5 ms·

Apple rocks with iTunes 9, iTunes Store improvements

34 points by profquail 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago
Nano-phone?
- tjogin 17y ago
  It would be extremely unlikely for a new iPhone to be released at an Apple Music Event.
- pyre 17y ago
  A Shuffle-phone would be interesting... I could see a good accessory opportunity for a Nano-phone though... make a 'shoe dock' that's a dress shoe you can dock your Nano-phone into... turning it into a phone (007 or Get Smart style).
ugh 17y ago
Well, rocks. In a weird kind of way. The new things are all nice but iTunes has become this huge pile of features, thrown together with no sense of direction. Case in point: Genius Mixes and iTunes DJ. They both do the same. DJ gives you more options (like a history of played songs, better display options, voting, etc.) while Mixes can pick out similar songs (which DJ doesn’t do). Both have the purpose to play a never ending stream of music. Why the heck do they keep them separate? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Combine the two. Kick out the old and consolidate. That would be a bold goal for iTunes X.
MikeCapone 17y ago
For those who are wondering (it's the first thing I checked): It's still not 64 bits.
- pyre 17y ago
  As someone mentioned elsewhere (Gruber I think), it uses the older Carbon API which is being left in the 32-bit world. They'll have to upgrade it to Cocoa to make it a 64-bit app, but Cocoa isn't ported to Windows... So they have limited options: * Port Cocoa to Windows and port iTunes to Cococa * (Gruber's prediction) Port iTunes to be entirely based on Webkit (though I don't know how well that would work as I've never looked into Webkit performance/issues on Windows) * Port Mac iTunes to Cocoa maintain Windows iTunes in Carbon * Drop Windows iTunes (not going to happen) * Port iTunes to iPhone/iPod Touch and drop it on OS X (yea right) * Port Carbon to 64-bit -- even though it has been stated that they won't in a push to force developers onto Cocoa. None of those are particularly attractive decisions. Going back on their word and porting Carbon to 64-bit or porting iTunes to be entirely a Webkit view seem to be the only options with the least friction, IMO. I think that porting Cocoa to Windows would probably be a larger undertaking than it would be worth it, though they may have some portions of Cocoa ported already (IIRC, Safari is Cocoa, but they maybe have only ported what they needed to make Safari work).
  - ComputerGuru 17y ago
    I think the third option (cocoa on OS X, carbon on Windows) is the most likely.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Would they really want to split development like that? Cocoa and Carbon are completely different (C vs ObjC) APIs to Aqua/Quartz/etc.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    "Port Cocoa to Windows and port iTunes to Cococa" OpenStep was already ported Windows NT at one time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPENSTEP_on_Windows_NT.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPENSTEP_on_Windows_NT.jpg ). They already port other libraries to Windows to support iTunes and Safari. I think this option makes the most sense moving forward if they want to continue building cross-platform applications.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Arguably iTunes is on Windows to support Windows users of iPhones/iPods (to expand their 'device market' beyond just the Mac ecosystem). Safari.... not really sure why Safari is there other than to try and support Windows developers of iPhone-targeted web-apps (before there was an official iPhone API). But that conclusion is questionable seeing how there are no Windows development tools for iPhone apps now that there is an official API. > They already port other libraries to Windows to support iTunes and Safari. iTunes doesn't use Cocoa/ObjC. It uses the Carbon/C (C++ too?) that was a way to transition between OS/9 and OSX back in the day (You could download the Carbon libraries for OS/9 and a Carbon app would run in OS/9 with them). Safari is Cocoa/ObjC so far as I know, but it's just a wrapper around Webkit for the most part. They could have ported the Windows version of Safari to Carbon, or just ported the parts of the Cocoa libraries that Safari needs (rather than the whole thing). So.... it looks something like this: Port X% of Cocoa to Win32 + Port iTunes to Cocoa Depending on that percentage and the amount of time it would take to port iTunes itself to Cocoa would determine how costly it is (time & money). I realize that you're also saying that porting however much of Cocoa over to Win32(+ Win64?) would help them develop more cross-platform apps, but I don't see this being part of their strategy. Unless you prescribe to the John C. Dvorák line of thinking that Apple is going to go cross-platform, make a way to seamlessly develope Windows/MacOS applications, and then eventually dump MacOS for Windows on Apple machines, I don't think that Apple will leave the galleon that they have for themselves (their product/developer ecosystem). They just use cross-platform apps as a means to an ends... extending gang planks to passing ships and beckoning their passengers to cross over to the Apple side (or at least buy their consumer-devices and get hooked onto those).
