import by CptChipJew · · Score: 3, Informative

      It plays the video in the album artwork display. Do you have it hidden?

      --
      Vonal Declosion
    2. Re:MOV import by dynayellow · · Score: 1

      D'oh! Sure did! Thanks.

    3. Re:MOV import by confidential · · Score: 3, Informative

      in the iTunes preferences (under advanced), you can also set it to play the movies in the album viewer spot, in a new window, or fullscreen... Regardless of your choice, you can always click on the new "open in full screen" button on the bottom left corner.

    4. Re:MOV import by mister_tim · · Score: 1

      Also, this isn't actually new. iTunes 4.7 and maybe earlier would also import .mov, and .mpg files (and maybe .avi as well? I can't remember). Anyway, it would import them to the library but wouldn't play the video - so it doesn't sound as though anything has changed on that front.

  11. The Real Question by hawkbug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real question is, when will there be a Windows 64 compatible version? Since XP 64 is currently shipping from OEMs, and a lot of other companies currently have 64 bit drivers and apps either out or in development, I wonder when Apple will release iTunes for it. Everything in iTunes currently works under 32 emu mode, but to burn CDs, you would need 64 bit drivers. Burning CDs from iTunes is a huge, important feature, so it's not a minor thing.

    1. Re:The Real Question by zonker · · Score: 0

      is that really 'the real question'? as far as os upgrades go xp64 is fairly underwhelming in general and i don't see anyone rushing out to get it or anyone rushing out to develop for it.

      i think it is going to be a fairly slow adoption and we will likely only see drivers being developed en masse for longhorn64, not xp64. not even microsoft seems that excited about it...

    2. Re:The Real Question by vandan · · Score: 1

      Just a thought:

      Apple provide iTunes for Windows to lure people over to Macs. People who have an Athlon 64 are far less likely to be switching to a Mac than others, if only for the fact that they have only recently upgraded.

      You would expect iTunes to be 64-bit ready considering Apple have the G5 in mind, so I wouldn't think it would be too hard for them to come up with an Athlon 64 port ... or at least an un-optimised one.

  12. Movies? by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 1

    Maybe they want to start selling music videos and movie trailers? Or maybe even entire movies? Maybe this is part of the alleged reason behind the Mini Mac, to create a cheap platform for playing online movies? Their new Quicktime & codec are supposed to be able to produce higher quality movies at a lower bandwidth requirements than competitors.

    Damien

    1. Re:Movies? by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah... if they were going to start selling movies, we'd be hearing rumors that Apple is buying up some big movie studio, followed by speculation that it's a plot by Jobs to get Pixar a good distribution deal, hundreds of Slashdotters screaming about how Apple will die if it branches out and becomes a media company, followed by disappointment when people find out they're actually just going to be selling movies online.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how they bought a record studio prior to the introduction of the iTMS.

      Oh wait... that didn't happen.

      Never mind.

    3. Re:Movies? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how they bought a record studio prior to the introduction of the iTMS.

      Oh wait... that didn't happen.


      If they had, they should have bought out Apple Records.

      That reminds me: what is the state of the latest Apple Records v. Apple Computer suit?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word has it they've reached a tentative agreement that involves Apple (computer) giving Apple (records) a big wad of cash and iTMS will be the exclusive source for Apple (records) music.

    5. Re:Movies? by mjpaci · · Score: 1

      You forgot one thing...

      On a Mac you still can't browse the web AND format a floppy at the same time.

      --Mike

    6. Re:Movies? by alternapop · · Score: 1

      what's a floppy?

  13. you know by sethadam1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, for a company that has gained A LOT of support and respect from the /. type, they really ought to spend the 59 seconds necessary to have iTunes support FLAC and OGG. Seriously, you know how many people they'd make happy?

    And if the iPod itself supported those codecs, I wonder how many more they'd sell to this crowd? (This crowd, by the way, being the ones who provide recommendations to the people who sign the checks to buy IT equipment for corporations worldwide.)

    1. Re:you know by dtfarmer · · Score: 4, Funny

      they really ought to spend the 59 seconds necessary to have iTunes support FLAC and OGG. Seriously, you know how many people they'd make happy?

      Uh, both of you?

      *ducks*

    2. Re:you know by babbage · · Score: 1

      I guess they're just not that worried in investing the 59 seconds it would take to placate both of the world's Ogg users.

      I can't blame them, really. They seem to be doing pretty well so far by ignoring these Ogg fanatics (both of which, aside from incessant Slashdot whining, don't ever actually seem to show up in real life).

      But YMObviouslyVaries... :-)

    3. Re:you know by Satai · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that having an OGG decoder required heavy FPU usage... (Which is why the Neuros was the only one doing it for the longest time, if not still!) I seem to recall there being an int-only decoder publicized a while back, but I don't know if that ever took off or not. Does the iPod have an FPU that's up to the challenge?

