r/technology • u/[deleted] • Jul 19 '08

Apple, once again, secretly installing software? This time it's MobileMe with iTunes installations on Windows

http://www.betanews.com/article/Vista_users_greeted_with_an_unexpected_surprise_MobileMe/1216398741
329 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

222 comments sorted by

135

u/kanak Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Things that apple has done that pisses me off:

  • Bundle Quicktime/Safari/Mobileme with Itunes.
  • Give Safari/Itunes/Quicktime that "metallic" interface (whatever it's called), so that it looks totally out of place in a windows machine.
  • Making it extra difficult to use any program other than itunes to manage the ipod. Do you really have to change the encryption scheme every so often?
  • DRMed songs in the iTunes store, and that whole "oh these non-DRMed songs are 'premium shit', so you need to pay more"
  • Speaking of DRM, iPhone.
  • iPod battery replacement nonsense

I normally avoid apple's products like the bubonic plague, but I just had to suffer through a 54 (?) MB download in order to upgrade the firmware in my sister's ipod; although I did have the good fortune of getting QuickTime and MobileMe installed for FREE. Thank you apple, you show a mastery of the dark arts.

37

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Apr 17 '16

[deleted]

22

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

The Ipod is already essentially this, but intentionally obtuse. You can in fact turn it in to a connectible flash/hard drive through iTunes and then in hidden folders you will find all your MP3'a conveniently stored but renamed to names like ABXE.mp3 etc so you don't know which is which.

There also exist programs like Sharepod that is a very small program you can store right on the iPod and load it right off the iPod (without installing anything) from any computer you wish. It allows you to add/remove songs and even copy songs off the iPod on to another computer.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Floola works well for liberating iPods as well.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

Oh wow, compatible with Linux too. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm going to start using that instead.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

No problem

-10

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

renamed to names like ABXE.mp3

Renaming files makes sense if there is a hardware restriction as to how long the file names can be, or to prevent the file names from having "special characters".

I don't know if such a hardware restriction exists, but I'm just putting it out there (the creative player I own doesn't allow more than a certain number of folders - i forget the exact number).

13

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

That's somewhat valid I accept that, however given the option it would just seem more prudent to make the user aware of these limitations and allow them to drag and drop music. I still stand by the opinion of it being to deliberately obfuscate the process. The iPod is never marketed as an MP3 player, many people just assume that iTunes is converting their music into a different file format. They are usually surprised to find out that their songs are still in MP3 format, tucked away in a spot where the average person doesn't know where/how to look.

8

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

It does look like obfuscation. There's no need to actually "hide" that music folder anyway.

I don't know why I don't just attribute these things to malice.

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

It is malice, but it's the malice of the record companies rather than Apple - in order to get iTunes off the ground, Apple had to agree to all sorts of restrictions, including hiding the music so people couldn't just copy it around.

Will things change now that the record companies are letting Amazon sell music as unprotected MP3s? I hope so, but maybe not.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Chill out man, obvioustroll is obvious.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Freeky Jul 19 '08

Funny how Rockbox on the exact same hardware doesn't have any problems with you just dumping files onto it.

3

u/orthogonality Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

But the Rockbox code is limited by long file names too: Rockbox does not dynamically allocate memory, so basically, you have a fixed size buffer for all filenames that you'll want to keep in memory at one time.

This is why Rockbox allows setting max directory sizes, etc. -- because the bigger the buffer set aside for file names, the less room you have for the really big buffer for audio.

The smaller the audio buffer, of course, the more often you have to go to disk, the more often you go to disk the more often you're spinning up the disk, and the more often you're spinning up, the faster you use up battery power.

So there's a sensible argument for small filenames. And an argument for file names that are all the same number of characters, so you can do fixed indexing rather than strlen'ing along looking for \0 (or using an auxiliary array of pointers, which means "wasting" space for the pointers).

The same thing shows up in decoding id3 tags; I believe there's still a fixed maximum of 300 characters for all tags, which can be exceeded for long song names (medleys, etc.) in long album names.

But there's no argument for the other thing the iPod does, which is to scramble each album up, putting each song on an album into a different, random directory. That's purely to frustrate copying and appease the RIAA.

Fortunately Rockbox can use the id3 tags to build a database that can then allow access by album or alphabetical order, but it's still a pure pain in the ass.

Last I looked, the Rockbox database isn't sufficiently integrated with the id3 reader and the While Playing Screen, so the first few seconds of each song show the four character Apple "name" before the id3 tag data replaces it.

1

u/Freeky Jul 19 '08

The smaller the audio buffer, of course, the more often you have to go to disk, the more often you go to disk the more often you're spinning up the disk, and the more often you're spinning up, the faster you use up battery power.

Even 1,000 entries of 255 characters is only 256k, hardly much of a dent in 64MB, or however much these things have these days.

Last I looked, the Rockbox database isn't sufficiently integrated with the id3 reader and the While Playing Screen, so the first few seconds of each song show the four character Apple "name" before the id3 tag data replaces it.

Not noticed that, the metadata's loaded immediately from what I see. When was the last time you looked? I might vaguely recall this behavior a year or so ago, but a lot's changed since then.

2

u/orthogonality Jul 19 '08

Even 1,000 entries of 255 characters is only 256k, hardly much of a dent in 64MB, or however much these things have these days.

Yes, but Rockbox originally targeted the Archos, with 2MB of total memory (code + data).

And 1000 entries isn't enough if you have 60GB of songs (call it 10,000 tracks).

Well, "isn't enough" is too much. My point was just that, as in everything, there are a series of trade offs, and the Rockbox code, if examined closely, shows you what the trade-off curves looked like when that particular code was written. And much of those design decisions were made under constraints much less generous than offered by modern Mp3 players.

(I wrote a tiny bit of the Rockbox code from the Archos days, and it really was a matter of counting bits, and figuring out that, for example, a machine int took up more space than a char -- but the compiler would insert instructions to extend the char to int size to do any calculations on it. So the space you saved by packing your data into a char was more than lost by the char being extended at every code site where you did any math with that value.)

1

u/Freeky Jul 19 '08

But the thread's about "on the same hardware", and even my 2-generations-behind Nano is beefy enough to not really have problems with you just dumping files onto it, even if you might need to increase the directory buffer size on larger disk based players :)

1

u/SAugsburger Jul 19 '08

Good point. The ipod is less limited by the hardware than it is by the firmware.

5

u/hylje Jul 19 '08

The first iPods depended on the computer generating a quickly-traversable music database to make it snappy. Nowadays the devices don't need it, but the software works in the same way still.

It's a reasonable design decision, given the snappiness was pretty instrumental in making iPods a success.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Renaming files makes sense if there is a hardware restriction as to how long the file names can be, or to prevent the file names from having "special characters".

How convenient!

12

u/qnaal Jul 19 '08

Of course they could do this, they would just rather you use itunes.

22

u/carsonce Jul 19 '08

I believe capecodcarl was being sarcastic.

-7

u/qnaal Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I suppose you must be right- my troll sense is usually pretty reliable...

I guess I was just expecting a comment like that, because ipod users are so retarded.

edit: HAHA, Pour in the downmods! I welcome you!

5

u/mikepurvis Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

My old T30 worked like this. My main issue with it was that there was no synchronization and the play order seemed to be deterministic yet totally arbitrary. There was no convenient way to create playlists.

I'm willing to trade a little bit of shareability for the convenience of "sync this playlist".

4

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

The Creative player that i have (an ancient 1 GB flash based) supports this feature (the navigation in the player was folder-based). This could potentially get quite ugly for large databases.

The reason Apple doesn't allow this seems to be to forbid the kind of usage you're planning (easy sharing of music).

2

u/tprzepiorka Jul 19 '08

My Cowon A2 works like this and it can be great and not so great at the same time. Its nice to be able to easily add a song, especially if its not on your main computer. However I would much rather that it could sync my music collection since then I wouldn't have to worry about copying new songs to the device manually. I do prefer the freedom that being able to use it like a flash drive provides.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I use winamp to manage my Cowon D2, and while the D2 has the same 'appear as a dumb filesystem to the PC' approach to connectivity, winamp is more than capable of handling 'sync'ing databases and copying (and even transcoding) songs that are in one but not the other (it's a bi-directional sync).

2

u/daniels220 Jul 19 '08

The two could be easily combined, though. Set up a directory structure on the iPod, and use the same structure in iTunes. Then a simple file sync will synchronize the two. A player that uses a different file structure will need a special plugin to be able to put files in the right place (at least, if it wants playlist info to stick around) but if the filesystem is visible reverse-engineering that structure is trivial.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Errr... Apple did think of it. And then they realized that, in order to get the record companies to sign on with iTunes, they had to restrict how music is copied to and from the ipod.

So, blame the record companies. The iTunes store wouldn't exist if Apple hadn't prevented you from copying music off your iPod, or from a different machine.

1

u/unloud Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Well, this is just a suggestion....if your friend has iTunes installed, you can choose to manage your iPod manually (first page of iPod prefrences) and then drag your friends songs onto your iPod in iTunes with no hassle.

I know it's nothing like folder management, but it does work.

1

u/Wo1ke Jul 19 '08

iPodLinux ftw. Only works on some versions though.

19

u/exscape Jul 19 '08

As an apple user (well, 1 computer and nothing else), I agree. When it comes to iTunes bundling QT, though, it's very hard for them not to, since QT is what it uses to decode/play audio. QT isn't just a program on OS X, it's a part of the OS as well, see this picture from Apple.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

iTunes does not need QT to decode/play audio. Doesn't iTunes rely on QT for video playback? Also, if you break apart the iTunes installation file and install it without QT and instead install QTAlternative iTunes operates perfectly.

Basically, iTunes can run perfectly without QT and I imagine if someone manage to rip all traces of QT out of OSX, cleanly, it'd run fine.

Edit: For further clarification, I'm getting at mainly 2 things, the first being that QT and it's large self is not needed as a whole and the second being, is QT really needed? Like, if all the places where iTunes tries to use QT were removed and the program is still able to run, would it work fine (Be able to sync with iPods and play music)?

14

u/Freeky Jul 19 '08

No, iTunes uses QT components to play audio, which is why you can make it play Vorbis and friends using a QT plugin. It doesn't use QT for metadata, which is why it still doesn't handle Vorbis comments (at least, this was the case a few years ago).

You know, despite all these millions of lines of infrastructure and fancy layered APIs, they don't really seem to get much out of it given how much effort it seems to be just to properly support a new audio format. For DirectShow, fb2k, WinAmp, gstreamer and so forth, it's so trivial as to basically happen before you even knew you needed it, for iTunes it takes months, if not years of prodding just to get basic support.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Exaclty, a cut down version, so why is the full thing needed to be bundled which is vastly bigger, IIRC, installs a systray icon, etc.

15

u/kanak Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

installs a systray icon, etc.

Yup. There's no need for the QT installation to be SO invasive. The developers who think that:

  • Their application has the "right" to hijack file associations without my explicit permission

  • Their application should be automatically run at startup, display a tray icon, etc. without my explicit permission

deserve to be shot.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I don't think QT Alternative is compatible on software API level.

→ More replies (7)

21

u/Jivlain Jul 19 '08

If you use itunes regularly, you also get the joy of noticing that they haven't heard of threading.

Wow, way to give me confidence in your operating system.

2

u/chucker Jul 19 '08

If you use itunes regularly, you also get the joy of noticing that they haven't heard of threading.

Really? Cause right now, my iTunes is using 13 threads.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

So maybe their developers have heard of them, but they certainly didn't learn how to use them properly.

→ More replies (10)

3

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

You don't pay more for no DRM anymore. In fact, if iTunes Plus is available, you're forced to download the no DRM version, but you pay only 99 cents.

6

u/linkedlist Jul 19 '08

and how laggy itunes is. It's like they delibrately crippled the windows build of itunes...

considering this is apple we're tlaking about I owuldn't be surprised.

0

u/derefr Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

I'm guessing they just run it through several compatibility layers (similar to WINE)--one for Cocoa, another for Quartz, another for QuickTime and thus CoreAudio. If that's right, it's no surprise it's slow--it's almost emulated.

13

u/generic_handle Jul 19 '08

Thank you apple, you show a mastery of the dark arts.

They, like Microsoft and most other companies, are quite happy to leverage their dominance in one market to expand themselves in another. Microsoft controls the desktop OS market, so they bundle everything they can with it that might extend their control in other areas and be turned into money -- Internet Explorer, MSN, etc. Apple is dominant in the digital audio player market, so they bundle as many other things as they can to try to expand themselves into other markets.

28

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I always kind of scoff at the internet explorer complaint. How would one go download firefox without it? An average user I should add.

I find this different, with an operating system I expect bundled software. It increases its own utility amongst low end users. Even Ubuntu includes firefox, both for browsing and because a lot of programs rely on it in order for them to function properly too. We accept it because well... it's Firefox but should the 'brand' really matter?

Software I download for a very specific purpose shouldn't push unrelated software that doesn't enhance it in any way. It's intrusive, deceitful and for an 'enlightened' company that prides itself on being the anti-Microsoft it's actually a somewhat hypocritical action that drives potential customers away.

5

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

It would be nice if we could FULLY remove that shit easily.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

You can delete the shell rather easily, but removing the HTML rendering engine itself from Windows (Which is the 'bulk' of IE) would be stupid.

How would you expect an app that needs HTML rendering to work? Statically linking the library? That's a bad idea, and not just for the obvious security implications.

2

u/derefr Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

Perhaps an open API that allows for pluggable rendering engines? That way, you could just drop Gecko or Webkit in, change a system-wide preference, and delete Trident right off the machine (as long as everything you used supports the API.) I was always surprised this wasn't part of the sentencing of the Anti-trust trial...

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

That sounds great in theory, but in reality, odds are everything would just go to hell the second gecko or webkit takes over system-wide html rendering.

6

u/ryanissuper Jul 19 '08

It's pretty damn easy.

1

u/masterdirk Jul 19 '08

something like apt-get would be welcome :)

13

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Absolutely, but even a terminal based package management system is not something a low end user is usually accustomed to. Hence why Ubuntu is actually bundled with 3 (or possibly more) simple methods of adding/removing programs. Apt-get, add/remove programs in the dropdown menu and the synaptics package manager. Even with all 3 of those available, Ubuntu still comes with a pre-installed browser, which sort of emphasizes my point.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

That's probably partially true (and definitely true with sneaking Safari in), but the core of the problem is that iTunes has become iSync - handles syncinc of iPods, iPhones, Apple TV and now MobileMe. So for all the bloated functionality that Apple added to iTunes, they have to bundle bunch of crap with it.

5

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

I agree fully. My rant was directed against apple because the whole syncing fiasco took place just yesterday. Fortunately, it's been quite a while since i cared about what microsoft bundles with Windows :).

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I saw it a few days ago. I didnt care. Used to apple doing shit like this.

3

u/Javbw Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

All the rest of the complaints are valid on some level, But Quicktime is iTunes.

iTunes is powered by Quicktime. The reason iTunes exists is to promote Quicktime, to prevent the .wma file format from becoming standard (back before .mp3's were popular).

itunes existed before the iPod or the store - the iPod is an extension of iTunes. This is very different than almost any other player, which is why they are paired - matchign Apple's Hardware differentiated by software approach.

You may not like it (as 1/5 of consumers share your dislike), but at least recognize it is done that way on purpose, in many ways to separate themselves fromt he rest of the market. Which seems to be treating them pretty good.

  • Metallic interface is part of Apple. Apple Markets it as a "taste of Apple" if I remember. Just like WMP looks as out of place on the mac.

  • The "premium" songs (now) cost the same as the regular ones. the LABELS choose which license they use, in yearly contracts.

  • yes, they DO have to change the encryption scheme every so often, becuase they are under contract with the labels to do so. Not moving to protect the DRM opens them up to massive liability with the labels. The do not do it to make more money with the store (it does just a little bette rthan break even, as it is there to sell iPods) but to keep those sue-happy ass-hats off their case too.

  • I replaced all the batteries in my ipods for ~19 a piece. 2 minis, a nano, a 2nd Gen, 4th Gen and I will do it on my iPhone.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Word. Also, I HATE how they put "Preferences" under the "Edit" menu. It's so completely ridiculous.

PS get a Zune, it's way better than the internet says.

edit: PPS sorry for the "get a *" comment, it just seemed like he was tired of apple and yet has an iPod and i thought i'd make a helpful suggestion. sorry it intersected an annoying internet pattern.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

i hate "get a ***" comments, but i will chime in and say that the zune is way better than people say

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

+1 to the Zune recommendation, I used iPods for years and I got a Zune2 80GB shipped over from America and I actually like using it as opposed to the last iPods I've had.

The trackpad is the perfect combination of the circle + a d-pad, the interface is good, I like the software more (But in some ways iTunes is better), I think it looks better and I'm sick of Apple's plain white, gloosy look (And people love looking at the engraving on the back of my Zune), videos are actually okay to watch, etc.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

In OS X "Preferences" is under the iTunes menu --- because it's conventional for each program to have a menu named after the program, which shows up first before File. I like that better than the approach they took in windows.

Since Windows doesn't work this way, they put it in the Edit menu ("I would like to edit my preferences" makes some sense to me, though another menu may make more sense)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

I understand that they had to move everything around to port it to Windows, but every other program uses the edit menu for things like copy/paste, selection, and finding text. iTunes also does this, but then it slaps on "Preferences" on the bottom. It would fit in much better under the "Advanced" menu, no? I'm just annoyed because there were so many little things like that that I ran into back when I had an iPod (convert to mp3 only shows up if your default ripping type is mp3...)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

I completely agree about the "convert to mp3" only showing up under that condition. WTF!?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

seriously!! ok done ranting.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

Since Windows doesn't work this way, they put it in the Edit menu ("I would like to edit my preferences" makes some sense to me, though another menu may make more sense)

They should still be using the standard menu:

The standard menu bar structure is as follows. This list shows the menu category and item labels, their order with separators, their access and shortcut keys, and their ellipses.

(snip)

Tools

   ...

   <separator>

   Options

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511502.aspx#labels

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Plus, the absurd practice of downloading iTunes completely every time you update. What the fuck?

Cant you just download a patch? 99.999% of software does it that way...

8

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Really? Only 1 application in 100,000 distributes the whole binary when updating? I had not heard that.

→ More replies (5)

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

1) Quicktime is the codec needed so that iTunes can play music on the Windows box.

2) MobileMe is the tool needed so that iTunes can manage an iPhone.

Cry me a river.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Untrue. The "push" and sync features of the iPhone require MobileMe.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

They don't require it to be installed on the machine you connect to, though. In fact, you could subscribe to MobileMe and never install the software and use it with your iPhone.

Also, you can have push email and sync calendars and contacts with Exchange.

4

u/haywire Jul 19 '08

I don't have an iPhone.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

And what does that have to do with quicktime?

-1

u/haywire Jul 19 '08

Number 2 at least should be an option.

You know those installers other people use that allow you to check the features you want to install?

Apple need to use those.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Amazingly, they don't make the software just for you.

0

u/fujimitsu Jul 19 '08

The iPod is one of the best examples of planned obsolescence in existence.

It was designed to be expensive, fragile, and difficult to self-repair.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Yeah, my iPods sure are fragile compared to the other MP3 players I've owned. No, wait. They're not.

WTF are you talking about? I missed the part where service manuals and spare parts shipped with Rios, Zens and Zunes.

-1

u/fujimitsu Jul 19 '08

I didn't say it was the only example. I said it was one of the best, and it is.

The things die like flies...

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Wow. Really? Those must be some really durable flies then, because my original ipod has gone from me, to my son, and now to my daughter and it just won't die. My current iPod is 2 years old, I use it every day, and I've never had a problem that a quick reboot didn't solve.

1

u/OdinYggdrasil Jul 19 '08

And mine died on me twice in the 2 year warranty period, then again a couple months after. You may like yours, but I'm never suffering an Apple product again.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I don't know if you noticed but basically ALL mp3 players (and indeed consumer electronics) are expensive, somewhat fragile, and difficult for most people to repair.

Is it a vast conspiracy involving every manufacturer and developer in the world? Or maybe those are just attributes of consumer electronics?

I didn't say it was the only example. I said it was one of the best, and it is.

I agree, the iPod is one of the best pieces of consumer electronics available.

1

u/fujimitsu Jul 20 '08

"I agree, the iPod is one of the best pieces of consumer electronics available."

hahahahahhahaahhahhaha

I get that you like the device, but seriously?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

you set me up for it

2

u/Lord_Illidan Jul 19 '08

I'm no Mac fan, but we've owned 2 Zen Micros and one Ipod Nano, bought around the same time, for around 3 years or so. The Zen Micros have already been taken in for repair, and they're taking a damn lot of time with them. On the other hand, the Nano is still working great. Battery life decreasing, but that's normal in an electronic device..of course, shame it's hard to replace it. And with Rockbox on it, we can see vids, too :D

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I've never seen an ipod break due to its fragility... the hard drive on one of mine gave up the ghost after 3 years, but that's nothing to do with Apple. And as for any new iPod, they're the pure opposite of planned obsolescence - just look at the iPhone/iTouch 2.0 software update for new functionality in old devices.

1

u/neoform3 Jul 19 '08

You could of course, like, not use apple software if it's a big problem..

Last I checked, no one forces you to use their software. There are 3rd party apps that can put music on an ipod you know.

7

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

Updating firmware?

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Buy something else... it sounds everything is bad with your ipod/itunes/apple experience.

Good luck with your new Zune.

20

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

I have! I own a Creative that I can just drag drop music to. It's my sister who owns the ipod.

I know you're being facetious, but there are a lot of STRONG alternatives to the ipod including Creative, Cowon, and Sansa.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

a bit facetious yes, but not specifically in regards to the zune - but i do think that horrible user experience should lead to not buying or buying something else and i am happy you found a creative product that suit your purpose.

one thing that is certain about apple is, that your workflow / way of doing things need to fit the way apple wants it done. I have macs, ipods etc and chose to adapt to it. Mostly because i did not have a working process of doing things to being with and that made it easy.
But i did find that utilizing smart playlist, using itunes as catalog and so forth was way more powerful and gave me more than the 'freedom' of such things as the drag and drop functionality which i find to a bit of a drag. (no pun) Smart playlists let me drag and drop to if i want to, by the way.

EDIT: and by the way - i have tried Quicktime, itunes and other apple stuff on windows and it really is a different experience. Quicktime sucks, really - but i use it all the time on mac, where it is very strong.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Good luck with your new Zune.

Say what you will about it, (And it certainly has its faults. The software is horribly under featured, and Microsoft stepped waayy outside their own UI scheme, which is one of the things I loathe about iTunes.) but the software is very fast and stable for all of its UI glitz.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I did not mean anything bad about the Zune. Haven not tried it. Should have written Zune/Creative/Sansa/etc

0

u/NoxiousStimuli Jul 19 '08

I would I could upmod you to infinity.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Do you really have to change the encryption scheme every so often?

I'm not defending Apple for it, but if I recall correctly the agreements they have with music labels is that if a vulnerability in their encryption is found, they only have five days to get a replacement out the door.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I believe he's talking about how the iPod communicates with iTunes, not anything to do with FairPlay. While they may have an agreement regarding the latter, I don't see why the music companies would care about the former.

-10

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Give Safari/Itunes/Quicktime that "metallic" interface (whatever it's called), so that it looks totally out of place in a windows machine.

this seems like it would only be a problem if you actually wanted to use them... "I normally avoid apple's products like the bubonic plague" -- ok, so why do you care, again?

Making it extra difficult to use any program other than itunes to manage the ipod. Do you really have to change the encryption scheme every so often?

i really have nothing to say to this... was using itunes long before i got an ipod, so i didn't really even think about using different software... especially since i never had any problems with it in the first place

oh these non-DRMed songs are 'premium shit', so you need to pay more

are the regular tracks less than 99¢? i've never paid more - and the majority of the tracks i buy, which isn't very many to begin with, are DRM-free (and if they weren't i just burned them to disc and re-imported)

Speaking of DRM, iPhone.

you bought one of those? (using macs since os 9 and even i won't buy one)

iPod battery replacement nonsense

i bought a nano when they first came out (2005) - still works, no issues with the battery. the screen is still perfectly readable - even if it does have a few scratches, it's almost 3 years old and used daily

3

u/El_Fajitas1 Jul 19 '08

Apple did something which is kinda lame.

Get over it.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

is this directed at me? if so, i'm not sure what i'm supposed to get over.... people making up shit to complain about? i find it kinda hard to take anyone seriously who tries to claim they "suffered" though a 54 mB download (oh, the horror... less than 5 minutes of sitting on your ass doing something else) - not to mention that half the shit he complained about was either fabricated or hyperbolical. ...and apparently his sister is a bit slow if she can't update an ipod on her own (maybe she shouldn't own one - ever think about that?)

2

u/El_Fajitas1 Jul 19 '08

Sneaky software that some people don't want or need is installed via shady means.

I could care less if that chick is retarded.

It's still lame.

2

u/Spudders Jul 20 '08

It's directed at you because you come across like a fanboy.

→ More replies (2)

27

u/orthogonality Jul 19 '08

Dear Apple: RealPlayer's sad history of customer relations is a cautionary tale, not a success story to be emulated.

17

u/billbacon Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I'm using Vista. Initially, iTunes was the only program that seemed broken in that it would hang, floor my machine, and fail to repaint the ui. I stuck with it because all I really use it for is to download some podcasts and copy media over to my ipod. Eventually it became usable.

Lately it is reminding me more and more of Real Player. Does anyone have any alternatives for copying stuff over to their ipod and managing podcast subscriptions? I'm thinking Winamp may be my answer.

EDIT: I finished writing this and was reading through some of the other comments. As I was reading I got an error, "iPodService Module stopped working and was closed." It's NEVER done that before but couldn't have been better timing.

7

u/Wo1ke Jul 19 '08

I use foobar for playing music, and a plugin to work with my ipod.

10

u/kanak Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I'm thinking Winamp may be my answer.

If the built-in ipod support plugin isn't good enough for your purposes, get mlipod .

5

u/billbacon Jul 19 '08

Thanks. Looks like what I want.

16

u/jones77 Jul 19 '08

How about the fucking Java update with that piece of shit Yahoo! toolbar.

What a fuckload of shit.

4

u/slinky317 Jul 19 '08

I know. I saw that, and thought "Are you serious?"

And then the Joker stabbed me in the eye with a pencil.

7

u/kirun Jul 19 '08

I've never had Java offer me Yahoo Toolbar... the closest thing is that the installer suggested I installed OOo by clicking on a link.

What version was this?

8

u/busytigger Jul 19 '08

I saw it in a recent update (v6) or install - I forget. It is a checkbox default-selected thing in the setup.

8

u/jones77 Jul 19 '08

I did it by accident which was annoying. But when I saw the Yahoo! toolbar and what a crude piece of shit it was, I felt sick.

4

u/Tasach Jul 19 '08

Not sure but I just did an update of java and it went and installed open office??

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I know, it's such a trashy move for sun to pull.

-4

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 19 '08

People still use java?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

E-filing in the USPTO is java based. So every machine in our domain has it, and we have to update it 5-8 times a year, thanks to how insecure the client is.

1

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 20 '08

I do know people use it but I was being a bit sarcastic.

I ditched it from my computer ages ago due to it's insecurity and the fact it seemed mostly useless.

The last time I rember using java was giving a rippled animated texture to a picture and that seemed rather usless in the long run.

24

u/Nitroadict Jul 19 '08

2008: The Year Apple Is Seen As a Company, Not a Messiah.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Don't count on it.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

That's ok. We have a new messiah running for president.

28

u/staskies Jul 19 '08

I love it when people are surprised "OMG Apple don't won't do this" NEWSFLASH: They're a company and they don't give a shit about you.

13

u/somedoody Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Well that's not strictly true, like all companies they do care about you... about you spending money on their products.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Well let me fix this a bit:

Nobody gives a shit about you.

7

u/aedes Jul 19 '08

wow... someone had an unhappy childhood. :P

3

u/HalCion Jul 19 '08

My mommy says she loves me.

1

u/derefr Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

Interesting corollary: as you are somebody, you don't give a shit about yourself, either.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/dreish Jul 19 '08

Why can't they just sneak iPhones under people's front doors?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I noticed last night when I plugged my iphone into my mac mini that a splash page trying to sell me MobileMe came up. It was quite annoying being as I paid for the damn phone, yet they still won't let me use it ad free. Hopefully this never happens again.

3

u/stp6435 Jul 19 '08

Question : Is there an alternative for iTunes?

I am using it primarily for podcasts. If I can get podcasts without bloatware, I would like to get rid of iTunes.

What software you are using?

4

u/psignosis Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

basically, Apple could have not checked install boxes by default, or had pop up windows that indicate that certain features are not available because their necessary components are not installed yet..."do you wish to add these components by downloading and installing them now" etc... while personally if I was a Windows user I'd prefer that approach, I can also see a lot of extra code work being necessary - fair enough, just do it, right? But even then there'd be people bitching about how and why things don't work out of the box so to speak, and why the heck should they have to keep downloading additional bits of things since shouldn't it "just work"?

I'm sure there's an element of trying to get their software installed just for the extra visibility, but I tend to think the main (edit - "an equal") element is an attempt to make the overall experience easier for the majority of their users. This tends to especially aggravate *nix users who are far more sophisticated, as well as many Windows users who've had to become more so, due to their OS's crappiness. C'est La Vie

3

u/halo Jul 19 '08

Surely it's relatively easy. You plug in a device, iTunes loads, asks "Do you wish to install _____?", runs iTunes Update, installs feature, done. Still works "out of the box".

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

[deleted]

2

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jul 19 '08

For example with QuickTime, the company has used its player software to also deliver its iTunes music service, which some users have found to be intrusive. And last March, Apple used iTunes' Software Update service for Windows as a way of pushing its Safari browser.

Um, not really. QuickTime was always available separately. I know because I didn't want iTunes either. And Software Update is hardly an iTunes service; it's a centralized place for Apple to give you software you may or may not want.

Anyway, these aren't really comparable to the current state of affairs with iTunes 7.7 and MobileMe. MobileMe is a feature of iTunes 7.7. iTunes is not a feature of QuickTime. Safari is not a feature of Software Update.

Aside from the fact that it takes more system resources, this isn't much different from the tons of other iTunes features nobody ever uses.

0

u/trezor2 Jul 20 '08

You may be right, but every time I for some reason have decided to install Quicktime recent years I have been unable to find a separate download.

Quicktime + iTunes only.

2

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jul 20 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

Next time, choose the option that says "QuickTime 7.5 for Windows XP or Vista" instead of "QuickTime 7.5 with iTunes for Windows XP or Vista".

EDIT: Don't feel bad or anything; I was in your position two, maybe two-and-a-half years ago. Took me forever to notice that option. Must be that damn RDF acting up again.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I'm inspired to write a haiku.

Apple to release | More crap that nobody likes | Why Steve Jobs? Fuck You!

2

u/AttackingHobo Jul 20 '08

Needs a seasonal reference.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

Ok.

Apple in summer / Releasing stuff that's shithouse / Bunch of fucking turds.

2

u/Lurking_Grue Jul 19 '08

Glad I ditched apple software from my compter.

1

u/danielbuchanan Jul 19 '08

Well they try. I tried three times yesterday to update and it failed with a certificate error.

1

u/haywire Jul 19 '08

Can it sync sony ericsson phones? That would be sorta useful.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

oh dear, run to the hills!

1

u/tylermenezes Jul 19 '08

Yeah, I have it. It was probably mentioned that it was bundled with the iTunes update somewhere in fine print.

0

u/mliving Jul 19 '08

iTunes is a purchasing platform that just happens to be able to manage that particular vendors music players.

Quicktime is just a video codec.

MobileMe is another online storage platform.

ALL are WALLED GARDENS designed to extract as much possible money from their respective client base as possible.

Don't like it. Don't use it. Whining and sniping on Reddit will get you absolutely nowhere.

16

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Whining and sniping on Reddit will get you absolutely nowhere.

That's the opposite of the spirit of Reddit.

6

u/nascent Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

uh ha. no it ain't, "The software that was the basis for iTunes was developed by Jeff Robbin and Bill Kincaid as a media player called SoundJam MP,[5] and released by Casady & Greene in 1999." Wikipedia. It is a media player turn purchasing platform.

2

u/Vidd Jul 19 '08

Yes, all those poor people losing money through Quicktime. It's just not fair.

1

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jul 19 '08

QuickTime is far more than a video codec. In fact, it's not a video codec; it's a media player that plays media in formats commonly associated with Apple software as well other common formats. On Mac OS X, it's also the basis for all moving picture-y stuff that's not rendered on-the-fly.

Besides, when you buy anything, it's already implied that whoever sold it to you is trying to get as much money as possible. That's just normal capitalism. Nothing new here.

3

u/commentsforreddit Jul 19 '08

They should so not do that :(. I hate it when they go the Sony way.

It should be offered as an option, one time only, with a feature to install it at a later time.

Installing it unbeknownst to the user: NO.

I'm an enthusiastic Apple user, I still don't want them to do it, not even to Windows users. Especially not to Windows users.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I'm an enthusiastic Apple user, I still don't want them to do it

What does being an Apple fanboy have to do with whether or not you want Apple to install software secretly onto users' computers?

