Slashdot Mirror


iTunes Use Surges Past QuickTime, RealPlayer

QuatermassX writes "Forget increased sales of Mac computers, think media players. The iPod 'halo effect' shows its true power in recently compiled statistics from Nielsen/NetRatings and Apple. From the report on WebSiteOptimization.com: 'Podcasting is taking off and iPods are seemingly ubiquitous. Unique users of Apple's iTunes player should pass RealPlayer by mid-2006 with nearly 30 million users in the US alone. People are tuning in over twice as long with iTunes than with RealPlayer or Windows Media Player. As broadband penetration increases we are spending more time on our computers.'"

29 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. The Halo Effect by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The iPod 'halo effect'....

    I've never heard of the "Halo effect" but apparently it kicks Slashdot's arse

    __
    Funny Porn videos from Laugh DAILY

  2. I wonder... by Seta · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...if it has anything to do with the fact that everyone and their dog I see these days owns an ipod. Hmm.

    1. Re:I wonder... by fracex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't rule out the fact either that iTunes has a slick interface that makes organising your music, buying music, podcasting, listening to internet radio and so much more, really easy. Try saying that about RealPlayer.

    2. Re:I wonder... by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      My dog doesn't have an iPod!

      But then, I don't have a dog.

  3. iTunes use surges past QuickTime? by dennism · · Score: 4, Informative

    Last I checked, QuickTime was a part of the iTunes installation under Windows. I think they meant to say Windows Media.

    But, this has certainly done wonders for the adoption of QuickTime under Windows. It's the iTunes Trojan Horse -- get them hooked on a great music player and a great portable music player. As more installations of iTunes are done, more QuickTime installations as well. Suddenly, it becomes easier to convince the big websites (and small too) to put up QuickTime versions of the media. And to top it off, because of the increased usage of QuickTime, us Mac users get a better web experience as well.

    Bravo Apple :)

    --
    dennis
    1. Re:iTunes use surges past QuickTime? by ioErr · · Score: 5, Informative
      Apple will always look bad in my eyes as long as they seek to lock people in via proprietry formats that they strictly enforce to prevent competition.

      QuickTime uses an open format.

      Why do I need a separate media players just for *.mov files?

      Because the maker of your main player has chosen not to support the QuickTime format.

      Why can't I play *.mov files on my mobile

      Ditto.

    2. Re:iTunes use surges past QuickTime? by spooje · · Score: 4, Informative

      I understand you didn't ask for it, but without QuickTime you can't have iTunes. iTunes is just a pretty XML based interface for QT. All the music and videos are played via QT.

      --
      Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
    3. Re:iTunes use surges past QuickTime? by sakusha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Precisely. I have been telling people for years, QuickTime is the crown jewel at Apple, and many of the most successful projects, like the iPod and iTunes, were created in the hopes of pushing QuickTime adoption on Windows.

      As a web video and multimedia programmer, I have long wished for one universal standard based on QuickTime. Everyone's web experience would be so much better if we could all standardize around QT. But many times I encounter users who work in corporate IT environments with locked down PCs that are forbidden from installing QT. This seems to be a relic of olden times when online video and audio were seen as frivolous, and a big waste of bandwidth.

    4. Re:iTunes use surges past QuickTime? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's an awful answer to an awful question.

      Quicktime, like AVI, is a container. It forms part of a format, with the encoding of the actual moving images or audio waves being seperate from the encoding of the container. We generally seperate the two in terminology, the encoding of the images or waves being termed a codec.

      In some cases, both formats use well documented codecs, in others they don't. A substantial amount of Quicktime content is encoded using Sorensen codecs. These are not documented, and due to a licensing agreement, are only available for Apple's implementation of Quicktime. Apple has veto power on what devices can use Sorensen codecs.

      The reason, therefore, why there's no universal reader is because there cannot be. Microsoft, to use an example, cannot license "Quicktime" except for the publically documented, publically available, format and codecs. A substantial amount of content would not play under such a player. (Likewise, VLC cannot license most of WMV, though they're doing what they can.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:iTunes use surges past QuickTime? by shotfeel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple will always look bad in my eyes as long as they seek to lock people in via proprietry formats that they strictly enforce to prevent competition.

      OK, lets look at the current streaming formats .

      1) WMV using proprietary codec controlled by MS.
      2) Real media using a proprietary codec controlled by Real
      3) MP4 media is an industry standard controlled by the MPEG and used by Apple and anyone else who cares to license it.

      All these formats support the optional use of DRM. As for the .mov files you're having trouble with, what codec was used for those? Also, I'm not very familiar with what's available for Windows, but on the Mac there are all kinds of full screen players that play .mov files, including VLC. So you don't have to pay.