pvg 17y ago
I was hoping to hear more about improvements in the technology that regularly offers to delete all the music on my iPhone or iPod. For instance, the Genius feature could save time by deleting only the tracks I am likely to enjoy. With pocket-sized tera- and petabyte storage on the horizon it's the sort of forward-thinking innovation that distinguishes Apple from the lesser players in the field.
ComputerGuru 17y ago
I don't like the new, white UI. It clashes horribly with the rest of the (dark, grey) UI feels rather tasteless. Screenshot: http://twitpic.com/h48v1 http://twitpic.com/h48v1 The old UI was far, far classier.
- omouse 17y ago
  Isn't it a shame you can't theme it at all?
  - chrisbolt 17y ago
    No. The only themes I ever install are the ones that make it look like a native app, as it should.
maxklein 17y ago
They took away the category view in the iTunes Store for all older iTunes. A lot of app developers are going to be very upset about this.
- camwest 17y ago
  They hid the categories beside the App Store disclosure triangle at the top of the screen.
ujjwalg 17y ago
I installed iTunes 9.0 and it seems to have a very web2.0 interface. I kind of like it. They have also increased the top 100 to top 200 lists in the appstore, which is wonderful. Now, they need to improve the rating, review system and voila.
- pxlpshr 17y ago
  Yep, overall some nice improvements but I was hoping they would have carried the Top Earners across to categories too.
  - ujjwalg 17y ago
    totally agree. And it should be relatively easy to add. I think they are going to have it with 9.1 or something within a month.
- unalone 17y ago
  If by web2.0 you mean they saw it fit to harshen gradients and add a gradient to the search box, you're right. This is exactly why I disliked the web2.0 aesthetic.
  - ujjwalg 17y ago
    I was not talking about the looks at all. I specifically mentioned web2.0 "interface".
    - unalone 17y ago
      The interface is almost exactly the same.
nicara 17y ago
Anyone else feel their lineup is extremely.. non-Apple-y now? It used to make a lot of sense - to me anyway - how they arranged their iPods from cheap(ish)/only basic features to the luxury-versions with more features. I.e., shuffle -> play music; nano -> all of shuffle's features + view album covers, song texts, song titles to the music, calendar; iTouch -> all of nano's features + the whole smartphone without phone thing But now, ever since the introduction of the iPhone 3G, this doesn't hold true any more. The iTouch is supposed to have all the features of the nano plus more - but now it doesn't have a camera? The only reason to give the nano a camera and not the iTouch would be to distinguish it from the iPhone and market it as a gaming device. But then it doesn't make sense how the basic model of the iTouch has a slower processor and GPU than the iPhone. I don't know, but from these oddities in the lineup I'd almost go as far and predict more changes to come very shortly. Either push the iTouch more in the gaming niche and make the nano the new multimedia device (as opposed to just audio in the first two generations of it), or push the iTouch more into the all-in-one direction - which would mean there ought to be a new iPhone as well in order to keep the two apart. Not sure if I'm making sense here, but right now the nano, iTouch, iPhone lineup is quite counter-intuitive and almost non-transparent (yes, choice is not always a good thing).
- unalone 17y ago
  I don't know whether I'd like to think this was done with Jobs' approval or not. Jobs' approval means that the guy made a major oopsie. Without Jobs' approval would imply that the guy really is the one holding Apple together.
- netsp 17y ago
  You're right. The way to tell is how much difficulty you are having in explaining how the whole line-up/hierarchy works. I think it goes against one of the Apple-y things that I quite like. Make something people like enough to pay for. Don't build a product based on cross subsidies, non-transparent pricing, customer lock-in (not sure about this one), etc. That concept (I think) keeps Apple grounded. If they can make something that users are willing to pay enough for to make Apple a profit, they make money. If they can't they don't.
- jsz0 17y ago