    4. Re:you know by Onan · · Score: 1
      Seriously, you know how many people they'd make happy?
      Six.
    5. Re:you know by halepark · · Score: 1

      (This crowd, by the way, being the ones who provide recommendations to the people who sign the checks to buy IT equipment for corporations worldwide.)

      Your company's IT dept. buys you all iPods?!? Who do I have to give my resume to?

    6. Re:you know by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

      If not, at least iTunes does. Any machine that can decode vorbis files without iTunes I have to assume can decode them from within iTunes.

    7. Re:you know by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you care, and why should I? I try to be sympathetic to all the format wars -- Real v. WMV v. QuickTime, OpenOffice v. MS Office, etc. -- and pick the side that is best for the community, but honestly on this one I just do NOT see a reason to give a crap. MP3 and M4A do everything I want. I have yet to see reasons compelling enough to justify caring about this battle.

    8. Re:you know by hammeredpeon · · Score: 1

      That's better than any bash.org thing I've read. Except the wizard hat one.

      --
      best college pickem site ever: pickem.terrbear.org
    9. Re:you know by javaxman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You know, for a company that has gained A LOT of support and respect from the /. type, they really ought to spend the 59 seconds necessary to have iTunes support FLAC and OGG. Seriously, you know how many people they'd make happy?

      While I agree with you in principle, in reality I find that it's pretty easy to re-encode any shorten, flac, or other format audio file into something iTunes will manage ( like, oh, I don't know, MP3 ). FLAC and SHN files are for archive use. MP3s sound fine at a high enough bitrate, and have the bonus that they work on all players.

      I'm still wondering where you can get OGG files that you don't make yourself. Sorry, Seth, but something tells me that Apple has done the market research and decided that support for FLAC and OGG would confuse more people than it would make happy. Those of us who end up with FLAC or SHN files know how to convert them. If lossless is a big deal, we can use Apple's lossless...

      Ultimately, the answer is that iTunes exists for the iPod, and you'll see these formats supported by iTunes just as soon as they're supported by the iPod. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

    10. Re:you know by Satai · · Score: 1

      This is true. I have been using OGG files in iTunes for a while now, with the qtcomponents project. I believe iTunes can play anything that has a QuickTime codec... QTComponents was broken with QT7, however.

    11. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? The OSS crowd that's falling over themselves to complain about .ogg support (all 5 of you vocal little bastards :) will never buy:

      1) An Apple computer (too expensive, not x86, no support for grilled toast hardware you bought at a flea market last weekend, etc.)
      2) An Apple peripheral (too expensive, not open source, no recording, etc.)

      So in other words, there's no incentive for them to spend any money whatsoever doing this. All that'll happen is you'll just start to complaining about something else instead of ogg - you won't actually buy anything.

      Not that your combined 5 iPod sales would come close to paying for the iPod team spending 15 minutes working on this in any case, much less a full development/QA/production pass.

    12. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot both of their imaginary girlfriends that live in another state.

    13. Re:you know by prichardson · · Score: 1

      iTunes uses QuickTime to decode the music, so you need to make QuickTime recognize OGG and FLAC. I don't know how to do this on windows, but on a mac all you have to do is drag a decoder into /Library/QuickTime or ~/Library/QuickTime. So quit yer whinin'. Also, m4a kicks OGGs ass as far as audio quality goes. Lossless also trumps FLAC.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    14. Re:you know by roblaird · · Score: 1
      Seriously, you know how many people they'd make happy?

      Yes. Seven.

    15. Re:you know by zonker · · Score: 0

      this has been discussed to death in the past (do a /. search) and yes, the ipod is more than capable of doing it (as the author of the vorbis codec has stated). apple just doesn't see a need for it.

    16. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even the Linux geeks have gotten Ogg playback in realtime on an iPod working yet.

      So which are you proposing?
      (a) Apple upgrades the iPod hardware just for the wackos who insist on Ogg support? (Yeah, that's a sound business decision.)
      (b) Apple spends valuable time trying to squeeze a Vorbis decoder onto the iPod hardware? (Wow, what a great use of resources for them.)
      (c) Apple ships iTunes with a codec that doesn't work on any iPod? (Yeah, because nobody will call tech support wondering how to play their 10 gigs of Oggs on their iPod, huh?)

      If you spend more than 3 seconds thinking about it, you'd realize that adding codec support to a software+hardware platform isn't as simple as flipping a lightswitch. ...they really ought to spend the 59 seconds necessary...

      I know in the movies anybody with a keyboard, a blowjob, and 60 seconds can do anything with a computer, but out here in the real world programming isn't *quite* that easy.

    17. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      patents.

      license fees.

      restrictions on your ability to PRODUCE content, and not just consume it.

      you know, the same reasons as FREE SOFTWARE. :p

    18. Re:you know by mjpaci · · Score: 1
      You could go ask the MIT student who just threw a party for time travelers...

      maybe the other OGG user showed up from the future wearing a retro nerd-fit just to fit in in 2005. Here's the linky.

