Slashdot Mirror


iTunes On OS X Finally Has Competition

mallumax writes "The truth is, iTunes is an average music player. Though the UI is simple and good like most Apple products, it has lagged in features compared to music players available on Linux and Windows. A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes. There are no plugins or themes. Despite the many faults, many of us continued to use iTunes because of the lack of options available. But today the wait is finally over. Not one, but two music players have become credible contenders. Songbird: An open source music player which has been in the works for more than 2 years has finally released its 1.0 Release Candidate builds. The team behind Songbird has members who previously developed for both Winamp and the Yahoo Music Engine. It has support for extensions and themes ('feathers' in Songbird parlance). Amarok: The undisputed champion among Linux music players is finally coming to OS X, thanks to KDE 4 being ported there. Amarok developer Leo Franchi has been able to run a Amarok on OS X natively. So we can expect a reasonably stable Amarok to hit OS X in a few months' time. Hopefully these players will gain traction among OS X users, which will finally force Apple to either step up in terms of features or open up iTunes for extensions."

19 of 668 comments (clear)

  1. Lacking Support by almostinsane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple iPhones, iPod Touch and Microsoft Zune devices are not yet supported. Yeah, big contender.

  2. Basic feature? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes

    I don't think of this as a basic feature... essentially you are asking for automated library updates whenever new files are added to the system. iTunes is built around two methods of file importation: Rip from CD or add from iTunes Store. The third option is manual: Drag and drop files to the library.

    Plugins are even listed at Apple's website.

    Themes are missing, I admit, but for many people this is not a "basic feature", either.

    1. Re:Basic feature? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Listen, no one is forcing you to download a new music player. It sounds like what you really want is mpg321, or possibly sox's "play" command. There's probably a port to your operating system of choice.

      Everyone else in the conversation assumes that you want something a that competes with ITunes and not the MP3 player that comes with Emacs.

  3. iPod by rogabean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a replacement unless it can sync with and manage my iPhone and iPod.

    --
    "why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
    1. Re:iPod by ojustgiveitup · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amarok can sync both iPods and iPhones. It is therefore a replacement by your working definition.

  4. Feature Creep is not a Feature by Drake42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like iTunes specifically because it doesn't waste my time with themes and skins and color choices. How cares what your music player looks like? How many times has an attractive woman looked at the customized UI for your software and thought "Wow. There's a guy I'd like to get it on with". (Answer: Zero)

    I'll grant that some competition might drive additional features into iTunes, but please please please can we stop acting like altering the UI of a program does anything even remotely useful?

    1. Re:Feature Creep is not a Feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my awesome Barack Obama firefox theme.

  5. The Truth by Trojan35 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The truth is, iTunes is an average music player. Though the UI is simple and good like most Apple products, it has lagged in features compared to music players available on Linux and Windows.

    The features it is missing are niche features. How many of these "more feature complete" players you are using have features like Genius playlists? Video podcasts? How many also seemlessly manage the songs on your mp3(iPod) player? Smartphones(iPhone)? How many offer iTunes music sharing/streaming on the local network? How many seamlessly integrate with the most popular music store?

    That's not even including the non-music features of itunes, such as syncing calendars, contacts, photos, applications, and songs with iPods and iPhones. It offers video podcasts, downloadable tv shows, and streaming internet radio.

    iTunes missing one feature compared to other players does not mean it has less features overall.

  6. Try mpd (music player daemon) by slifox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This may be a little off-topic, but I'd like to recommend mpd.

    mpd (music player daemon) is a minimalistic audio-playing server that can be accessed using a variety of clients, including those with command-line, web, and GUI interfaces.

    Separating the GUI from the core of the audio player increases stability and decreases the chance for problems. I've never once had the mpd core crash, even though the GUI clients do sometimes crash. When my X server dies for whatever reason, my music continues playing while I fix things!

    Additionally, you can do some very cool things, like copying or moving the mpd player state between networked computers. For instance, with the command 'mpmv desktop tvserver', I can move the currently playing song, the current position in the song, and the current playlist. With some occupancy sensors, your music can literally follow you around the house

    My favorite GUI client is QMPDClient. It has a very powerful music library interface, including a: playlist; a queue within the playlist (to jump around the playlist); library, directory, and playlist views, with artist/album/track views. This is excellent, because I keep my music directories well organized, so the "Directory" view lets me take advantage of this easily (a feature that I've not found in other music library clients).

    And yes, mpd does work on MacOS :)

    MPD: http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Music_Player_Daemon_Wiki
    QMPDClient: http://havtknut.tihlde.org/qmpdclient/

  7. Folder actions by MushMouth · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a simple way to automatically add items to iTunes, set up a folder actions script. Its simple, it works with anything, and its built in.

  8. Re:Themes? by boshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think very few themes actually contribute to the usability of a program. Most of the time I look at an archive of themes for a program it's flooded with various nearly-unusable pictures-of-bikini-girls-made-into-interfaces type themes.
    On the rare chance I find a theme I genuinely like, it's for a slightly older version of the program and half of the elements are broken.
    When are developers going to admit that they should just stick to the OS's GUI toolkit? The user can then theme their entire window manager, instead of each individual program.

    --
    Blog
  9. VLC by boshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems a bit unfair to say that iTunes has had no competitors under Mac OSX as a music player when VLC does an admirable job at playing my music and TV shows, on OSX, and has done for a long time now.

    --
    Blog
  10. Re:Themes? by Snowblindeye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because people disagree on what "clean simple" means. If the UI is not themeable and you don't like it, you have to switch to a different player altogether. If it is themeable, you just need to switch to a different theme.

    I don't buy that. Does skinning really achieve that? I don't think I've ever seen a skin that really improved usability. Or really changed it much.

