Yet it (OBVIOUSLY) contains a lot more research and effort so their costs are much higher and profits not much on software.
I don't know about this. I think a lot of the software development costs relate directly to the underlying OS. I've programmed extensively on Windows and Linux, and am just beginning on Mac OS X. However, OS X seems to be incredibly well designed and though out, making the programming process that much easier.
It is much easier for Apple to develop applications for OS X than it is for Microsoft to Windows. Likewise, OS X's architecture is very clean, making it relatively easy to add new features. Windows, however is incredibly kludged together. Anyone who has developed on it can atest to that fact.
Incidently, Steve Jobs addressed this very issue in the analyst meeting yesterday, which can be streamed off Apples QuickTime site. I forget the exact quote, but something to the effect that it is very easy to engineer new apps and features on OS X.
Well, in this case not RTFA has degraded what could be an interesting debate on Slashdot.
So, for those of you who didn't take the time, the author of the article seems to suggest that creative works will be payed for by taxes. By paying the taxes, we will all legally be able to download and share at will. He also suggests that this is the accepted and expected outcome by those in the know.
First off, I have never heard this point ever seriously considered. If it is, however, I am incredibly concerned. Do we really want creative works to become a socialist venture? What happens when artists sing controversial music, especially that which goes agains the thinking of the government? Would the government just revoke their payments? What would the US have done in the 60's if it was footing the bill for both the Vietnam war and the artists who were crying out against it? What would foriegn governments do?
I'd rather keep music in the free, open market so I know there is no pressure on squashing dissident views from artists. Artists have historically brought about the greatest changes in thinking. This would be much tougher in a creative-socialist market.
OK, then, fine. What if I've got a home security system that logs all events to a remote server for analysis in case of a break-in. The system tunnels its info over HTTP to the security provider. Or, better yet, they have a modern system that uses web services and SOAP. Things like this happen in the real world.
Mabey it is not even mission critical. However, I still expect it to work as intended.
The point is, this is a router and I don't know what point it is located at in the network. Say I am sitting at Starbucks, and I get an SOS on my pager. I fire up through Wi-Fi and log into the server to try and configure it. However, what if Starbucks decided to use this belkin router behind their access point? There shouldn't need to be an advisory on what router they are using, it should just route, period.
Now, what if whatever command I sent down to the server happend to be split accross multiple packets, each of which needed to get there. However, the belkin stepped in and rewrote packet 2, making my command garbled, or possible interpreted as a different command.
I realize these situations are far fetched when mission critical is involved. However, what belkin has done is modified the core behavior of the very fabric of the network. When changes occur at the core, the possibility for far fetched, and disatrous, "what-if" scenarios to happen increases greatly.
When packet loss occurs, TCP is built to resend it. Packet loss is a fundamental problem on the network, so it needs to be addressed. It doesn't sound like this router treats what it rewrites as a dropped packet however. You can just kiss that data goodbye, and welcome an ad to your screen. Again, modifying the standard operation of TCP, which HTTP runs on top of.
I'd like more details. How does it determine if it is an actual HTTP request. I seriously doubt this thing is doing protocol level filtering (level 7, or 5, not sure which) to ensure actual HTTP packets. It probably blindly rewrites packets sent to port 80. However, what if I am running a mission critical service on port 80 that doesn't speak HTTP. I need my packet to go through, or something bad will happen. However, 8 hours just expired and I get a Belkin add. My server starts to fail and I am up a shit creek. Whose fault is this? I'd hope Belkin would be liable. I baught a router to route, imagine that.
If anyone has actual details on how it decides when and what to rewrite, I'd like to know.
As a side note, this is completely insane. I was considering buying an SD card reader from belkin, and a FireWire hub, but I think I've changed my mind. This behavior is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated by me. It's not a case of three strikes you are out. If you decide to even swing on my router, you are ejected from the game. Belkin will never see a cent of my money.
Right he said the iPod was the best at the beginning and the end. The rest of the article (and the title) was structured to make it appear in the worst light, however.
He brings up five points (whether valid or not) and suggests alternatives. However, each of those alternatives is worse than the iPod on the whole. Why write an article saying buy the Dell DJ, but the Dell is actually worse than what I'm telling you not to buy? It makes no sense. That to me is flamebait. He took the best option available and structured an article to make it seem negative, just to get attention.
Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have a valid point in some cases. My dissagreement was mainly with the parent of my original comment. I can state two opposite opinions, but any rational person is going to call my error. Never would I tell you a product is the best and then tell you why you shouldn't buy it, that is hypocritical flamebait. I will point out flaws, because people need to be aware. However, if it is the best, those flaws are outweighed.
Now if I may rant on point 5 (and even if I may not, I'm still going to.) Who cares if the iPod can't play files baught from the other music stores? 80% of the legal downloads are from iTunes. No one bitches about the other players not playing AAC files (and the players can't play AAC, BTW). If I'm sitting on the short end of the stick, I'd be gunning for AAC support because that is the format people are purchasing. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
In related news, the next 50 years will see such an explosion in human population that we will be standing shoulder to shoulder stacked five high.
Seriously though, everyone is aware that exponential growth is unsustainable. This is not news, and something will give. Chips will get smaller and smaller. They will also get more efficient and less power hungry. Power sources will also change radically.
In any case, however, I'd be curious to see this paper. I can't imagine the number of electronic devices we have consumes even a fraction of a fraction of the total energy in the sun. They must have extended that exponential curve for quite a significant amout of time.
Don't get me wrong; you are still my favorite overall insightful poster. Although everyone can think of reasons why your posts are good, I've decided to use this comment to list a few reasons why they are not.
1. You are an idiot.
Just because I put the disclaimer up, does not mean that this isn't flamebait. Likewise with the CNet article. They are trying to provoke a reaction, and probably a negative one given how popular the iPod is.
It is one thing to post a review of one of the best products and still point out its flaws. It is another to post an article that is structured in an entirely negative way, despite the fact that they admit it is great. This is simply a case of beating up on the popular guy, just to provoke a reaction (and draw hits to their site so they can sell ads).
So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them.
Now if he said, "so many codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them," I could mabey see some sarcasm in the statement. Even then though, it would be untrue, as it plays MP3, AAC, WAV, and AIFF. I think there is a plug-in by the Vorbis team to support OGG, though I have not tried it myself.
I suggest you read the great grandparent and then witness the utter lack of sarcasm.
So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them.
Do you even remotely know what you are talking about? MP3 is a standard, it is by definition a single codec. There are multiple encoders, but they all adhere to the standard. I've encoded my MP3s with probably 10 or more different encoders, and iTunes plays every MP3 I have just fine.
MusicMatch is an MP3 player. iTunes does not break it, as you can still play your MP3s with it. However, you can't transfer songs to your iPod using MusicMatch anymore.
Well, iTunes tells you this is going to happen before you install it. If you don't like it, don't install it.
The funny thing is, I always wanted both Real Player and Windows Media Player installed because each sucked enough that I needed both to actaully watch video clips. Neither could do the job right.
When Apple makes iTunes, they have the balls to tell you its all or nothing, and they can back it up. With iTunes, I no longer need or want another music organizer on my PC.
Well, at least I got a good laugh at of this one. Most artists are not giving you their music for free. Sure, they may not make much on the actual CDs being sold, as the record company takes that, but they are being compensated quite well by the contracts they have signed, which the record company pays, using the money it gets from CD sales. It is a circle, connect the dots.
Most bands are not in debt until 1.5 million CDs are sold. Count the number of bands out there, signed to RIAA-affiliated labels, and then count the number who's last album sold 1.5 million copies. It would be a small, small fraction. Yet, most of these bands continue to produce great music for a living. This is because they are not in debt, they are making money that the record label pays them.
As for asserting that you should know everything after reading slashdot for a month, that is just absurd. Most of the people spouting so-called "facts" are just as ignorant as you are about the issues and repeat only the information that supports their world view, without ever checking sources.
Simple analysis of the contents of your local record store and the number of multi-album bands you have never heard of is enough to demonstrate that you are wrong.
Do you consider the movie industry treating you as a thief because they sell DVDs? Probably not, even though DVDs contain some of the strictest DRM policies ever created.
However, it is easy for you to play DVDs, so you probably don't think twice about it (unless you are trying to copy data off of it, which most people don't do.) In iTunes Music Store, the DRM is quite fair for the consumer, and the emphasis remains on the ability to easily play the music where and when you want to. This is what the average consumer wants. My parents couldn't tell the difference between an MP3 and a protected AAC from the iTunes store in terms of actually getting the music to play. So, like DVDs, why should they care that it has DRM? Incidentally, they still refer to both as MP3s even though only one actually is. It's sort of in the modern vernacular.