      --Mike

    19. Re:you know by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that, but I also think that I, and probably several Slashdotters, would love to be able to have Vorbis files, Shorten files, and FLAC files in my iTunes library, regardless of whether or not they can be transferred to my iPod.

    20. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. So both of the people who want FLAC and OGG are ducks? Weird.

  14. Security fixes included as well by confidential · · Score: 3, Informative

    from 2 seconds ago, posted to the OSX Security Bulletins Mailing list:

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    APPLE-SA-2005-05-09 iTunes 4.8

    iTunes 4.8 is now available and, among other enhancements, delivers
    the following security improvement:

    CVE-ID: CAN-2005-1248

    Impact: A buffer overflow in iTunes could cause a denial of service
    and lead to execution of arbitrary code

    Description: The MPEG4 file parsing code in iTunes versions prior to
    4.8 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability. Parsing a
    maliciously-crafted MPEG4 file could cause iTunes to terminate or
    potentially execute arbitrary code. iTunes 4.8 addresses this issue
    by improving the validation checks used when loading MPEG4 files.
    Credit to Mark Litchfield of NGS Software for reporting this issue.

    iTunes 4.8 is freely available at
    http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/ for Mac OS X v10.2.8 or later,
    Microsoft Windows XP, and Microsoft Windows 2000

    For Mac OS X:
    The download file is named: "iTunes4.8.dmg"
    Its SHA-1 digest is: 5a86f278f9f83192a7789ad123d5d62f67a6a316

    For Windows 2000 or XP:
    The download file is named: "iTunesSetup.exe"
    Its SHA-1 digest is: 12582d193b27991c8f069331ab12d107c569bde2

    Information will also be posted to the Apple Product Security
    web site:
    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=617 98

    This message is signed with Apple's Product Security PGP key,
    and details are available at:
    http://www.apple.com/support/security/pgp/

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.1

    iQEVAwUBQn+6yYHaV5ucd/HdAQLYzQf/SDN1AnjwypPbB7Uu NO eR3PnBSNyV+Z1k
    L+EwCmtafm1tx2G8m8wAX0WYJ+k79cFSxf A7A8LzVGcZwN7uYj f7JT7YDmOHiMGB
    rJFKakNmP5iSfRObSKXylfUkjBMhriiQyY zBrsbtIPjHo/HhD3 UCcKcOX0/ghFJn
    WPow+OatAPQWMV2ieyEDL1Yxr42SknmZrC EndrGDisPiT204R5 SV38vAF4PDafbm
    0/fB24UW2TPfAa/Ga50hO3IGEusAeeCRl/ VJFI9bOmDcHLAAaj Nh9zWODZ/3j49S
    nbiuGlzyf23lI2mdmSZ743DxeuojIahM9w potpWdqKMTyej4/D kbkA==
    =T7Wp
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    1. Re:Security fixes included as well by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess we know Apple Security hasn't upgraded to Tiger yet because they're still running PGP 8.1.

  15. Get over yourself by amichalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if the iPod itself supported [FLAC and OGG], I wonder how many more they'd sell to this crowd? (This crowd, by the way, being the ones who provide recommendations to the people who sign the checks to buy IT equipment for corporations worldwide.)

    The parent post doesn't even make sense in the Real World (tm). What corporate IT infrastructure is the target market for the iPod? And in that small subset of the global market, what group requires FLAC and OGG and can't "make due" with Apple Lossless, MP3 and AAC?

    As to your question about "how many more would they sell?" All I can say is that Apple sells 90% of HD based players and 68% of Flash based players according the March numbers from IDC. If the 10% and 32% non-Apple players being purchased are being purchased because of their FLAC and OGG support, then we are living in some wierd ass /. fantasy land!

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    1. Re:Get over yourself by sethadam1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Uh, let me make this clearer for you, since you obviously are a little slow. missed the point completely.

      Apple also makes a computer system, and it's called the Macintosh! It's really fancy, and they just released a new version of their OS, and they are trying to get into the corporate market!! Wow! Isn't that the roxx0rs?!?!?!1!

      If Apple were to gain even more popular with the crowd that implements hardware in corporations, maybe they'd sell more hardware to them. They can start that goodwill with some simple mods in iTunes.

    2. Re:Get over yourself by amichalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Apple were to gain even more popular with the crowd that implements hardware in corporations, maybe they'd sell more hardware to them. They can start that goodwill with some simple mods in iTunes.

      What a load of crap. There are no IT managers who would support a platform change to Mac OS X if only Apple would support FLAC and OGG on the iPod. No, not one. Apple has created tons of goodwill to the OSS community - embracing OSS with contributions like Bonjour and using FreeBSD in OS X. Want proof of the good will? just checkout a website known as /. where OSS geeks fall all over themselves praising Apple daily.