    And most people, especially average users, go with the default skin anyway. IMHO, skinning just slows things down, and it often breaks with the UI standards.

  11. Allow me to break this down... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The truth is, iTunes is an average music player.

    itunes is significantly better than average.

    A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes.

    How exactly is that a basic feature? Music enters itunes 3 basic ways:
    1 you rip a Cd with itunes.
    2 you buy a song from itunes music store
    3 you drag a file from your computer onto the itunes library
    and one advanced way:
    4 you tell itunes to import music from a folder

    Setting up itunes to monitor a folder would be number 5, and in the 'advanced feature' category.

    Secondly, how exactly do the "latest music files" get into this monitored folder? If you manually dragged them there, then you might as well have just manually dragged them onto the itunes window. If they arrived there through any other means, that just further underscores that its an advanced feature.

    There are no plugins

    That is certainly not a basic feature either. And its probably the ONLY thing I sort of agree with.

    I'd like iTunes to support automatically syncing with non-Apple players. I'd like iTunes to support syncing with programs other than Outlook on Windows.

    [There are no] themes.

    I call that a feature. I'm not 13 anymore. I am happy to let my programs to feature well designed UI, without delegating the task to other 13 year olds who variously have an unhealthy fascination with celebrities, movies, or just want everything to be some sort of gothic red and black. If anything, I think iTunes on Windows should look MORE like a windows app.

    Despite the many faults, many of us continued to use iTunes because of the lack of options available.

    Its few faults and many strengths actually. The biggest advantage it has over other players is that it works with =all= ipods/iphones seamlessly.

    Songbird: An open source music player which has been in the works for more than 2 years has finally released its 1.0 Release Candidate builds. The team behind Songbird has members who previously developed for both Winamp and the Yahoo Music Engine.

    Hardly a ringing endorsement if you look at either of those products.

    It has support for extensions and themes ('feathers' in Songbird parlance).

    Right, because inventing non-standard gimmick terminology is always a good idea. I'm glad Thunderbird has addons not 'feathers' and firefox...? 'hairs'? 'teeth'? Spare me.

    Amarok: The undisputed champion among Linux music players is finally coming to OS X, thanks to due KDE 4 being ported to OS X. Amarok developer Leo Franchi has been able to run a Amarok on OS X natively. So we can expect a reasonably stable Amarok to hit OS X in a few months' time.

    'reasonably stable' with a KDE4 look on OSX? Yeah that's going to create an army of converts.

    Hopefully these players will gain traction among OS X users,

    They won't. They will make a very small niche (self)-satisfied. That's not a bad thing, per se, mind you, but don't make more out of it than is really there.

    which will finally force Apple to either step up in terms of features or open up iTunes for extensions."

    See above. It won't. Even though I really do want iTunes to work with Thunderbird instead of Outlook...

  12. Re:Themes? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm reminded of this comment sent to jwz:

    Makali wrote:

                Whenever a programmer thinks, "Hey, skins, what a cool idea", their computer's speakers should create some sort of cock-shaped soundwave and plunge it repeatedly through their skulls.

    I am fully in support of this proposed audio-cock technology.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? by yammosk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So don't get a retarded proprietary music player*.

    * It's not their fault you don't think before you buy.

    So I guess most OSX users won't use it*.

    *It's not their fault that developers don't think about why most of the people are using iTunes when they are trying to compete with iTunes.

  14. Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? by wootest · · Score: 5, Informative

    $ strings /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes | grep WebKit
    [nothing]
    $

    It's not technically Safari, and it's not technically WebKit, and it's not technically WebCore. It's not HTML anything. It's just an unconnected rendering engine stringing up XML in some very un-HTML ways. It has links, came around a few months after Safari was revealed and perhaps evokes table layouts, but that's about it.

  15. Where have we seen this before...? by maztuhblastah · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ah. Right. Almost three years ago.

    And you know, nearly three years later, my opinions on it remain... exactly the same.

    It'd be cool to see it succeed, but it's basically trying too hard to be a jack-of-all-trades. It offers a bunch of cool toy features, many of which will likely make a small portion of the user base absolutely delighted (things like concert ticket listings, for example). Unfortunately, it does so at the cost of many features that a large potion of the potential user base cares about, such as syncing with music players, maintaining a reasonable memory footprint, keeping the UI light and responsive, and improving the speed and ease with which people can manage their music libraries.

    This is becoming a (disheartening) pattern:
    1. Open source competitor arrives to challenge closed-source market leading freeware. /. and CNet publish headlines like "$SOFTWARE killer?" We brag about how it's awesome for allowing us to do $GEEKY_FEATURE.
    2. Normal users point out that it doesn't yet provide $BASIC_FEATURE. Geeks point out that 1) users don't really want $BASIC_FEATURE, and they should instead use $GEEKY_SUBSTITUTE. 2) $BASIC_FEATURE will be included at some point in the future.
    3. Normal users ignore the app, as it doesn't do the basic things they require.
    4. Time passes. Development moves on with no unified focus. More geek features are added to the program. Eventually $BASIC_FEATURE appears.
    5. User points out that the app's implementation of $BASIC_FEATURE is not an improvement on the existing solution, and that it is hard to find amidst a mass of misc. features.
    6. Geeks cry "But it's an open source alternative to $MARKET_LEADER!"
    7. Normal users ignore it because it still doesn't do $BASIC_FEATURE particularly well, and the UI is cumbersome.

    Enter Songbird. Three years after its first release, it doesn't support two popular MP3 players from the leading company. Its UI has been redesigned at least twice, and is now even less familiar to users than its first release was. It doesn't look like a native app, and on top of all that, it consumes more memory than it's closed source competitor.

    I really would like Songbird to succeed, but at this point I can't honestly say that it's any better than (or even as good as) iTunes.