Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Businesses Operating Systems Software Media Music Apple

Apple Releases iTunes SDK for Windows 157

Posted by pudge from the just-another-drm-system-in-the-os dept.
amichalo writes "Apple's recent release of an iTunes SDK for Windows provides the ability for third party programs, such as WinAmp and Windows Media Player, to support the AAC file format. Ars Technica has additional commentary. The SDK uses the COM interface and supports iTunes 4.5 only."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Releases iTunes SDK for Windows More

Apple Releases iTunes SDK for Windows

Comments Filter:

  • minor nag (Score:5, Informative)

    by LordSah ( 185088 ) * on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:36AM (#9193286)
    This SDK provides header files, documentation, and sample JScript files demonstrating how to use the iTunes for Windows COM interface. COM is the Microsoft technology, similar to AppleScript on Mac OS, that allows programmatic control of iTunes from languages like JScript, Visual Basic, C#, and C++. This SDK requires iTunes for Windows version 4.5 or later.
    Because it bugs me, I'm going to clarify this. COM is mainly a binary specification on how function tables should be laid out in objects. If various languages comply to that specification, then magically language A can create and call into objects programmed in language B. Apple could've provided a URL to an article talking about COM (a non-Microsoft article even), rather than define it as "similar to AppleScript on Mac OS, that allows programmatic control of iTunes". If this SDK is intended for real developers, they probably don't want such a dumbed-down description (assuming they've never heard of COM).

    • Re:minor nag (Score:5, Insightful)

      by irokitt ( 663593 ) <archimandrites-iaur@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:43AM (#9193313)
      Anyone who has written even a simple game under Windows should know the basics of COM and how it works. Ditto for anyone who has done basic coding in C/C++/C# for Windows (and those who use VB for advanced coding instead of using it for a macro/prototyping tool). So quite a few developers are going to read that and chuckle. Of course, that was probably written by some marketing weenie who doesn't know any better.

      • Re:minor nag (Score:2, Funny)

        by LordSah ( 185088 ) *
        Yep. I didn't want the non-windows-programmers here at Slashdot to come away thinking COM was a special technology just to control iTunes :)

      • Re:minor nag (Score:2, Insightful)

        by should_be_linear ( 779431 )
        "Anyone who has written even a simple game under Windows should know the basics of COM and how it works" Not true. I wrote many enterprise C++ applications and found COM ugly enough to avoid learning it. I prefere static linking. Applications in my opinion (and my life) should be self-contained, easy to deploy and portable. COM eliminates all 3 aspects. I think that even MS is trashing COM, only supporting it as "legacy" model (for .net).

        • Re:minor nag (Score:4, Interesting)

          by LordSah ( 185088 ) * on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @07:30AM (#9193921)
          You can get away with packaging everything up into one nice executable for college projects and applications of limited scope (perhaps apps to serve html from servers). Client applications need to reuse code, dynamically link libraries to save on code size (page faults will kill you way more than loose loops), and interoperate with binaries made by different people (it helps if they're allowed to use languages to suit their needs). COM is a very nice way to accomplish all that.

          Realize that COM is, for programmers, a means to define a strict interface to an object. People can re-implement that object, improve it, fix bugs and swap it out with the existing one without having to send you a new .cpp file, .lib or even a recompile. It's the benefit of abstraction with a .h file, with none of the pain.
        • I wrote many enterprise C++ applications and found COM ugly enough to avoid learning it. I prefere static linking.
          COM, from an application developers perspective, defines specificinterfaces for Classes to implement so they may be used by other programs. However, COM is not how dynamic binding happens on Win32. Dynamic Linking does not require COM. Dynamic linking can occur at load time via stub libraries, or at run time via calls to LoadLibraryEx() and GetProcAddress(). If you use COM these calls are ju

      • Re:minor nag (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TwistedSquare ( 650445 )
        Having programmed games and used DirectX a lot (I assume that's what you're referring to) I still had no idea what COM was. You use it the same as using a class in C++ pretty much, except for the reference count thing, so why learn more?