      The iPod is for consumers. Be rational, not emotional, about these facts.

      --
      I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    3. Re:Get over yourself by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

      There are no IT managers who would support a platform change to Mac OS X if only Apple would support FLAC and OGG on the iPod.

      Inroads, my friend. Cause ya gotta start somewhere, and being the flavor of the week ain't so bad. How many fanboys here have begun buying IBM hardware since they became Linux's bestest big brother?

      Don't underestimate the OS X/Apple hardware marketing that can be done with "consumer products" like the iPod.

      If you doubt me, go to ANY tech trade show - Citrix, Linux, VoIP, etc. Nearly every vendor is auctioning off an iPod. Gee, I wonder why?

  16. They're playing catchup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There also appears to be a some sort of new video functionality as you can now import Quicktime movies. I speculate that this has something to do with the new Music Store features

    I speculate it's because Windows Media Player has always been able to play videos - as can Winamp these days. They're probably frustrated that iTunes is popular but everybody hates the Quicktime player because of it's nagware behaviour. Even if they run iTunes, Windows users still turn to Windows Media Player or Media Player Classic (and various others) to view movies. Hell, even as a Mac user I prefer the OSX port of Mplayer over the horrible Quicktime player.

    So rather than admit they were wrong with the nagware effort, I bet they're trying to turn iTunes into their consumer "all media" player. This allows them to push Quicktime player slightly upmarket, to continue to charge for the Quicktime Pro toolset - and continue to nag users about upgrading.

    This would also explain why the new Quicktime 7 is even more desperate to get you to buy the Pro version (when they should have backed off). It now has all the menus of the Pro version in the free version - but they're greyed out.

  17. Not to toot my own horn... by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

    But this is largely what I was trying to achieve when I initially started storing videos in iTunes.

    This was my solution (different nickname... Same dull, boring guy). I'm glad to see that Apple's taken my lead and is running with it! 8)=

  18. Have they fixed basics yet? by cornjones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use itunes to keep my ipod synced but it lacks some basic functionality that I keep expecting to see in these updates.

    How about an option to rescan a directory? If I drop new music in my Music folder, I have to either import that directory manually into itunes or delete everything and reimport. Ideally, I could drop the whole folder on itunes and it would find the new items. Instead, it reimports all of them so I end up w/ duplicates in my library. WTF? Similarl issues show up if I update my tags.

    Everything else I have used has a "rescan" function, why doesn't iTunes?

    1. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you were using iTunes as it's designed to be used (letting it organize your music instead of importing your whole library that you're organizing yourself every time you update it, so you can sync to your iPod), you wouldn't have that problem.

      Have you requested the feature/reported it as a bug to Apple? If not, it's unlikely anyone else has, as it works for the way they expect users to be using it.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't get duplicates when I tell iTunes to "add folder to library" and point it at my itunes music folder. Widows XP for me; perhaps the mac version works differently?

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
    3. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by soupdevil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm one more person who doesn't use iTunes, primarily for this reason.

    4. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by georgewad · · Score: 1

      hmmmm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I update my folders often, drag a parent (with lots of already catalogged tunes) to iTunes and it adds the new ones only. Check to see if you have 'move to iTunes folder' checked (I'm at work with my linux box, so can't look at the app to see what it really says)

      --
      Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
    5. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Sometimes_Rational · · Score: 2, Informative
      How about an option to rescan a directory? ... Ideally, I could drop the whole folder on itunes and it would find the new items. Instead, it reimports all of them so I end up w/ duplicates in my library.


      As others have pointed out, the File > Add to Library ... menu item is the rescan function that you seek. In the preferences, under the "Advanced" tab, uncheck "Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized", and when you use the Add to Library ..." menu item, the files will get added to the library list without new copies being made in the iTunes Music folder. You can keep whatever personal organizational scheme you want for your music this way. Of course, if you store your music all over your hard disk, you are likely to accidentally delete something one day and then you'll be sorry.

      This basic functionality has been with iTunes for some time.
      --
      Warning: The intelligence of this post may be larger than it appears.
    6. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

      I am confused as to why you'd drop the music into the 'Music' folder as opposed to dropping it into the iTunes 'Library' icon and letting iTunes copy and organize the files to the Music folder itself.

      Not trying to be contrarian, just wonderin'...

      I understand that you'd have to trash the original files as they would then be duplicates, but that seems kinda trivial, and your problem would be solved, no?

      That is not to say that a 'rescan' function wouldn't be useful, mind you...