34 points by profquail 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

Nano-phone?

tjogin 17y ago
It would be extremely unlikely for a new iPhone to be released at an Apple Music Event.
pyre 17y ago
A Shuffle-phone would be interesting... I could see a good accessory opportunity for a Nano-phone though... make a 'shoe dock' that's a dress shoe you can dock your Nano-phone into... turning it into a phone (007 or Get Smart style).

ugh 17y ago

Well, rocks. In a weird kind of way. The new things are all nice but iTunes has become this huge pile of features, thrown together with no sense of direction. Case in point: Genius Mixes and iTunes DJ. They both do the same. DJ gives you more options (like a history of played songs, better display options, voting, etc.) while Mixes can pick out similar songs (which DJ doesn’t do). Both have the purpose to play a never ending stream of music. Why the heck do they keep them separate? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Combine the two. Kick out the old and consolidate. That would be a bold goal for iTunes X.

MikeCapone 17y ago

For those who are wondering (it's the first thing I checked): It's still not 64 bits.

pyre 17y ago
As someone mentioned elsewhere (Gruber I think), it uses the older Carbon API which is being left in the 32-bit world. They'll have to upgrade it to Cocoa to make it a 64-bit app, but Cocoa isn't ported to Windows... So they have limited options: * Port Cocoa to Windows and port iTunes to Cococa * (Gruber's prediction) Port iTunes to be entirely based on Webkit (though I don't know how well that would work as I've never looked into Webkit performance/issues on Windows) * Port Mac iTunes to Cocoa maintain Windows iTunes in Carbon * Drop Windows iTunes (not going to happen) * Port iTunes to iPhone/iPod Touch and drop it on OS X (yea right) * Port Carbon to 64-bit -- even though it has been stated that they won't in a push to force developers onto Cocoa. None of those are particularly attractive decisions. Going back on their word and porting Carbon to 64-bit or porting iTunes to be entirely a Webkit view seem to be the only options with the least friction, IMO. I think that porting Cocoa to Windows would probably be a larger undertaking than it would be worth it, though they may have some portions of Cocoa ported already (IIRC, Safari is Cocoa, but they maybe have only ported what they needed to make Safari work).
- ComputerGuru 17y ago
  I think the third option (cocoa on OS X, carbon on Windows) is the most likely.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Would they really want to split development like that? Cocoa and Carbon are completely different (C vs ObjC) APIs to Aqua/Quartz/etc.
- wvenable 17y ago
  "Port Cocoa to Windows and port iTunes to Cococa" OpenStep was already ported Windows NT at one time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPENSTEP_on_Windows_NT.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPENSTEP_on_Windows_NT.jpg ). They already port other libraries to Windows to support iTunes and Safari. I think this option makes the most sense moving forward if they want to continue building cross-platform applications.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Arguably iTunes is on Windows to support Windows users of iPhones/iPods (to expand their 'device market' beyond just the Mac ecosystem). Safari.... not really sure why Safari is there other than to try and support Windows developers of iPhone-targeted web-apps (before there was an official iPhone API). But that conclusion is questionable seeing how there are no Windows development tools for iPhone apps now that there is an official API. > They already port other libraries to Windows to support iTunes and Safari. iTunes doesn't use Cocoa/ObjC. It uses the Carbon/C (C++ too?) that was a way to transition between OS/9 and OSX back in the day (You could download the Carbon libraries for OS/9 and a Carbon app would run in OS/9 with them). Safari is Cocoa/ObjC so far as I know, but it's just a wrapper around Webkit for the most part. They could have ported the Windows version of Safari to Carbon, or just ported the parts of the Cocoa libraries that Safari needs (rather than the whole thing). So.... it looks something like this: Port X% of Cocoa to Win32 + Port iTunes to Cocoa Depending on that percentage and the amount of time it would take to port iTunes itself to Cocoa would determine how costly it is (time & money). I realize that you're also saying that porting however much of Cocoa over to Win32(+ Win64?) would help them develop more cross-platform apps, but I don't see this being part of their strategy. Unless you prescribe to the John C. Dvorák line of thinking that Apple is going to go cross-platform, make a way to seamlessly develope Windows/MacOS applications, and then eventually dump MacOS for Windows on Apple machines, I don't think that Apple will leave the galleon that they have for themselves (their product/developer ecosystem). They just use cross-platform apps as a means to an ends... extending gang planks to passing ships and beckoning their passengers to cross over to the Apple side (or at least buy their consumer-devices and get hooked onto those).