    • Re:minor nag (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordSah ( 185088 ) * on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:43AM (#9193316)
      Apologies for replying to my own post, but in case you're curious about COM:
      A technical overview about COM [microsoft.com]
      Comprehensive COM site [microsoft.com]

    • Re:minor nag (Score:5, Interesting)

      by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:51AM (#9193339) Homepage Journal
      Hmmm.... while you are correct, I believe that Apple knows that real developers will understand exactly how to use this SDK.

      They also know that this news will get published internationally and be a major PR move for them... so, they use a dumbed down version that more laymen and would-be technology editors and reviewers can understand so as to get the most bang for their PR buck.

    • Re:minor nag (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
      Take a little journey with me.

      When discussing Jobs's Apple, it's all about image and the ability to rally the troops. Many Mac users are savvy programmers, but in my experience most are not. Those rank and file users will hoop, holler and cheer at this announcement. It's a great illustration of Apple's innovation.

      LK

    • Re:minor nag (Score:3, Funny)

      by astrosmash ( 3561 )
      What they mean is that the iTunes automation interface lets you control iTunes externally from script or other programming language, similarly to what you can do with AppleScript on MacOS, purple monkey dishwasher.

      Obviously there was a little bit of miscommunication between the marketing person who wrote the press release and the developer who told them what COM is. Just business as usual, I guess.

      • Re:minor nag (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @09:38AM (#9194708)
        Obviously there was a little bit of miscommunication between the marketing person who wrote the press release and the developer who told them what COM is.

        Erm, no. Not exactly. Rather, the developer told the marketing guy what COM is, and the marketing guy replied, "Nobody cares about that. Tell me why people should care." The developer then rambled for ten minutes about remote object invocation and locational transparency. The marketing guy got up right in the middle of a sentence and said, "Lets you control iTunes, kinda like AppleScript. Got it. Thanks."
    • It's amusing especially considering that this SDK was written by someone that seems to have NEVER developed on a mac. Its naming conventions and other things are unlike any of Apple's other sample code for the PC (which largely follow mac coding conventions).

      So the conclusion seems to be some PR junkie (or Apple DTS employee) wrote this PR thing and sadly didn't know what COM was so they just reiterated what they were told by some person that told them what it was (but didn't know either).

      When I don't kno

  • Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cameronk ( 187272 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:37AM (#9193289) Homepage
    The original goal of the iPod was to drive Mac sales, although perhaps things are a bit upside down now. This SDK goes a long way, though not far enough, toward opening the iTunes music store and keeping the iPod (and therefore Apple) relevant.

    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Adian ( 104160 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:45AM (#9193319) Homepage
      I think this is just another sign that Apple actually benefits from cross-platform applications. The roll-out of the IPod, then ITunes, it's all ultimately to make Apple products easier to use on Windows, since unfortunately it is running on a large share of home users desktops.

      • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Have Blue ( 616 )
        Apple is only interested in cross-platform applications as long as they directly support the bottom line. iTunes allows more people to buy and use iPods, so it gets ported. There's no equivalent revenue stream for the other apps, so they wouldn't benefit from porting them and therefore won't do so.

      • Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)

        by NaugaHunter ( 639364 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @11:07AM (#9195404)
        OK, Bart, to the blackboard:

        Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
        Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
        Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
        Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
        Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
        Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.
        Apple is a hardware company,

        As much as Apple gains from others' cross-platform applications, they don't generally gain much from making theirs cross-platform. The goal here is to tackle reasons to not use iTunes - you will probably still require an iPod to play this music on a personal player easily. (Other than using the CD-to-whatever route, of course.)