      --
      We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
    7. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you two examples

      a: jonny n00b. jonny just bought his shiny new computer and has 10-15 mp3s. it doesnt matter if some have messed up id3 tags, its only a matter of retagging 10-15 mp3s after importing to the library

      b: frankie 0ldcore. frankie has been on the internet since before al gore invented it. frank has over 40gb of mp3s, thousands and thousands of files. some are from before id3 tags were part of the standard, others are untagged because it was the style at the time and have all their info stored in the filenames. others are just messed up. in order for frankie to use the import feature, every single song needs its tags fixed. that is, unless you want to end up with an "Unknown artist" folder in your library that contains large slabs of your music, each file named "01 unknown track.mp3". to frankie, the import feature is completely fucking useless. for it to be any use at all, it would have to dump untagged files in a seperate folder, perhaps named 'untagged files', and then NOT FUCK WITH THEIR FILE NAMES.

      anyhow, i hope that clears up the reason. its not something that will bother everyone. heck, it wont bother most people; but the few it bothers, it bothers a lot

    8. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just keep a directory lying around ( called import_from_here_you_jackass because I like swearing at myself via my computer) and whenever I have songs I want to import, I throw them in there, then I have iTunes copy them into the library (by doing Add Folder to Library and having the appropriate option checked in the preferences) then I delete what's in the folder at some point since now it's copied into itunes land and organizized....

      I'm not bragging, I'm just saying that's what I did.

    9. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Xyde · · Score: 1

      Doing what you tried hasn't reimported the whole library for me since, oh, I don't know, iTunes 2.04. I just tested it and it works perfectly as expected (I also have iTunes set to manage my library)

    10. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      There's lots of basics missing, and plenty of advanced stuff.

      Is it designed to run so slow on my 1.2GHz Athlon with 512MB RAM? Why is it designed so it can't put the artist and song name on the same line when it would fit? Why can't I turn off showing the album, because I really don't care. Why can't I tell it to organize my music by genre\artist? Why doesn't the miniplayer have a bar that I can click on to jump around a song? Why doesn't it have easy to create skins and plug-ins?

      Why can't it play highly rated songs more often, but I get to set how much more often?

      Why doesn't it have a random-but-no-repeat function guaranteeing I won't hear the same song twice in two days just because I turned my computer off in-between?

      I reported the last two to Apple, figuring they're too stubborn to fix the others. Party shuffle is too feature limited. Smart Playlists are too feature limited. Neither can play my favorite songs as often as I want, but never duplicating a song too often. Why is that? Why can't Apple offer advanced options for former Winamp users who are comfortable using a three-button mouse?

    11. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It runs fine on my iBook 1.25 GHz with 256 MB of RAM, so I'm gonna say no, it's not designed to run slow on your Athlon.

      I'll give you that it would be nice to customize the info that's displayed during playback. That addition wouldn't add much complexity and would make the program more versitile.

      You can tell it to organize your music by whatever field(s) you like. You can't tell it to organize files that way because it's not a file sorter, it's an audio player. They aren't intending users to ever see or interact with the library files. If you feel you need to, iTunes isn't for you.

      It does have easy to create plug-ins. See http://itunes.pluginsworld.com/

      It doesn't have skins because skins are nothing more than a spoiler for your '89 Honda, and they break the user interface to boot. Or I could answer with a question: why doesn't <insert any non-audio player program here> have support for skins?

      I think a saved random state would be nice, and not hard to add. I'll vote with you on that one.

      Why must Apple offer advanced options in their free player targeted at the mass market? I can certainly understand why you want these things -- why don't you understand that other's don't. I don't want my text editor to do page layout. I don't don't want my audio player to require 40 minutes of setup either. There's nothing stopping someone from writing another audio player that uses QuickTime to decrypt and play audio and includes all the features you like. But there's also no compelling reason for Apple to add most of the features that you find so essential.

    12. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by ischorr · · Score: 1

      If the folder contains .m3u files, iTunes appears to import the files pointed to by the playlist as well, regardless of whether or not that file has already been added. Many people have playlists in each directory, or at least playlists that also include most files in a particular library, so importing everything (including the playlists) seems to duplicate files. I suspect this is tripping a lot of people up.

    13. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      How much do you know about Winamp? If you're a mac person I understand, but it runs at least twice as fast as iTunes, has skins, and is much more customizable. It's my fault for not specifying, but I really meant skins for the mini-player. It ought to be easy for people to make the mini player be the size they want and show the options they want. I've found a widget for Konfabulator that does most of what I want in a much smaller, less flashier package. BTW, Konfabulator is what Apple copied to make Dashboard.

      Even if Apple doesn't think I need to interact with mp3 files, why not let me adjust how it sorts them anyway? It wouldn't be hard.

      Truth be told, I need to look into foobar2000, a free competitor to Winamp and iTunes. If it lets me rate my songs and create playlists accordingly, I'll switch. Meanwhile it's in Apple's interest to get as many windows users as possible to switch from winamp and musicmatch, so they should offer an advanced options menu. Make the defaults the same as they already are, and you won't have to spend 40 minutes setting it up either.

    14. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      a) you mean iTunes, not musicmatch.

      b) Apple doesn't care that much about how many Windows users use iTunes. iTunes is a value-add that exists to sell iPods and differentiate them from other mp3 players. And iPods themselves exist to sell Macs.

