35 ms·
I don't know, it seems this is more a list of products that didn't happen to strike the writer's fancy — rather than canonical failures. Whether something is a
by tjogin 17y ago
I don't know, it seems this is more a list of products that didn't happen to strike the writer's fancy — rather than canonical failures. Whether something is a success or failure is not a whole lot about personal opinion — it's about observable, measurable fact.
For instance, the white earbuds, whatever you may think of them — had a pretty important role in popularizing the iPod, as they stood out from the rest. iPod users, in spite of having the actual devices hidden in their pockets, could be identified from afar (among users of other unidentifiable brands of mp3 players). Look at the iPod commercials with the black silhouette people wearing white earbuds. I'd say Apple's earbuds, regardless of audio quality, has been a phenomenal success. They're not failures by any stretch of the imagination. You may think they suck, and you may be right, but they're not a failure.
About the same thing goes for iTunes. You may think it suck, and you might be right. But it's not a failure. It is a resounding success. iTunes has become the leader in music organization (second only to manual "organization" in ad-hoc folders). iTunes has been essential to making the organization, synchronization and purchasing of music an overall smooth experience.
While I agree with most of the points brought forth; iTunes is becoming increasingly bloated, being responsible for many things that has absolutely nothing to do with music — it maintaining that role has also made it easier for users already familiar with iTunes to start buying apps for the iPhone, synchronizing their calendar and contacts, etc.
I agree iTunes needs a bit of an overhaul, everything not related to music organization should be moved into separate apps dedicated to just doing that. So yeah, iTunes sucks. But it is not a failure — it is an enormous success.
Having the opinion that something sucks does not magically make it a failure.
- dasil003 17y agoI'd say Apple's earbuds, regardless of audio quality, has been a phenomenal success. Also, the author is so quick to forget what the world of personal audio devices was like before the iPod. They all came with terrible headphones. The iPod upped the ante by including a set of halfway decent earbuds and now everybody forgets what a huge step up it was.
- yef 17y agoApple is a great company with many great products, but fanboyism irks me to no end. The article isn't about market failures, it's about bad products from a user standpoint. For the ones that I've used, I agree wholeheartedly: Hockey Puck Mouse: I could never feel how it was oriented. I know I'm not the only person who had this problem. Earbuds: They fall out of my ears if I'm not completely still. I know I'm not the only person who has this problem. iTunes: Great in 2001. Now it's bloated, slow, doesn't handle large libraries well, has terrible error messages (or none at all), movie rentals don't work, sync'ing works weird, the list goes on and on and on. I know I'm not the only person, again. I would add OS X to the list in terms of usability as well. Take, for example, the 7-year long thread on Jeremy Zawodny's blog about focus-follows-mouse. Why couldn't they put an option in the mouse settings to allow focus-follows-mouse?
- phsr 17y ago^ iTunes: Great in 2001. Now it's bloated, slow, doesn't handle large libraries well, What is considered a large library? I have about 3500 songs, and I am not having problems.
- gb 17y agoI have about 16k and it's almost unusable. From what I hear the PC version performance is much worse than the Mac version though.
- phsr 17y agoOk, that is much larger than mine. :-) I'm just curious of the point that iTunes becomes unusable. So far, no problems in either XP or OS X for me
- tptacek 17y ago14k. OSX. MacBook. No problems.
- bioinformatics 17y agoI have 52k, usage is fine on iMac late 2007, but at times a little bit slow when scrolling through the cover art.
- GeneralMaximus 17y agoOh, please. iTunes is not a music manager. It's a simplistic, slow and badly built jukebox app. AmaroK is a music manager. Windows Media Player is a music manager. But not iTunes. The only thing I've been missing on OS X is a good music manager that can take care of the gigabytes of MP3s I have lying around on my disk.
- tjogin 17y agoThere are iPod owners out there with tens of gigs of music (the biggest iPod has room for 120 gigs of music). To say that iTunes can't handle that is to ignore this observable fact. It not striking your fancy is not the same thing as it not being a music manager. It is one, it is even the most popular one, regardless of your personal opinion of how good it is.
- GeneralMaximus 17y agoiTunes can easily handle tens of gigs of music, but putting them all in one big list is not my idea of music management. If I wanted a big list of songs, I could put all my MP3s in a single folder and use VLC to play them. Search is easy with Spotlight. This is hardly "organization". For someone who can't purchase music from iTMS, what's the point of iTunes, then? WMP, AmaroK and even WinAmp allow me to do much more with my music, and they aren't 80megs in size.
- chrismear 17y agoAs someone who's pretty happy with iTunes, I'm genuinely interested to find out what I'm missing out on. What do these other management applications do that can't be done using the tools in iTunes? I admit, my usage isn't particularly sophisticated. I typically use the browser (with genre, artist and album columns) to drill down to music, or the full text search to quickly dig out something specific. I also have quite a few manual and smart playlists.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]