    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lotsofno ( 733224 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @06:22AM (#9193744)
      A lot of Windows users have done pretty good without the SDK so far, in terms of iPod connectivity. If you need any proof, just look at ml_ipod [winamp.com], the open source iPod plug-in for Winamp. It integrates itself seamlessly into Winamp's media library and even has a couple hidden features you might not see with iTunes or even in other 3rd party applications like Ephpod. I know more than a few people who've already switched to Winamp for better iPod connectivity, including myself.

      Strangely enough, I've actually heard developers say they won't even touch the SDK: "The .h file is 10k lines. iTunes' bloat is infectious."

  • I know it won't happen... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:42AM (#9193309) Journal
    ... but I wish iTunes would support WMA.

    Not that I have any myself, but there are a ton of radio stations that broadcast in WMA that I can't import into iTunes (you can add new stations into iTunes by copying any station into a playlist, and then editing the URL of the copy in the playlist. The new station only shows up in a playlist, instead of the Radio area, but good enough!).

  • So when are we going to see some new formats? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DaedalusLogic ( 449896 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:48AM (#9193333)
    So when is iTunes going to support ogg, flac, and shn thanks to or without the use of this of this SDK?
    I started using it last month over Winamp and kinda miss those capabilities... and where do you let it allow songs to flow into one another without pause? Is that option in the program?

    • Re:So when are we going to see some new formats? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @04:06AM (#9193385)
      Well, iTunes for Windows actually uses Quicktime for playback.
      Theres this nice project over at SourceForge http://sourceforge.net/projects/qtcomponents/ with Ogg Vorbis components for Quicktime (and thus iTunes). It's still beta, and there is a pause when iTunes switch between formats, but it plays Ogg Vorbis.

      The crossfading can be found under Edit->Prefrerences->Effects.
      • The Ogg Vorbis QT plugin has improved noticably with the most recent version. When I first tried it out, the delay in switching formats was such that it was basically unusable on a regular basis. The newest version, however, seems to work without any noticable lag at all on my Athlon XP 2200+. I can't speak for slower processors/other systems, but I was impressed enough that I actually imported my Ogg collection into my iTunes library for the first time. Truly a classy piece of work. Now if we could only ge
    • There is an ogg control that works double plus good for playing Ogg vorbis files under iTunes (at least on the mac and with 4.5).

      Clicky [illadvised.com].

      I, personally, wish to god somebody would write some sort of plugin that would sort mp3's in some sane way. iTunes is absolutely horrible at handling mp3's and their various tags (or lack thereof) something winamp perfected years ago.
      • Well, not exactly a plugin, but you might want to take a look at mp3ql [mp3ql.com].

        regards,

        -silence

      • I wish that the iPod would have, y'know, Vorbis support. iTunes support doesn't do folks a whole lot of good -- it's easy to use any audio playing application on the Mac, including one that can understand Ogg Vorbis, but when it comes to the iPod, you're stuck.

        What *I*'d like to know is why the iPod lacks both a hierarchical organization system (like, folders?) *and* the ability to enter search strings (quite doable with the jog wheel -- search results could be saved as a playlist).
        • What *I*'d like to know is why the iPod lacks both a hierarchical organization system (like, folders?)

          Perhaps because an indexed database is faster at searching through upto 10,000 file records than scanning all 10,000 files & metadata?

          • Why would the existence of folders on the iPod ever entail looking through 10K file records?

            I mean, I can't think of a single instance where this would be necessary, not even for infrequent operations like the initial addition of the file.
      • I, personally, wish to god somebody would write some sort of plugin that would sort mp3's in some sane way. iTunes is absolutely horrible at handling mp3's and their various tags (or lack thereof) something winamp perfected years ago.

        Can you specify exactly what your problem is? I find iTunes to be a fucking ninja with ID3 tags, so I'm curious.

        • Well, I've noticed that it doesn't always pick up on the id3 tags. I've had to go through a lot of my imported mp3s and mass-set artist & album.