    15. Re:Have they fixed basics yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • a) you mean iTunes, not musicmatch.

      Um, no, he means musicmatch:
      • Meanwhile it's in Apple's interest to get as many windows users as possible to switch from winamp and musicmatch, so they should offer an advanced options menu.

      Unless you're of the belief that Apple wishes users to switch away from iTunes.
  19. Closer, closer ... by kitzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Closer, closer Apple edges to distributing video entertainment (DVD-quality movies, music videos, streaming video pay-per-view) via iTunes.

    Won't be long now. This follows the introduction of the new H.264 video codec in Quicktime 7. Apple has pretty much all the pieces in place to begin content sales to early adopters.

    You didn't think those 30" cinema monitors were just for pr0n, did you? ;-)

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    1. Re:Closer, closer ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You didn't think those 30" cinema monitors were just for pr0n, did you? ;-)

      To a true geek, those monitors are pr0n. I'm gettin' a woody just thinking about them.

  20. iTunes vs QT Pro by Bulln-Bulln · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny, you need to buy QT Pro in order to play videos full screen, but OTOH Apple releases iTunes 4.8 with *fullscreen* video support for free.
    The same is true (since a long time) for audio encoding: Need QT Pro for the "Export" feature in QT, but the "Import" feature in iTunes is free.

    I like Apple, but IMHO the guy, who's responsible for the QT Player frontend (not the QT backend, which is cool), is quite stupid.

    What's next? iTunes 5.0 with video encoding support?

    1. Re:iTunes vs QT Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for the QT Pro tax is to satisfy the licensing crap that goes with all the proprietary codecs.

    2. Re:iTunes vs QT Pro by Bulln-Bulln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh please. These fees are also required for iTunes' Import feature and in many cases for decoding (depends on the licensing scheme).
      If this was the reason for QT Pro, it would be required to buy a Pro license for QT just to play anything.

      The whole QT Pro thing is just flawed. The QT Player should be what it once was: Just a good player.
      If Apple whants a QT Editor, they should bundle it with iMovie or something.

    3. Re:iTunes vs QT Pro by capmilk · · Score: 1
      The QT Player should be what it once was: Just a good player.

      There are good players already: MPlayer and VLC. Absolutely no need to even touch the QT Player - let alone buy the Pro version.

  21. The blind devotion to your position is astounding! by amichalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't underestimate the OS X/Apple hardware marketing that can be done with "consumer products" like the iPod. If you doubt me, go to ANY tech trade show - Citrix, Linux, VoIP, etc. Nearly every vendor is auctioning off an iPod. Gee, I wonder why?

    Let me repeate, no IT manager in their right mind would base a Mac OS X vs. "Platform B" decision on wethere or not FLAC and OGG were supported on the iPod.

    The logic that iPods are given away at trade shows as support of the assertion that FLAC/OGG support would sway these decision makers is illogical. iPods are given away because they are sought after consumer electronic devices, targeting a personal market. Do you think that the bouncy balls and T-shirts given away are to appeal to the corporate IT needs of the organization? Heck no! They are to appeal to the attendees! Show me the iPod givaway that includes some sort of business related use. They don't. iPods are music players given away because they bring crowd of people who want to win one for themselves or someone in their household!

    As I said before, be logical, not emotional about this. FLAC and OGG support on the iPod does nothing to aid Apple's bottome line. It's like Panasonic supporting Betamax on their VCRs. It may be a format with some merits, but the masses have spoken, 90% of HD and 68% of flash players sold in March in the US wore the Apple logo. None of those played FLAC and OGG files and they continue to fly off the shelves!

    The limited market for FLAC and OGG players does not concern Apple. Neither Apple nor any other manufacturer can build a player that appeals to 100% of the market, and Apple has no doubt considered and rejected FLAC/OGG support.

    It isn't going to loose them any market share on consumer digital music player or with business hardware. Face it!

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  22. Re:The blind devotion to your position is astoundi by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

    Oh my. You are relentless.

    Does a billboard on the highway influence you?
    Does a TV commercial?
    How about nifty applications like F-spot?
    Are you jazzed by new themes on your distro of choice?
    How do you feel about magazine ads?

    Same thing. It's called advertising. And virtually all commercial companies do it. Companies do it to create goodwill and "push" customers to examine their product. They do it to create a warm, fuzzy feeling about their brand name. They do it to inspire trust, and to establish their name.

    So the more you like Apple, in theory, the more likely you are to entertain Apple as a solution. This is not rocket science. *I* think that by adding support for these kinds of formats, there's no downside - those who don't use it won't notice and those that do will love it, and conceivably be more positive and open minded about Apple in general.

    It's not a direct "I like FLAC in iTunes so I'll simply use OS X" relationship, despite your fanatic need to make it so.

    I'm done.

  23. Re:The blind devotion to your position is astoundi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm done.

    Thank goodness. Now back to the big boy discussion.