  4. Podcasts with no Pod by simon_hibbs2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't own an MP3 player, but occasionaly listen to 'podcasts' on my computer but I've no idea how representative I am.

    How good a solution to general multimedia handling is iTunes? Why might a non-iPod user like me use it?

    Simon Hibbs

    1. Re:Podcasts with no Pod by edgr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is fantastic for handling all your music. I use iTunes to manage my music, even though I don't have an iPod (I play some music from my computer). Its by far the best of all the players I've tried; it is intuitive, works, and looks great.

  5. And the thing is by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    iTunes is sorely lacking in so many areas too!

    'Automatic updates' consists of downloading a 35Mb new iTunes setup package each month or so...

    The library doesn't update itself automatically...

    There's no concept of 'checking for existing entries on import' - importing the same folder will just give you each track twice...

    It doesn't work very well at all with keyboard shortcuts...

    No plugin facility...

    It's weighty as hell in memory...

    but yet, after all these sore points, somehow, it's way cooler than WMP, RealPlayer, and sod it...anything else I've seen.

    If Apple were a woman, she'd be a sexy slim figure - and you'd buy anything shite from her, just because she was so damn fine! Not like the fat moose of a wreck a Microsoft woman would be - she could be selling the moon on a stick, and you wouldn't touch it with a barge pole!

    And on that note, perhaps I should mingle with real people some more.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:And the thing is by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think Microsoft would be a fat moose. Maybe a somewhat attractive lady, but you can't shake the feeling that "she" is a "he" under that skirt.

    2. Re:And the thing is by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple isn't perfect, but they usually get the interface right. I use iTunes and friends on my PowerBook at home. I also sometimes use Windows Media Player for various training videos at work.

      The difference is like night and day. Both can play sound and video perfectly adequately - but Windows Media Player is just so awkward and cumbersome compared to iTunes. No, WMP isn't *hard* to use, it's just cumbersome. For example, when I watch video on my Mac, the screensaver doesn't kick in if I've not touched the keyboard and mouse. When watching video at work, I have to periodically waggle the mouse to stop the screensaver starting (or turn off automatic screen locking, which is also cumbersome). One training CD is made up of about a dozen WMV files with a menu. When you start the next WMV file, Windows Media Player forgets your last volume setting and blasts you through your headphones. By comparison, my PowerBook doesn't forget volume settings between files. (Even my Linux system doesn't forget volume settings between files - or turn on the screen saver when I'm watching video, for that matter). There are numerous other niggles with WMP that don't exist with the Apple product.

  6. WMP still No 1 and growing but slower than iTunes by orlinius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you notice that Microsoft is on a linear growth "curve" no doubt due to OS sales.
    iTunes is growing faster though, so if this trend continues, in a year or two, iTunes will be the No 1 media player on the market. Not bad at all. God bless those iPods :)

    Reminds me of Netscape when they launched version 4 and announced that Windows will become irrelevant as people will spend most of their time in Netscape. Is it possible that iTunes will do that in the near future as people will increasingly use their computers for entertainment (and not TV, radio, DVDs, outdoor activities, etc.)?

    --

    A hungry bear does not dance!
  7. Apple of my eye by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    As broadband penetration increases we are spending more time on our computers.

    Broad penetration, however, has been decreasing as we are spending more time on our computers.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  8. So, when should podcasts ditch MP3s for AAC? by Schlemphfer · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In light of this report, I'm wondering if and when I should ditch providing MP3s for my podcast and switch to AAC? I know I could provide both formats but that would entail a lot of extra work.

    I'm really eager to ditch MP3s for a couple reasons. First, I understand that AAC sounds at least twice as good at comparable bitrates. Second, I'm no more trusting of the MP3 coalition than I was of the JPG owners, whereas I can't picture apple ever seeking royalty backpayments from podcasters using the AAC format.

    An obvious solution is to provide both MP3 and AAC files, but I'm lazy and would prefer to offer only one format. Any thoughts on whether it makes sense for a podcaster to switch entirely to AAC? I'm sure most of my listeners would appreciate the enhanced sound quality. But what percentage of my listeners would be likely to disappear?

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:So, when should podcasts ditch MP3s for AAC? by tpgp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In light of this report, I'm wondering if and when I should ditch providing MP3s for my podcast and switch to AAC?

      You would be an idiot to drop mp3 in favour of mp4.

      Mp3 is still the king. There is no format out there that comes close. You don't want to alienate all your listeners with old mp3 players (or the multitude who've bought the $20 256MB chinese cheapies)

      Dropping it for mp4 would make about as much sense as dropping it for ogg.