          I suspect this has something to do with the way I ripped the original CDs, possibly difference in the different versions of ID3. I'm not sure, though. Because I can rip CD1 and CD2 on the same day, using the same settings, and iTunes will properly read the tags for CD1, but "miss" them on CD2. I've also had instances where songs 1-5 from a CD get picked up
      • what are you talking about?
        Preferences -> Advanced -> keep iTunes music folder organized

        i do that and my MP3 directory (that is just a partition on a second drive) is organized as:
        Artist/Album/Song

        what more do you need than that? last time i looked at a friend's winamp MP3 directory it was every MP3 file sorted by the file's name ALL in one huge directory.
        • I have around 80gb of music that was organized by iTunes while I was on Windows, and my only major gripe is about it's naming scheme. I'd like it if iTunes let me use a slightly different order:

          Genre/Artist - Album - Number - Title

          That way, when I put songs on my player or copy them to another folder, I don't have incredibly verbose names like "03 Dream On.mp3". Is that Aerosmith? Depeche Mode? Some obscure punk band? It's nice that iTunes tries to avoid redundancy and long names, but I 'd like the o
    • I don't have a windows box handy, but it should be similar to my mac. In the preferences there should be a tab or icon for "Effects". Under that should be an option to Crossfade Playback and a slider to adjust the amount from 0 to 12 seconds of overlap. At least 5 seconds is a good way to go if you've got any songs with those 2 second bits of silence on the ends.
    • and where do you let it allow songs to flow into one another without pause? Is that option in the program?

      Preferences -> Effects -> Crossfade Playback
      If you just want the songs to be played gapless, set crossfade enabled but time to 0 seconds.

  • I don't think this does what you think it does. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Temporal ( 96070 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:49AM (#9193336) Journal
    First of all, there is already an iTMS input plugin for Winamp [winamp.com]. It has been around for some time. It uses the existing QuickTime SDK to play the music.

    This new SDK has nothing to do with that. Now, I haven't exactly had much time to review it, so I could be wrong, but what this new SDK looks like is scripting support for manipulating the iTunes interface. For instance, you can write scripts which build playlists, tag files, etc. Basically, this allows you to automate tasks that you might otherwise perform through the iTunes UI.

    On Mac OSX, such functionality has been available via AppleScript for some time. In fact, many OSX programs expose functionality like this via AppleScript -- a practice I wish were more widespread on other systems.

    Of course, Windows doesn't have AppleScript, but it does have COM, which I guess can be used in vaguely similar ways. So, they have exposed all this functionality via COM instead. The download includes some example scripts written in Javascript for creating playlists, removing dead files, etc. Of course, since it's COM, you can use pretty much any language you want to access it (including C/C++, though I wouldn't recommend it for this sort of thing).

    Kudos to Apple for doing this. They could have been snotty and kept the scripting abilities exclusive to OSX, but they instead chose to support both platforms equally.

    But, no, I don't think Winamp or WMP have anything to gain from this. Sorry.
    • Something I think I'd like to see is for someone to creat a Mozilla sidebar that plays/streams using iTunes. So I can surf using FireSomething and listen to my playlists at the same time. Could be good stuff. But the thing I would really like to see is a simple, easy solution to playing .aac format files in Linux, and getting iTMS to work in said platform. It'll happen, sooner or later, but I guess I'm impatient.

      • Arrgh! NO! (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by EvilStein ( 414640 )
        The Mozilla people need to scrap everything and start busting ass on *Calendar apps* - not sidebar music apps.

        Sorry, I'm just frustrated because Mozilla Calendar really does lack basic features that users have come to expect from Outlook's calendar (even without Exchange)

        Ugh. No more themes & silly crap. Focus!!

        • Re:Arrgh! NO! (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by irokitt ( 663593 )
          Well, most of the themes and silly crap are done by independent developers, not the Moz team itself - they have more important things to do.

    • Re:I don't think this does what you think it does. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:59AM (#9193367)
      In fact, many OSX programs expose functionality like this via AppleScript -- a practice I wish were more widespread on other systems.

      Other systems usually go with an object broker, which is much more powerful than (although not as easy as) providing applescript hooks.

      On Windows you've got COM, on KDE you've got DCOP, on Gnome you've got CORBA.

      DCOP is probably the easiest, most flexable, and most widely implemented (Practically every KDE app has DCOP support.. while under Gnome, very few use Corba, probably due to the real/percieved slowness of it)

  • misleading quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Götz ( 18854 ) <[waschk] [at] [gmx.net]> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:51AM (#9193342) Homepage
    Apple's recent release of an iTunes SDK for Windows provides the ability for third party programs, such as WinAmp and Windows Media Player, to support the AAC file format.
    They mean the DRMed AAC format by apple, there have been winamp plugins for the AAC format of the MPEG standards for a long time, even open source [sf.net] (but patented).

    • Re:misleading quote (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Talthane ( 699885 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @04:09AM (#9193394)

      They mean the DRMed AAC format by apple

      DRM-capable. I have plenty of AACs ripped from CD that are wide open. It's important to make the distinction, because AAC the file format has nothing to do with DRM per se; that's a commercial decision by the iTMS. You can happily distribute your AACs free of all DRM and fees if you want to, so don't blame the file format.

      • Re:misleading quote (Score:3, Informative)

        by Götz ( 18854 )
        Yes, that's what I've stated in my post. There has been support for AAC before, but this is for Apple's AAC from itms, not the MPEG standard one.
      • Yes, and you've been able to play those files without a problem in Winamp for a long time. I too have about 10GB of .m4a files which I can play with whatever I want, because it's a standard file format. This lets you play the DRMed stuff.

    • Re:misleading quote (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blowdart ( 31458 )
      And the SDK doesn't even support that, it allows scripting/COM languages to drive iTunes

      There is NOTHING about supporting FairPlay AAC in any external programs.

      Of course Apple, like Real will whine about Media Player not supporting their formats, even though the DirectFilter SDK and specs have been around for years. Ogg supports it nicely, as does DIVX. Apple and Real just produce PR puff pieces, making bogus complaints. Of course they don't want people using Media Player, or WinAmp, as they loose the e

    • Re:misleading quote (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Temporal ( 96070 )
      There have been Winamp plugins [winamp.com] to support the DRM'd iTMS AAC's for some time as well.

    • Re:misleading quote (Score:4, Informative)

      by lotsofno ( 733224 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @06:16AM (#9193730)
      "Also, the SDK should allow people to play AAC files (including those purchased from iTMS) through WinAMP"
      This is just a poorly researched article.

      Winamp has had AAC support for a while, natively and through plug-ins. Winamp has also been able to play iTMS' DRM-ed files as early as last OCTOBER, via plug-in. A quick search on the topic could've revealed that fact in seconds: Winamp Unlimited FAQ [inthegray.com] and Winamp forums [winamp.com]

      The Winamp community really deserves more than that--they're more active and more involved with where Winamp is going than probably any other "closed source" media player community.

  • Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @04:04AM (#9193380)
    Has anyone downloaded the SDK?

    It consists of just two files, plus documentation and samples.

    The two files are a 4KB .C file, and a 406KB .H file.

    Yes, 406KB. Good lord, that's one big header! :-) Is anything in iTunes not scriptable?

    • Re:Hilarious (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:04AM (#9193533) Homepage
      Ever seen Applescript applications? They even sell some of those commercially (shareware coders)! Its virtually possible to code a little game with applescript even.

      http://www.apple.com/applescript/

      The hilarious thing is IMHO, the Windows Scripting Language caused nothing but trouble on windows. I remember back in my windows days the first thing I did was disabling it after I do fresh install.

      For example, I use Applescript built in mail.app to check my IMAP box limits..
    • In fact, even I like the idea of pure opensource, license free codec, I stay away from Ogg for "psychological" reasons.

      I got real, real tired of Ogg showing up on every single Real,Quicktime story and people being fanatical evangelists for Ogg format. I bet the authors doesn't like it too.

      Also with a little plugin on OSX, I can make iTunes use Ogg instead of AAC on my ripped cds... Well, I prefer AAC myself. Sounds more natural, especially on bass part.
    • Sorry, hydrogenaudio already debunked that one - ogg came second last out of a test including WMA (9), QuickTime AAC, Musepack, Vorbis and LAME. And this one is a bit more sophisticated than doing a frequency analysis too. http://www.rjamorim.com/test/128extension/results. html

      • You've linked a listening test. Its extremely debatable whether frequency based tests are better than listening tests. Apples and oranges.

        For one thing the frequency tests show quite well the relative rolloff at the end of the audible spectrum which is a very key factor in the sound sounding crisp. (128 to me is easy to spot)

        Furthermore the variety in the quality of the listeners ability to discern detail in audio will completely skewer the results - many people cannot even tell between 128 and CD let

        • There's no debate at all. The point of music is to listen to it, not to look at pretty graphs all day. Therefore the logical method of picking the most effective lossy compression algorithm is to have a large group of people listen to all the samples (double blind), and rate what sounds best. Which is actually what has been done here.

          What you are describing is as absurd as comparing JPEG codecs by looking at histograms and pixel plots of the images. The eye (and ears) just don't work like that, and when you

      • I don't really care about either WMA or AAC, as both are closed formats.

        I haven't ever heard of Musepack.

        When comparing VBR LAME to Vorbis, doing double-blind tests, I've found that I can tell the difference between Vorbis and original audio at higher bitrates than MP3. However, the vorbis artifacts that I do hear are much less annoying -- percussion sounds slightly different, but MP3 turns cymbals into swooshy sounds.

        • Re:Thinking of posting about AAC performance.? (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Ease up on the FUD, AAC isn't any more closed than the MP3 you're so eager to praise. They're both open MPEG standards.
          • Ease up on the FUD, AAC isn't any more closed than the MP3 you're so eager to praise. They're both open MPEG standards.

            They are both MPEG standards -- but implementing AAC encoders or decoders requires purchasing licenses [vialicensing.com].

            Unfortunately, unlike W3C-approved standards, MPEG standards do *not* need to be either patent-unencumbered or have a blanket license granted for implementation purposes upon standardization.

            Fraunhoffer has claimed that it has patent rights over MP3. You can look at an analysis [mit.edu] here.
  • I may be mistaken but doesn't this mean that you can control ITunes remotely using DCOM.....
    • Basically yes, but that it's true for any MS application (like MS Word) that supports COM. It's not as bad as it sounds, as usually the firewall blocks those ports anyway (part of the need for web services) and also because you can configure who is allowed to instantiate those COM objects. As long as "they" don't have an account on your computer, and that account is in the "allowed" list for that speific COM object, nothing will happen.

  • So... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ilgaz ( 86384 )
    Realnetworks wish has come true? This SDK is good for streaming too?

    Real was speaking about moving to Dolby formats from Sony Atrac3 (I bet Sony itself too).

    • No. (Score:1)

      by fdobbie ( 226067 )
      Real wanted to get in on the Protected AAC thing behind the scenes as a provider of content. As has already been mentioned, this SDK is nothing to do with AAC at all (that functionality is already provided by the QuickTime SDK, this is merely for controlling/scripting iTunes' GUI).

      The QuickTime SDK merely allows you to play a Protected AAC music file to a given sound output device as a client of the system (which remains a proprietary black box). Not what Real wants at all.
  • It's nice to see Apple recognizing their roots and giving back to the community that helped them create OSX?

    WTF? Where's the love Steve?

    People wouldn't have to 'illegally' be reverse enginineering your products if you would just let us USE THEM?!

  • Win98 (Score:2, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 )
    Now, if only they released iTunes for Win98!