    (Hint: Apple doesn't care that you want ogg/flac support in iPods. Neither do we. Got it? I'm done.)

  24. AppleScript by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative
    I want to be able to select a file (or files) in iTunes and open it in QuickTime Player or VLC. So, I wrote this, and save it in ~/Library/iTunes/Scripts/. Select one or more files and select the script in your iTunes scripts menu.
    tell application "iTunes"
    set myfiles to location of selection
    tell application "QuickTime Player"
    activate
    open myfiles
    end tell
    end tell
    Also save a separate version with "VLC" instead of "QuickTime Player". Also works with any media file in iTunes. including MP3s etc.
  25. Re:The blind devotion to your position is astoundi by amichalo · · Score: 1

    *my* fanatic need?

    sethadam1, you are the one confusing "advertising" with "corporate decision making", and it's okay, but just recognize the differences.

    I'll give you that the more a product appeals to use as individuals, the more friendly we may be to considering other solutions from the same company in our business lives. But many professionals (note: 1 those _may_ decide against an Apple soltuion in their corporate infrastructure because our consumer electronics device doesn't support these obscure formats."

    With the release of iTunes 4.8 supporting video formats on the other hand, Apple can easily defend it's position that it opens the iPod and iTunes platforms up for further multimedia support in the future.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  26. Psychologically interesting by biglig2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me tell you a story.

    Once upon a time I was upgrading iTunes from 4.5 to 4.6. While the upgrade was running, there was a knock at the door. I went to open the door, and who was there, but Steve Jobs! Steve said "Mr. BigLig? Mr Rufus T. BigLig?" "That's me Steve", I replied. And then he kicked me in the nuts.

    Well, not exactly. But I did have an "iTunes Music Library file unknown error (-50)" every time I used iTunes from then on. Tried everything - see here for details. It hit about 0.01% of users, and the fix was basically "suffer in agony until 4.7".

    And now 4.8 is out, and like a fool, I'm downloading it as I type.

    And that, Best Beloved, is how Steve got his Reality Distortion Field.

    --
    ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
  27. 64-bit Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To borrow a phrase being used elsewhere in this discussion, there'll be a Win64-compatible version when significantly more than the current 0.001% of the Windows user base is running Win64...

    1. Re:64-bit Windows by hawkbug · · Score: 1

      Right. So it's a matter of when. Why not just do it?? Maybe they are in development with it, who knows. One thing is certain - OEMs are shipping it, people will use it, and they will have to write drivers for it.

    2. Re:64-bit Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes for Windows uses a private Carbon-based portability layer. The Carbon API does not support 64-bits on Mac yet, so it will be a long long while before it does so on Windows.

      BTW, unless you have 2 million songs in your library, who cares?

    3. Re:64-bit Windows by hawkbug · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood - I'm not talking about Carbon, or the iTunes app iteslf - I'm talking about the drivers for the CD burning part of iTunes, which has nothing to do with Carbon. They *will* have to come out with them, or people won't use iTunes because they can't use their legally purchased music to burn music CDs, which defeats the purpose of using iTunes for a lot of people.

  28. Re:Translation by HarrisonRHW · · Score: 1

    What it doesn't work for you? on a side note, there is a new button on the bottom, but it remains inactive. rollover reads "Show video full screen". Tried everything i could, but I can't make it active. does anyone know what it is for? also if apple were to make a video ipod (as apposed to enabling video on the ipod photo) they would do what they usually do and release a new itunes spicifically for that purpose. itunes 4.1 = windows itunes 4.6 = airport express itunes 4.7 = ipod photo itunes 4.7.1 = ipod shuffle itunes 4.8 = Music Store Support and Video Support????

  29. No hard feelings, it's Slashdot by amichalo · · Score: 1

    Oh my. You are relentless.

    Hey, I'm sorry. I visited /. when I got home and re-read the posts and saw the moderations and I don't want you to think me a total ass. I did go a little "guns blazing" on you, and I'm sorry for taking it so far.

    You made some really good points and I don't think they deserved to get moderated Flamebait. People on /. may be tired of the whole Ogg on iPod war, but that doesn't make your points less valid.

    So again, sorry to go so hard on you.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    1. Re:No hard feelings, it's Slashdot by sethadam1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I appreciate that - and I appreciated your point. Wow - someone mod this up - Slashdotters uniting after a minor flamefest!

  30. amn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    (AC b/c I modded on this article before I read your sig)

    I saw "amn't" used recently when I watched "The Crying Game" for the first time since it came out. And I turned captions on, to be sure I heard it right. Yeah, we need an acceptable substitute for "I ain't."

  31. Re:Yeah, but will Quicktime play oggs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't Quicktime still play oggs? I think VideoLan does too. I like iTunes, but I'm never gonna depend soley on Apple software (not since they abandoned Hypercard)

  32. [OT] rant about DVD captions Re:amn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I saw "amn't" used recently when I watched "The Crying Game" for the first time since it came out. And I turned captions on, to be sure I heard it right.