When companies set up these services, they are not trying to appeal to the ultra-religious, rah-rah-GPL, geek crowd. (Though most of Slashdot will insist that they should.) They are trying to make a descent service that is easy for consumers to use. In the case of iTunes, the DRM does not get in the way, so why should that be considered a bad thing? It is not too much different than the DVDs we all have scattered around at home.
Well, I guess I can't say I'm familiar with your situation. iTunes pulls out the song, album, and artist info from the ID3 tags embedded in the MP3. The only way for the Unknown Artist/Unkown Album to show up is if the song doesn't have any ID3 info.
This seems logical since most people tag their MP3s. I'll assume you had your reasons for not doing so, and I'll leave it at that.
Next you should welcome me as your cliche comment posting overlord.
What I posted was an insightful comment pointing out some of the flaws in JuK. Yes, I don't currently use it. No, I'm not going to submit patches because iTunes satisfies my needs. However, I'm not opposed to JuK and if it improves greatly, I will consider using it. If the developers are paying attention, they will address some of the issues I raised. It is called constructive criticism, and it is a good thing. You however, apparently just prefer to troll, and I'll take the bait in defense of myself.
What makes you think this announcement has anything to do with graphics chips? IBM's forte is in processor design, and supporting chipsets. Just as Apple uses nVidia and ATI for graphics cards, and IBM for processors (in the G5 and the newest iBook).
This announcement is more important for its affect on the main CPU in the Xbox 2, not the graphics capabilities.
When I see the screen shots, the useless buttons jump right out at me. I don't notice the bottom buttons in iTunes, probably due to placement. Eyes gravitate to the top rather than bottom.
I only recently got a mac and switched to itunes. However, i envied it based on every screen shot i saw. The interface was clean and simple, exactly what I wanted from a media player, which is one of the reasons I baught a mac, it looked clean and easy. When I see a screen shot with useless clutter, I think, I am not going to use it because it is wasting screen real estate for unused functions. A lot can be said for first impressions. Now, as soon as JuK cleans up the interface and releases impressive screen shots, I will install it and give it a try. If its better than iTunes, I will switch. However, if my initial reaction is "what crap" I am not going to waste my time, even though I haven't actually used it. FYI, I'm not drawn to mac because i'm stupid, I consciously make the descision to have an easy to use desktop os. I've done custom Linux projects compiling from source the whole way up just to have the bare minimum installed.
In any case, the buttons are not unobtrusive due to the fact that all apps use them. Reverse the situation and this becomes more apparent.
Saying "all apps use those buttons" derive "all apps" from editors/word processors because thats what most people originally became accustomed to first. What if media playing were the original app. Would you expect to find a play and pause button in your word processor just because all the other apps had them. That would be rediculous. Likewise, it is rediculous to have copy, paste, save, etc buttons on your media organizer.
Agreed. This is one of the points in my comment, though stated not so directly.
Apple has spent considerable amounts of money on usability studies invovling iTunes and their other apps. So it is safe to assume that iTunes is what people want in a music organizer interface. Since KDE doesn't have money to through around, and no one is willing to donate to the cause, they should learn by example. The first thing they should have done when designing their interface is take a look at other well respected media organizers (iTunes arguably being the most respected) and learn from the interface. They don't appear to have done so, however.
You are right about the ones on the bottom. I neglected to mention these. This is also one of the nice interface perks about iTunes. Those buttons blend in well, and are small and unobtrusive. Generally, they go unnoticed until you want to use them. I use the Visualizer button a fair amount to put iTunes into full screen viz mode. When I'm not using them, they stay out of the way however. Unlike the buttons on JuK which are constantly glaring back at you.
The other screen shot does look cleaner, but this is a theming issue. The usability points still stand. You raised the issue of consistency among apps, which is valid to a point. Cut and paste buttons are handy in a text editor/word processor. They go unused for the most part in a MP3 player. So why should they be there? People play music in a music player, they are not editing much text, with the exception of tagging songs, in which case resigning the cut and paste options to a menu makes sense.
Application consistency makes sense for apps that have a consistent purpose. Once that purpose deviates significantly, it hinders the application to be consistent with the others.
I don't know if you are just trolling here, so I will explain how things are done so that others don't get the wrong impression.
First off, you can tell iTunes to not organize your music by turning the option off. In this case, no renaming or moving of your songs will take place. Simple.
I however, prefer iTunes to do the dirty work and organize it for me, because it does a good job. Here is how it works (in iTunes 4 at least, I've never used prior versions).
A directory is made for each artist. Album directories are made inside their respective artist directories. Songs then go into the album directories saved by song name plus an extension. If two songs somehow have the same name (such as untitled tracks) iTunes will append a number after the name so no files get over written.
Here is an example:
Counting Crows/August And Everything After/Mr. Jones.mp3 Counting Corws/This Desert Life/Hanginaround.mp3
Very simple. Very Easy.
For soundtracks and compilations, there is a check box to tell iTunes it is a compilation. These files are thrown into a Compilations folder and Album subfolders, with songs in the album subfolders. For example:
Compilations/Matrix/Some song on this soundtrack.mp3 Compilations/Lost In Translation/Some Song Name.mp3
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this naming convention, as it is incredibly easy, but if you do, tell it not to organize. The files will stay put.
The usuability studies will eventually reveal statistics as to what gets used most often by the majority of the people. For instance, 99.9% of the people would use the play button on iTunes. A significant number probably also use the search field. Well above 95%. There are some people who are probably confused by this searching and avoid using. However, a lot of people use it very often, so it needs to be there.
Now, you may use the cut and paste buttons a lot, but mabey only 10% of the people are like you. So, take them off the main screen. You can get used to finding that sort of stuff in the menus or use the shortcut keys.
Obviously nothing will satisfy everyone all the time. This is the lamest argument to bring up in situations like this. The key is finding the correct balance. Apple does this very well. Both KDE and GNOME struggle.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet it (OBVIOUSLY) contains a lot more research and effort so their costs are much higher and profits not much on software.
I don't know about this. I think a lot of the software development costs relate directly to the underlying OS. I've programmed extensively on Windows and Linux, and am just beginning on Mac OS X. However, OS X seems to be incredibly well designed and though out, making the programming process that much easier.
It is much easier for Apple to develop applications for OS X than it is for Microsoft to Windows. Likewise, OS X's architecture is very clean, making it relatively easy to add new features. Windows, however is incredibly kludged together. Anyone who has developed on it can atest to that fact.
Incidently, Steve Jobs addressed this very issue in the analyst meeting yesterday, which can be streamed off Apples QuickTime site. I forget the exact quote, but something to the effect that it is very easy to engineer new apps and features on OS X.
Skip a monthly payment, however, and all of your music and videos lock up tighter than a coon dog full of 12 pounds of government cheese.
This is Slashdot, simply saying "lock up tighter than Windows" will be fine, and provide more vivid imagery.
Well, in this case not RTFA has degraded what could be an interesting debate on Slashdot.
So, for those of you who didn't take the time, the author of the article seems to suggest that creative works will be payed for by taxes. By paying the taxes, we will all legally be able to download and share at will. He also suggests that this is the accepted and expected outcome by those in the know.
First off, I have never heard this point ever seriously considered. If it is, however, I am incredibly concerned. Do we really want creative works to become a socialist venture? What happens when artists sing controversial music, especially that which goes agains the thinking of the government? Would the government just revoke their payments? What would the US have done in the 60's if it was footing the bill for both the Vietnam war and the artists who were crying out against it? What would foriegn governments do?
I'd rather keep music in the free, open market so I know there is no pressure on squashing dissident views from artists. Artists have historically brought about the greatest changes in thinking. This would be much tougher in a creative-socialist market.
I can't believe they cost most than a few tens of dollars each at most
I'd like to know where I can get a really tiny 40GB hard drive for under $40 dollars. Please post a link.
OK, then, fine. What if I've got a home security system that logs all events to a remote server for analysis in case of a break-in. The system tunnels its info over HTTP to the security provider. Or, better yet, they have a modern system that uses web services and SOAP. Things like this happen in the real world.
Mabey it is not even mission critical. However, I still expect it to work as intended.
The point is, this is a router and I don't know what point it is located at in the network. Say I am sitting at Starbucks, and I get an SOS on my pager. I fire up through Wi-Fi and log into the server to try and configure it. However, what if Starbucks decided to use this belkin router behind their access point? There shouldn't need to be an advisory on what router they are using, it should just route, period.
Now, what if whatever command I sent down to the server happend to be split accross multiple packets, each of which needed to get there. However, the belkin stepped in and rewrote packet 2, making my command garbled, or possible interpreted as a different command.
I realize these situations are far fetched when mission critical is involved. However, what belkin has done is modified the core behavior of the very fabric of the network. When changes occur at the core, the possibility for far fetched, and disatrous, "what-if" scenarios to happen increases greatly.
When packet loss occurs, TCP is built to resend it. Packet loss is a fundamental problem on the network, so it needs to be addressed. It doesn't sound like this router treats what it rewrites as a dropped packet however. You can just kiss that data goodbye, and welcome an ad to your screen. Again, modifying the standard operation of TCP, which HTTP runs on top of.
I'd like more details. How does it determine if it is an actual HTTP request. I seriously doubt this thing is doing protocol level filtering (level 7, or 5, not sure which) to ensure actual HTTP packets. It probably blindly rewrites packets sent to port 80. However, what if I am running a mission critical service on port 80 that doesn't speak HTTP. I need my packet to go through, or something bad will happen. However, 8 hours just expired and I get a Belkin add. My server starts to fail and I am up a shit creek. Whose fault is this? I'd hope Belkin would be liable. I baught a router to route, imagine that.
If anyone has actual details on how it decides when and what to rewrite, I'd like to know.
As a side note, this is completely insane. I was considering buying an SD card reader from belkin, and a FireWire hub, but I think I've changed my mind. This behavior is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated by me. It's not a case of three strikes you are out. If you decide to even swing on my router, you are ejected from the game. Belkin will never see a cent of my money.
Right he said the iPod was the best at the beginning and the end. The rest of the article (and the title) was structured to make it appear in the worst light, however.
He brings up five points (whether valid or not) and suggests alternatives. However, each of those alternatives is worse than the iPod on the whole. Why write an article saying buy the Dell DJ, but the Dell is actually worse than what I'm telling you not to buy? It makes no sense. That to me is flamebait. He took the best option available and structured an article to make it seem negative, just to get attention.
Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have a valid point in some cases. My dissagreement was mainly with the parent of my original comment. I can state two opposite opinions, but any rational person is going to call my error. Never would I tell you a product is the best and then tell you why you shouldn't buy it, that is hypocritical flamebait. I will point out flaws, because people need to be aware. However, if it is the best, those flaws are outweighed.
Now if I may rant on point 5 (and even if I may not, I'm still going to.) Who cares if the iPod can't play files baught from the other music stores? 80% of the legal downloads are from iTunes. No one bitches about the other players not playing AAC files (and the players can't play AAC, BTW). If I'm sitting on the short end of the stick, I'd be gunning for AAC support because that is the format people are purchasing. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
In related news, the next 50 years will see such an explosion in human population that we will be standing shoulder to shoulder stacked five high.
Seriously though, everyone is aware that exponential growth is unsustainable. This is not news, and something will give. Chips will get smaller and smaller. They will also get more efficient and less power hungry. Power sources will also change radically.
In any case, however, I'd be curious to see this paper. I can't imagine the number of electronic devices we have consumes even a fraction of a fraction of the total energy in the sun. They must have extended that exponential curve for quite a significant amout of time.
Don't get me wrong; you are still my favorite overall insightful poster. Although everyone can think of reasons why your posts are good, I've decided to use this comment to list a few reasons why they are not.
1. You are an idiot.
Just because I put the disclaimer up, does not mean that this isn't flamebait. Likewise with the CNet article. They are trying to provoke a reaction, and probably a negative one given how popular the iPod is.
It is one thing to post a review of one of the best products and still point out its flaws. It is another to post an article that is structured in an entirely negative way, despite the fact that they admit it is great. This is simply a case of beating up on the popular guy, just to provoke a reaction (and draw hits to their site so they can sell ads).
So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them.
Now if he said, "so many codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them," I could mabey see some sarcasm in the statement. Even then though, it would be untrue, as it plays MP3, AAC, WAV, and AIFF. I think there is a plug-in by the Vorbis team to support OGG, though I have not tried it myself.
I suggest you read the great grandparent and then witness the utter lack of sarcasm.
So many MP3 Codecs out there they did a real good job making a player that plays all 1 of them.
Do you even remotely know what you are talking about? MP3 is a standard, it is by definition a single codec. There are multiple encoders, but they all adhere to the standard. I've encoded my MP3s with probably 10 or more different encoders, and iTunes plays every MP3 I have just fine.
MusicMatch is an MP3 player. iTunes does not break it, as you can still play your MP3s with it. However, you can't transfer songs to your iPod using MusicMatch anymore.
Well, iTunes tells you this is going to happen before you install it. If you don't like it, don't install it.
The funny thing is, I always wanted both Real Player and Windows Media Player installed because each sucked enough that I needed both to actaully watch video clips. Neither could do the job right.
When Apple makes iTunes, they have the balls to tell you its all or nothing, and they can back it up. With iTunes, I no longer need or want another music organizer on my PC.
I shouldn't try to see if I can't post a comment that wouldn't make sense if it doesn't use double negative contractions.
Well, at least I got a good laugh at of this one. Most artists are not giving you their music for free. Sure, they may not make much on the actual CDs being sold, as the record company takes that, but they are being compensated quite well by the contracts they have signed, which the record company pays, using the money it gets from CD sales. It is a circle, connect the dots.
Most bands are not in debt until 1.5 million CDs are sold. Count the number of bands out there, signed to RIAA-affiliated labels, and then count the number who's last album sold 1.5 million copies. It would be a small, small fraction. Yet, most of these bands continue to produce great music for a living. This is because they are not in debt, they are making money that the record label pays them.
As for asserting that you should know everything after reading slashdot for a month, that is just absurd. Most of the people spouting so-called "facts" are just as ignorant as you are about the issues and repeat only the information that supports their world view, without ever checking sources.
Simple analysis of the contents of your local record store and the number of multi-album bands you have never heard of is enough to demonstrate that you are wrong.
Do you consider the movie industry treating you as a thief because they sell DVDs? Probably not, even though DVDs contain some of the strictest DRM policies ever created.
However, it is easy for you to play DVDs, so you probably don't think twice about it (unless you are trying to copy data off of it, which most people don't do.) In iTunes Music Store, the DRM is quite fair for the consumer, and the emphasis remains on the ability to easily play the music where and when you want to. This is what the average consumer wants. My parents couldn't tell the difference between an MP3 and a protected AAC from the iTunes store in terms of actually getting the music to play. So, like DVDs, why should they care that it has DRM? Incidentally, they still refer to both as MP3s even though only one actually is. It's sort of in the modern vernacular.
When companies set up these services, they are not trying to appeal to the ultra-religious, rah-rah-GPL, geek crowd. (Though most of Slashdot will insist that they should.) They are trying to make a descent service that is easy for consumers to use. In the case of iTunes, the DRM does not get in the way, so why should that be considered a bad thing? It is not too much different than the DVDs we all have scattered around at home.
He also made you look like a fucking idiot.
Well, I guess I can't say I'm familiar with your situation. iTunes pulls out the song, album, and artist info from the ID3 tags embedded in the MP3. The only way for the Unknown Artist/Unkown Album to show up is if the song doesn't have any ID3 info.
This seems logical since most people tag their MP3s. I'll assume you had your reasons for not doing so, and I'll leave it at that.
Next you should welcome me as your cliche comment posting overlord.
What I posted was an insightful comment pointing out some of the flaws in JuK. Yes, I don't currently use it. No, I'm not going to submit patches because iTunes satisfies my needs. However, I'm not opposed to JuK and if it improves greatly, I will consider using it. If the developers are paying attention, they will address some of the issues I raised. It is called constructive criticism, and it is a good thing. You however, apparently just prefer to troll, and I'll take the bait in defense of myself.
What makes you think this announcement has anything to do with graphics chips? IBM's forte is in processor design, and supporting chipsets. Just as Apple uses nVidia and ATI for graphics cards, and IBM for processors (in the G5 and the newest iBook).
This announcement is more important for its affect on the main CPU in the Xbox 2, not the graphics capabilities.
When I see the screen shots, the useless buttons jump right out at me. I don't notice the bottom buttons in iTunes, probably due to placement. Eyes gravitate to the top rather than bottom.