    • Re:Win98 (Score:3, Informative)

      by dasmegabyte ( 267018 )
      They can't. iTunes relies on background services for access to the music store and cd burning, I imagine because of their similarity to UNIX background threads. The 9x kernel is too primitive for this, they'd have to come up with another way of using and interfacing threads, which I imagine is too much of a pain in the ass just to support a six year old deprecated operating system.

  • WinAmp already supports AAC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @07:39AM (#9193940)
    Winamp 5.x already supports AAC out of the "box"; it will rip to AAC quite transparently.

    Check it out... www.winamp.com; its worth it for the shoutcast capabilities alone.

  • Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @09:04AM (#9194444)
    Now I can create an icon for the taskbar that will make it easy to control iTunes. This is how their icon should work now, but doesn't:

    Single-click: toggle play/pause (update icon when paused).

    Double-click: next song in playlist.

    Right-click: context sensitive menu (same as now).

    Hover: Display tooltip with album artwork and other information, including info on next track in list.

    Obviously these should be user-configurable actions, but those defaults would be nice.

    Then if they'd let me hide the program in the taskbar when minimized, I'd be all set.

  • You didn't need the SDK (Score:5, Informative)

    by mactari ( 220786 ) <rufwork AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @09:17AM (#9194540) Homepage
    Though the header files, etc, are nice if you're a VC++ whiz, any two-bit Visual Basic 6 hacker like myself has had access to the iTunes COM objects for quite some time.

    Not only do you not need the SDK, aside from the sample code (strangely written in jscript of all things), the SDK is nearly worthless for VB6 hackers. All you had to do was open a new project in the VB6 IDE, select Project==References from the menus, and select iTunes 1.0 Type Library (the file is iTunes.exe no less).

    Voila. Instant COM compliant objects waiting for you to hack0rz. Hit F2 and search for iTunesLib and the documentation's already there (no SDK required) as well.

    If this SDK makes you aware you can hack iTunes, then great. But don't wait to download it to start hacking. Install iTunes, open VB6's IDE, and get a move on!

    To stick in a horrible Wizard of Oz (but thankfully not a Zardoz reference [imdb.com], I suppose), you've been wearing the ruby red slippers (or whatever) the whole time. "There's no place like ~. There's no place like ~."

  • I love it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @09:40AM (#9194720) Homepage Journal
    Instead of screwing up iTunes with more bloat and features, Apple releases an SDK so Windows users can do it themselves! Brilliant!

  • Shameless Plug (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nukey56 ( 455639 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @12:30PM (#9196127)
    I cooked up a script [nukey.net] that converts all iTunes playlists to M3U playlists to import into Winamp in the case of a migration attempt.

    Hopefully this doesn't cause too much of a karma burn seeing that iTunes appears to be the preferred player around here.

  • This isn't as spiffy as it looks (Score:5, Informative)

    by M$ Mole ( 158889 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @12:43PM (#9196267)
    If you dl it and try it out, it's just a scripting SDK for the iTunes interface (I think someone else pointed this out as well). I downloaded it...fired up Visual Studio and build a quick Windows app with a button to create a new playlist.

    Click the button and watch as iTunes opens up. In fact, aside from instantiation of the iTunes object, there isn't a single function that I've been able to perform without iTunes opening up.

    Not saying it isn't pretty cool...but the COM interface isn't going to let you build tons of plugins, etc. without iTunes running on your desktop.

  • SlimServer Support? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theroterts ( 544800 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @12:49PM (#9196318)
    I wonder if this will allow the Slim Devices' Slim Server [slimdevices.com] to have the necessary hooks to stream DRMed iTunes songs? Their FAQ [slimdevices.com] states that Apple has not provided hooks to stream protected files. Slim Server was developed for their Sqeezebox [slimdevices.com], but the server software is open source and will stream just about anything you throw at it. Good stuff.
  • I don't see where the Apple SDK has an API for porting my WinAmp plugins to work in the iTunes app. Do you?

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close