    I guess you got lucky then, and the person transcribing the dialog into the subtitles for that DVD actually had a brain. Sometimes we're not that lucky. Take, for example, a scene toward the end of Gangster No. 1, in which the main character says, "You want it old-style?" and the English subtitles read, "You're one of the old stones." which makes absolutely no sense in the context of the movie. If you're not a Brit, and you have trouble with thick accents, checking the subtitles on that one will leave you scratching your head. You'd think there would be more cooperation between studios and DVD mastering houses; that they might even hand them a copy of the script, so that the finished product is accurate and doesn't make everyone look like idiots.

  33. Bring It! by ashooner · · Score: 1

    All I know is that it would rock to be able to rip my DVDs onto my Video Ipod, and play it through my TV via s-video or whatever. maybe get a little Mac Mini rev.b to vid iPod dock action going on. Who knows...

    --
    They Are Night Zombies!! They Are Neighbors!! They Have Come Back from the Dead!! Ahhhh!
  34. Total Annihilation by skyman8081 · · Score: 1

    I've known for a while that the Total Annihilation game disc is also an audio CD with the games soundtrack encoded as red-book audio. Previous versions of iTunes wouldn't read the game disc as an Audio CD, but when I started 4.8, I had my TA game disc in my drive, and iTunes showed it as an audio CD, that could be ripped.

    --
    Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
  35. Not any time soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of Apple's schtick is that iPod and iTunes are the same thing. You have music in iTunes, you plug in your iPod, you have your music on your iPod.

    It's not trivial to get iPods to play Ogg Vorbis, if they can at all. The iPod-Linux guys are at 80% of realtime decoding. I don't know that it's impossible, but it's certainly not easy.

    Apple isn't going to spend valuable engineer-hours trying to shoehorn an Ogg Vorbis decoder to run on iPods. And they're not going to increase the iPod hardware specs just to run Ogg. And they're not going to ship a new codec for iTunes that won't work on everybody's iPods.

    So you may get Oggs to play, someday. But you won't get out-of-the-box support from Apple for a while. Maybe in a couple years, the iPod platform will be running faster chips (for non-Ogg reasons), and when it's trivial to add Ogg support, they may consider doing it.

    In the meantime, no, I can't see why they would add Ogg support. It's not like they're having trouble selling iPods because of it.

  36. Re:The blind devotion to your position is astoundi by Hawkxor · · Score: 1

    You're a tool.

    (mods self up +5 informative)

  37. Re:Rescan by CoolBru · · Score: 1

    There is still a need for this function. I let iTunes manage everything, but I use a shared folder so multiple users can access the same music library. If I add new tracks under one user, the others don't get to see them unless I import them manually. A rescan folder command would fix this. If you simply re-add all the tracks (so you don't have to figure out what you added since last time), it resets all your play counts and ratings. Not good.

  38. Re:The blind devotion to your position is astoundi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another asshat adds his valuable insight to the annals of Slashdot.

    What's funnier - your lame @ss comment, or the fact that you took the time necessary to read the thread, click reply, preview this post, and post it (hint: it's not the first one)? Don't you have anything better to do?

  39. Fullscreen QT for free using applescript by fivefifty · · Score: 1

    Here's a very simple applescript that will present a movie fullscreen using the standard QT player (including v7): tell application "QuickTime Player" to present movie I just remembered that off the top of my head, so you might have to look in the QT dictionary to get the exact command. Of course this won't work in windows.

  40. can't??? that's ignorance by alternapop · · Score: 1

    the next time you're on an airplane, hold your ipod up at arms length and compare it to the relative size of the closest screen on the plane. unless you're sitting right under the thing, chances are that the ipod's screen size will be very similar to the planes.

  41. regarding screensize complaints by alternapop · · Score: 1

    the next time you're on an airplane, hold your ipod up at arms length and compare it to the relative size of the closest screen on the plane. unless you're sitting right under the thing, chances are that the ipod's screen size will be very similar to the planes. its purpose won't be to replace your tv.

  42. iTunes *does* play oggs. by Landak · · Score: 1

    I don't know (fully) about flac, but I know for certain that iTunes plays oggs - I've got several in my library.

    It says the filetype is "Quicktime Movie File", implying that it uses QT to import them (I have the quicktime ogg/vorbis codec installed).

    How do you get them in your library? Just drag them to the library, from the finder.
    Am I really the only one to know this? Screenshots on request....

    --
    My UID is prime. Is yours?
    1. Re:iTunes *does* play oggs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itunes can run fine with itunes with the OGG QT codec, just not on ipod.

  43. Re:Yeah, but will Quicktime play oggs? by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

    shouldve clarified, I can play 'em, but I cant include 'em in my itunes playlists, which is annoying

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series