I only recently got a mac and switched to itunes. However, i envied it based on every screen shot i saw. The interface was clean and simple, exactly what I wanted from a media player, which is one of the reasons I baught a mac, it looked clean and easy. When I see a screen shot with useless clutter, I think, I am not going to use it because it is wasting screen real estate for unused functions. A lot can be said for first impressions. Now, as soon as JuK cleans up the interface and releases impressive screen shots, I will install it and give it a try. If its better than iTunes, I will switch. However, if my initial reaction is "what crap" I am not going to waste my time, even though I haven't actually used it. FYI, I'm not drawn to mac because i'm stupid, I consciously make the descision to have an easy to use desktop os. I've done custom Linux projects compiling from source the whole way up just to have the bare minimum installed.
In any case, the buttons are not unobtrusive due to the fact that all apps use them. Reverse the situation and this becomes more apparent.
Saying "all apps use those buttons" derive "all apps" from editors/word processors because thats what most people originally became accustomed to first. What if media playing were the original app. Would you expect to find a play and pause button in your word processor just because all the other apps had them. That would be rediculous. Likewise, it is rediculous to have copy, paste, save, etc buttons on your media organizer.
Agreed. This is one of the points in my comment, though stated not so directly.
Apple has spent considerable amounts of money on usability studies invovling iTunes and their other apps. So it is safe to assume that iTunes is what people want in a music organizer interface. Since KDE doesn't have money to through around, and no one is willing to donate to the cause, they should learn by example. The first thing they should have done when designing their interface is take a look at other well respected media organizers (iTunes arguably being the most respected) and learn from the interface. They don't appear to have done so, however.
You are right about the ones on the bottom. I neglected to mention these. This is also one of the nice interface perks about iTunes. Those buttons blend in well, and are small and unobtrusive. Generally, they go unnoticed until you want to use them. I use the Visualizer button a fair amount to put iTunes into full screen viz mode. When I'm not using them, they stay out of the way however. Unlike the buttons on JuK which are constantly glaring back at you.
The other screen shot does look cleaner, but this is a theming issue. The usability points still stand. You raised the issue of consistency among apps, which is valid to a point. Cut and paste buttons are handy in a text editor/word processor. They go unused for the most part in a MP3 player. So why should they be there? People play music in a music player, they are not editing much text, with the exception of tagging songs, in which case resigning the cut and paste options to a menu makes sense.
Application consistency makes sense for apps that have a consistent purpose. Once that purpose deviates significantly, it hinders the application to be consistent with the others.
I don't know if you are just trolling here, so I will explain how things are done so that others don't get the wrong impression.
First off, you can tell iTunes to not organize your music by turning the option off. In this case, no renaming or moving of your songs will take place. Simple.
I however, prefer iTunes to do the dirty work and organize it for me, because it does a good job. Here is how it works (in iTunes 4 at least, I've never used prior versions).
A directory is made for each artist. Album directories are made inside their respective artist directories. Songs then go into the album directories saved by song name plus an extension. If two songs somehow have the same name (such as untitled tracks) iTunes will append a number after the name so no files get over written.
Here is an example:
Counting Crows/August And Everything After/Mr. Jones.mp3
Counting Corws/This Desert Life/Hanginaround.mp3
Very simple. Very Easy.
For soundtracks and compilations, there is a check box to tell iTunes it is a compilation. These files are thrown into a Compilations folder and Album subfolders, with songs in the album subfolders. For example:
Compilations/Matrix/Some song on this soundtrack.mp3
Compilations/Lost In Translation/Some Song Name.mp3
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this naming convention, as it is incredibly easy, but if you do, tell it not to organize. The files will stay put.
The usuability studies will eventually reveal statistics as to what gets used most often by the majority of the people. For instance, 99.9% of the people would use the play button on iTunes. A significant number probably also use the search field. Well above 95%. There are some people who are probably confused by this searching and avoid using. However, a lot of people use it very often, so it needs to be there.
Now, you may use the cut and paste buttons a lot, but mabey only 10% of the people are like you. So, take them off the main screen. You can get used to finding that sort of stuff in the menus or use the shortcut keys.
Obviously nothing will satisfy everyone all the time. This is the lamest argument to bring up in situations like this. The key is finding the correct balance. Apple does this very well. Both KDE and GNOME struggle.