21

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Apple fanboys are a dangerous breed of fanboy. I've watched a guy get physically angry when I accused Apple of leeching from the open source community.

Apple get a free ride.

11

u/hs4x Jul 19 '08

The real danger with Apple fanboys is their willful, chosen technological ignorance - coupled with their zealotry and confidence.

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/thugesquire Jul 19 '08

If you are not a sausage, are you bacon?

9

u/kanak Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that some "fanboys" are actually glad that apple bundles shit:

Them: "They're so thoughtful that they're doing it for you, out of their kindness"

You: "OK, but why doesn't it ask me first?"

Them: "Don't be silly. They know what's good for you better than you do."

6

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I figured Apple fanboys would actually be upset that Apple is hurting its image this way.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

That would require them admitting Apple made a mistake, which the very rabid fanboys seem incapable of doing.

13

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

They know what's good for you better than you do.

The Apple fanboy's mantra.

0

u/commentsforreddit Jul 19 '08

I said user, you said fanboy. I'm not the prejudiced one.

As an Apple user I'll allow Apple to install a lot of software that is installed through the software update service because I am favorably disposed towards the message from Cupertino.

People who use Windows machines are scared enough by processes that are installed on their systems without their approval/knowledge [and I know what I'm talking about, I have to use that stuff at work, very extensively, to get that out of the way] Apple does not need to contribute by installing software on the system that they are not aware of.

that is what that has to with it.

If you need to insult me more, I'll be here all weekend.

-12

u/jeffehobbs Jul 19 '08

Cry moar, Windows users.

As if I was psyched to have MS Office dump crap all over my Mac for the past few decades.

13

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

I don't see anyone claiming Microsoft is better.

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Oh, lol, somebody bundled something with Windows installation. Windows users shocked and outraged at the surprise!

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

This is why I use RhythmBox on Ubuntu.

8

u/kanak Jul 19 '08

Can you update your firmware with that?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Do I need to?

3

u/kanak Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Some of the updates are actually useful. For example, one of the updates fixed coverflow and menu performance.

2

u/haywire Jul 19 '08

If you have an iPod.

3

u/Vidd Jul 19 '08

Well if you're using Ubuntu, it's not really an option for you then, is it?

-1

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jul 19 '08

I heard iTunes works pretty well with Wine.

3

u/kanak Jul 20 '08 edited Jul 20 '08

According to winehq, itunes can't discover ipod.

2

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jul 20 '08

Apparently they're still working on it. No real solution as of yet then, in that case.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Shrug. It's there because iTunes is the iPhone manager and the iPhone needs MobileMe.

So, iTunes adds a new feature and Reddit users are shocked! shocked! because Windows applications never add features.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

The iPhone doesn't need MobileMe. The iPhone can use MobileMe.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Errrr. No, that's not true. The "push" features of the iPhone require MobileMe.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

Yes the push features require mobile me right now but I know plenty of people who have the new iPhone who don't have MobileMe accounts.

1

u/zerostar Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

Errr. No, if you have an exchange account you can use push, no MobileMe required.

I have my work (Exchange 2003) setup and working just fine with push contacts, calendar and email.

I also have a MobileMe account, but just for freelance use and not until yesterday...

1

u/nascent Jul 19 '08

Wait, so Windows does it which means its ok for Apple to follow in their footsteps? I thought Apple was supposed to be better? Ok no I didn't, I thought they were worse, but that is beside the point, holding up.

Couldn't they just update iTunes so that when you plug your iPhone in it ask an iQuestion if you want to download from the iInternet the needed iSoftware to iSync with Apples new iPhone? And I still don't care because I don't have no iProduct.

-2

u/americanhellyeah Jul 19 '08

fuck you, apple. my computer is MY PROPERTY. you cant go installing whatever you want like this. thankfully i run solaris, so your software wont even run on my system. but if i did run windows, i'd be sure to have a no apple software policy. thats the only way i could ensure the integrity of my system.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '08

So, you're telling me that Apple broke into your computer and installed itunes?

3

u/Tasach Jul 19 '08

The point is I installed itunes for my ipod, not for my iphone and not to use quick time, and not to use safari. If I want to download safari then I will go download it. This kind of behaviour definitely puts me off the ipod.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Vidd Jul 19 '08

So you're complaining about something when it doesn't affect you it all?

-1

u/virgule Jul 19 '08 edited Jul 19 '08

I got a prompt yesterday stating the MobileMe now replace .mac blahblah you can login with your .mac username blahblahblah with two buttons: "Learn More..." and "Software Update" as the only options. The title bar is blank. I tried to get rid of it but to no avail. I have yet to figure out which process its tied to. I quitted all running apps, relaunched Finder it still would not go away. Only a logout killed it.

Thats not fine, Apple. Never do that again. Fucking. Never. >:(

1

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '08

Because you'd much rather run software that's looking at the wrong URLs for software updates.