pvg 17y ago

I was hoping to hear more about improvements in the technology that regularly offers to delete all the music on my iPhone or iPod. For instance, the Genius feature could save time by deleting only the tracks I am likely to enjoy. With pocket-sized tera- and petabyte storage on the horizon it's the sort of forward-thinking innovation that distinguishes Apple from the lesser players in the field.

ComputerGuru 17y ago

I don't like the new, white UI. It clashes horribly with the rest of the (dark, grey) UI feels rather tasteless. Screenshot: http://twitpic.com/h48v1 http://twitpic.com/h48v1 The old UI was far, far classier.

omouse 17y ago
Isn't it a shame you can't theme it at all?
- chrisbolt 17y ago
  No. The only themes I ever install are the ones that make it look like a native app, as it should.

maxklein 17y ago

They took away the category view in the iTunes Store for all older iTunes. A lot of app developers are going to be very upset about this.

camwest 17y ago
They hid the categories beside the App Store disclosure triangle at the top of the screen.

ujjwalg 17y ago

I installed iTunes 9.0 and it seems to have a very web2.0 interface. I kind of like it. They have also increased the top 100 to top 200 lists in the appstore, which is wonderful. Now, they need to improve the rating, review system and voila.

pxlpshr 17y ago
Yep, overall some nice improvements but I was hoping they would have carried the Top Earners across to categories too.
- ujjwalg 17y ago
  totally agree. And it should be relatively easy to add. I think they are going to have it with 9.1 or something within a month.
unalone 17y ago
If by web2.0 you mean they saw it fit to harshen gradients and add a gradient to the search box, you're right. This is exactly why I disliked the web2.0 aesthetic.
- ujjwalg 17y ago
  I was not talking about the looks at all. I specifically mentioned web2.0 "interface".
  - unalone 17y ago
    The interface is almost exactly the same.

nicara 17y ago

Anyone else feel their lineup is extremely.. non-Apple-y now? It used to make a lot of sense - to me anyway - how they arranged their iPods from cheap(ish)/only basic features to the luxury-versions with more features. I.e., shuffle -> play music; nano -> all of shuffle's features + view album covers, song texts, song titles to the music, calendar; iTouch -> all of nano's features + the whole smartphone without phone thing But now, ever since the introduction of the iPhone 3G, this doesn't hold true any more. The iTouch is supposed to have all the features of the nano plus more - but now it doesn't have a camera? The only reason to give the nano a camera and not the iTouch would be to distinguish it from the iPhone and market it as a gaming device. But then it doesn't make sense how the basic model of the iTouch has a slower processor and GPU than the iPhone. I don't know, but from these oddities in the lineup I'd almost go as far and predict more changes to come very shortly. Either push the iTouch more in the gaming niche and make the nano the new multimedia device (as opposed to just audio in the first two generations of it), or push the iTouch more into the all-in-one direction - which would mean there ought to be a new iPhone as well in order to keep the two apart. Not sure if I'm making sense here, but right now the nano, iTouch, iPhone lineup is quite counter-intuitive and almost non-transparent (yes, choice is not always a good thing).

unalone 17y ago
I don't know whether I'd like to think this was done with Jobs' approval or not. Jobs' approval means that the guy made a major oopsie. Without Jobs' approval would imply that the guy really is the one holding Apple together.
netsp 17y ago
You're right. The way to tell is how much difficulty you are having in explaining how the whole line-up/hierarchy works. I think it goes against one of the Apple-y things that I quite like. Make something people like enough to pay for. Don't build a product based on cross subsidies, non-transparent pricing, customer lock-in (not sure about this one), etc. That concept (I think) keeps Apple grounded. If they can make something that users are willing to pay enough for to make Apple a profit, they make money. If they can't they don't.
jsz0 17y ago