      First, I understand that AAC sounds at least twice as good at comparable bitrates.

      I don't know what sort of audio files you're distributing - but do your own listen tests. Different codecs perform wildly differently depending on the source audio type & most reviews are using pretty standard music with vocals.

      --
      My pics.
    2. Re:So, when should podcasts ditch MP3s for AAC? by Alioth · · Score: 4, Informative

      I _only_ use AAC podcasts. The nice thing about the enhanced ones for iTunes is they can include hypertext links (so when listening to 75minutes, I don't have to work out how that strange band name is actually spelled - the link is right there) and artwork. The AAC podcasts also make it easier to precisely skip the bits I don't want to listen to (for example, I don't like all the genres of music that 75minutes plays, but I can just click on the next track to skip the stuff I don't like, instead of having to carefully fastforward and rewind).

  9. Who "uses" real player? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is this figure trying to say? Is it refering to the installed base, as in, how many unique software installs you have? Or is it saying that you have X users who fire up the app everyday to browse their music?

    If the former is the case, then it is completely bogus. It is very difficult to get Quicktime without the iTunes bundle, first you need to know that they are bundled, then you need to google the link as the standalone Quicktime installer is hidden away on the site. I've never found a link to it on the Apple site.

    And everyone has the Quicktime player on their PC. It's in the list of bog-standard things you do when installing e.g. Windows for someone. Quicktime, Firefox, RealPlayer (maybe) and Acrobad Reader. The reason RealPlayer is a maybe is because they have been doing some pretty shoddy tactics to get their marketshare and profits up. Things like hiding the free cut-down version on the site, so that you have to download other nonsense that you don't want.

    Sounds like Apple has been reading Real's playbook. Just because someone has iTunes on their PC, it doesn't mean that they are an iTunes user. Especially when they trojaned the iTunes install in via a Quicktime download. The bottom line however is that Apple want to be able to say to the music industry that "we have X million users" when really they are saying "we have X million users running iTunesService.exe, but only a fraction of them actually use iTunes, but we want to omit that detail as the former marketing point is technically correct and way more sexy".

    1. Re:Who "uses" real player? by Seta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chances are that they're following the age old corporate habit of following completely unreliable and sometimes unrelated statistics. For example, downloads doesn't equal users (See: Browsers, Chat clients, Websites, etc), discovering more bugs doesn't make the product insecure (See: Browser and Operating system security debates.), etc. However 9 times out of 10, someone will make an outrageous claim based on these statistics, and people, not knowing better, will write articles about it. In the end it's just publicity.

    2. Re:Who "uses" real player? by hgavin · · Score: 5, Informative

      the standalone Quicktime installer is hidden away on the site. I've never found a link to it on the Apple site.


      http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone .html. Just look for the link named "QuickTime Standalone Installer" on the main quicktime download page.
  10. Re:Should surpass realplayer? by infestedsenses · · Score: 3, Informative
    We need a firefox for media....

    You mean something like Songbird? :)

  11. I have little sympathy for real player by helix_r · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Real player has really wore out the good-will of its users. It is now a pretty good player, but for years they annoyed the hell out of everyone that downloaded from them.

    You know...

    * having to click through and read 10 webpages to get to the free realplayer whose link was always hidden in a corner somewhere. What were they thinking? That users would accidently click on the non-free version and then give up and just pay for it?

    * Nag screens, annoying forms, when installing-- no real player, you will never fucking get my home phone number.

    * Remember the instability and the crashes...

    Sadly, I see some traits like this in iTunes. Recently, I had wanted to download JUST QUICKTIME. I was rudely surprised that I can't do that anymore. I HAVE TO download iTunes+quicktime-- whether I want iTunes or not. Screw that. It looks like iTunes has failed to learn the hard lessons of Real Player.

    1. Re:I have little sympathy for real player by Xyde · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sadly, I see some traits like this in iTunes. Recently, I had wanted to download JUST QUICKTIME. I was rudely surprised that I can't do that anymore. I HAVE TO download iTunes+quicktime-- whether I want iTunes or not. Screw that. It looks like iTunes has failed to learn the hard lessons of Real Player.

      What?

  12. ObFreebies by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Informative

    I tend to prefer a big heaping plate of Media Player Classic, with a side order of Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative.

  13. iTunes Trojan Horse by dirtfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's certainly a hefty package. I once noticed itunes added 50+ secs to a fresh windows instalation. You don't have to used iTunes at all, If you have an iPod shuffle - you can use the "rebuild_db.exe" 9k application and simple drag and drop your music onto the player.

  14. Re:Try installing Quicktime 7 ... without iTunes by Ju55i · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here you go. Standalone Quicktime 7 player:
    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone .html