Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple is Porting iTunes to Windows

Posted by pudge on Wed Apr 30, 2003 08:15 AM
from the oops dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that Apple is indeed porting its new iTunes software to Windows as evidenced by a posting on its job board (No. 1949938) This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable? Will this have any effect on P2P networks?" Sure enough, I go there and it says, " Looking for a Senior Software Engineer to desing (sic) and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows." Heh.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • After all, there are plenty of free and nearly-free music players for Windows, how could they make money by charging for it?
  • desing? (Score:5, Funny)

    by redtail1 (603986) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:22AM (#5842308)
    Sure enough, I go there and it says, " Looking for a Senior Software Engineer to desing (sic) and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows."

    That's just a regional accent. As in, "Defeat of dee cat went over defense before detail."

  • by ihatewinXP (638000) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:26AM (#5842333) Homepage
    I cannot imagine Apple giving away their crowing jewel of consumer software so that some PC user who has never given them a dime can use it with the RealJukebox - But If the new digital music store takes off on the mac side than maybe Apple would use a Windows iTunes (and/or AOL version) as a content portal/revenue stream. This would also be a great way to get Quicktime back into the media race. Porting osx to wintel == suicide, porting iTunes just might work.
    • by ihatewinXP (638000) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:37AM (#5842399) Homepage
      This wont require iPods, but it will sell them and more Apple hardware in the long run. The best way ive found to show off how great the mac platform is is to show people iTunes, and then tell them that almost all Apple apps are that clean and intuitive (almost =iCal). Right now its not about the 'next killer app' thats being brewed in some R&D lab, the killer app is right here - an iPod + iTunes is a reason to buy a computer. For Apple that means making big margins (read: iPod) on a commercial for their other "digital hub" services.

      And to think that when I bought my first mac in '99 Apple was the worst plaform for digital media, thank god for Steve Jobs. Oh wait, he is god, my bad.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30 2003, @12:14PM (#5844522)
        Apple also know that free-as-in-beer software is a cheap quick way to get people onboard. It comes down to the argument used by a lot of software piracy advocates;

        When you copy software you're not stealing because nothing is taken. All you're doing is using it unlicensed.

        Similarly with iTunes - Apple have put development time into the app, and with every copy downloaded they're increasing the value of their machines. Apple lose nothing from the download, but only gain in a higher user satisfaction - and now with a windows version, have the potential to increase the value of their Music Store ten times over.

        Add a few more free apps, and you have quite a lot of the value of a mac. iDVD, iCal, iTunes, Safari, Mail, iPhoto, iMovie etc. All free-as-in-beer, and to common old users like myself part of the reason I get a lot out of my mac.
  • That'll be nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by avalys (221114) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:28AM (#5842344)
    Hopefully they'll let existing iPod for Windows users use it as well - MusicMatch Jukebox (the software they bundle with the Windows versions) is a buggy, bloated, slow, unstable, unintuitive and unfunctional piece of crap. And EphPod keeps corrupting itself.
  • by redtail1 (603986) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:29AM (#5842355)
    The URL for that Apple job board [apple.com] resolves to a humorous script called "Employment.woa".

    That would certainly be my "Ted/Neo" style reaction to being hired at Apple. Or to even having a job after being without one for a long time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:29AM (#5842358)
    I've been wanting iTunes for Windows for sometime now, but at the same time not wanting it, because it's a good program that makes the mac platform special. I think it will be good for both music and ipod sales, but will it have Rendezvous built in? That would greatly increase music sharing on my campus, and since it would work only within the lan it wouldn't count against upload/download restrictions.

    I still don't think apple will move much more to X86, and esp. they will not be using X86 CPU's anytime soon.
  • by rgraham (199829) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:30AM (#5842367) Homepage
    Yup, that is just the app I needed ported to Windows to cause me to switch. Oh, wait, there's still iDVD, iPhoto, Safari, Aqua, etc, etc. (rolls eyes)

    Come on, its *one* freakin app, and the point is to drive sales of the iPod and their online music store.
    • I read in the Forbes article that Apple makes about $0.33 for each song that's sold. It makes perfect sense for them to get as many people to buy songs using their service, using their software, as possible, without having to split the proceeds with MusicMatch or some other company.
  • by shr1n1 (263515) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:32AM (#5842377) Journal
    Right now windows support is via a thrid party software. If Apple releases iTunes for windows they would have more control on the feature set and user interface issues.

    Of course how much it will resemble the Mac version would be debatable.

    Also this would also mean Windows users would get access to the music catalog for purchase. Wonder if they would force .mac subscription on windows users.
    • The look'n'feel (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mattbot 5000 (645961) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:00AM (#5842571) Homepage

      Of course how much it will resemble the Mac version would be debatable.

      I'm guessing it would look awfully similar to QuickTime for Windows.

      I'm not so much surprised by this announcement as I am surprised that it's taken Apple this long just to get around to hiring someone to start porting iTunes to Windows. MusicMatch must've been doing a pretty good job for them in the interim.

    • by jlower (174474) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:02AM (#5842587) Homepage
      Knowing Apple, I would guess it will greatly resemble the Mac version.

      They aren't forcing .mac subscriptions on Mac users for the Music Store, so I wouldn't expect it (if it's even an option) on the Windows side.

      This is all about the Music Store. Windows iPods have been available for some time now without iTunes.
  • by n-baxley (103975) <nate@@@baxleys...org> on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:32AM (#5842378) Homepage Journal
    If this will allow for the same level of syncing between iPods on Windows as there is on Macs, this would be great. I think that's one of the best features of the iPod on Mac. It really becomes an extension of your computer musci collection, not just another copy of your collection.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30 2003, @11:14AM (#5843832)
        Two responses that don't really answer you. I'll try.

        Let's say you have a 5 GB iPod and a 4 GB music collection. You can set up iTunes so that the iPod syncs to your music collection every time you plug it in. The first time you plug it in, all of your music and playlists will be downloaded to it. Buzz buzz, the iPod will get hot while the FireWire cable sparkles.

        You unplug your iPod. You go do something. You come home, and shop on the iTunes Music Store. You buy three songs. You plug your iPod in, and poof! Quick as can be, those songs are now on your iPod. You make a couple of playlists, and those are on your iPod, too. You rip a new CD, and those songs are on your iPod too.

        There's more. When you plug in you iPod, iSync automatically launches and downloads your address book and calendar items (including alarms) to it. So now your iPod is a simple PDA as well as a music player.

        All of this happened without your having to actually do anything beyond the initial set-up. It's all automatic as soon as you plug the iPod in. And because we're talking about FireWire here, it's all fast, fast. In fact, the limiting factor on the iPod's transfer speed is the internal hard drive itself, not the connection to the computer.

        There's more to it than that. iTunes has support for smart playlists, which means (for example) that you can have a playlist that randomly picks 10 songs you've listened to at least once but haven't heard in a week or more. Very handy.

        All in all, the iPod is both the most expensive and the most popular music player on the market, and that ought to tell you something.
  • Or more specifically, low-level, annoyance DRM versus heavy-handed, we-own-your-machine DRM. If the consumer has a choice between Apple-style music management and the music-rental style Microsoft and the RIAA want, which one do you think they'll choose?

    Yeah, I know, "the one that's pre-installed". We may still be globally screwed, but at least Apple's trying...
    • Yeah, I know, "the one that's pre-installed". We may still be globally screwed, but at least Apple's trying...
      Being that AOL still comes pre-installed on plenty of x86bawksen - and being that there are strong rumors of AOL leveraging the Windows iTunes port for music management and purchase - it's not a long stretch to imagine a good % of future plebeMachines shipping with iTunes. We can always hope that Apple and AOL work out a series of deals with the vendors to leave iTunes separate from the AOL install (or at least not requiring an AOL account to access/use it - that's the long stretch)

      AOL could be the 'Trojan Horse' Apple needs to ferret their way in.
  • by Surlyboi (96917) * on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:50AM (#5842485) Homepage Journal
    This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable?

    It's one app, man. And the motive, as has been said
    elsewhere here, is to push the music store. That's
    it, that's all. The only implications are how much
    money Apple's gonna make selling 99 cent songs to
    'doze users. That and possibly an answer to why it
    was so hard for other online music vendors to make
    a Mac client.
  • by derch (184205) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:16AM (#5842681)
    This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware.

    I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes or Mail. They all bought a Mac for the overall user experience of the apps and OS X. It's great that WinXP will get iTunes. It still won't have Safari, iDVD, iPhoto, Mail, Terminal, Fire, etc.... And it definitely won't have the BSD layer of OS X.

    There are still fundamental differences between OS X and WinXP that will attract people to OS X. One or two ports of favorite apps won't change that.
    • by medeii (472309) <medeii@hotmaiREDHATl.com minus distro> on Wednesday April 30 2003, @12:18PM (#5844563)

      I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes

      I did.

      I bought an iPod when they were still Mac-only, so I ended up buying the eMac to go with it. After using iTunes once on a friend's iBook, I was hooked. Doing ID3 tags on a Windows platform is like looking forward to a root canal when you're talking about 5,000+ songs. Of course, I don't mind a lot of the other features of OS X, but iTunes and the iPod were a killer combination. Frankly, I still prefer Win2K over OS X, not least because a number of programs I use are still Windows-only and have no decent OS X equivalents. It kind of pisses me off that had I waited a year, I could have saved myself a massive ($3000+) investment in Apple hardware. I suppose that's the price for being an early adopter -- but I'm still pissed, and I hope Apple makes the iTunes for Windows client a shadow of the real thing.

      • by ghunza (669642) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @07:49PM (#5849438)
        Isn't that feeling of being pissed at Apple just part of being a Mac fan? I remember that feeling very well: 1) Buying a Plus two weeks befor the Clasic came out. 2) Buying a Powerbook 140 only to have it fixed 4 times before it become "discontinued" 3) Bying a LaserWriter NTR for $2,500 back in'91, cuz it was the cheapest way to print postscript - reliably. 4) Bying a PowerPC 6100 (pizza box) only to watch my dad's Perfoma our perform it 6 months later. I had to switch to a PC if for no other reason than to transfer my hostilities to a more worthy villan. So help me God, I'm desperately wanting to by an ipod - bring on the heartache...
  • jobs talks about it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by squarefish (561836) * on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:23AM (#5842722)
    in this article [cnn.com]
    it's how their going to get the store on windows- I think it will give people a taste of apple and want one- that's what their betting on, so I'm also willing to bet it won't be a half-assed port.
  • by grrr223 (668009) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:33AM (#5842796)
    I read somewhere [reputable] that Apple makes almost as much profit off of an iPod as an iMac. When you think about it, it makes sense. Thanks to all the $599 P.O.S. machines Dell keeps putting out, the lower end desktop market has rather thin profit margins. On the other hand, the cheapest iPod is 300 @#$@#$ dollars (but god do I want one ;)). So, if they can port iTunes to Windows and instead of requiring people to change their entire way of life and buying a mac, all they have to do is buy an iPod, then they've made almost as much money PLUS revenues from the music store, which selection aside (give it some time), is one of the easiest things in the world to use. They can't lose.
  • by Johnny Mozzarella (655181) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:36AM (#5842822)
    While Apple has not commited to porting Safari to the Windows platorm, I think it would have a major positive impact on Apple.

    Many web sites are still being designed for Intenet Explorer for Windows only. If you aren't using the most popular platform, your not admitted. Microsoft has been winning the browser battles but not the war. The OSS community and Apple have clearly shown that that can innovate in this space. However only Apple has the marketing muscle to try and battle IE.

    IE for Windows accounts for 90-95% of the hits for most of the web sites that I am involved with. For some developers those #s justify developing for a single platform. If Apple can get 100% of Mac users to adopt Safari we may see a 1% shift. However if Apple can get 25% of IE for Windows users to switch to Safari for Windows, the playing field will quickly level.

    As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site and not have plugins available for non IE browsers. Apple can help their long term position by leveling the internet playing field and thus making migration to a non Windows platform that much smoother.

    Choice is good.
    • by capmilk (604826) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:59AM (#5843058)
      As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site

      That will inevitably change as more and more web designers and developers realize that it is not about MS compatibility but about standards. Make your pages XHML compliant and you will not have to worry about Mac or Windows, IE or Safari.
  • by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:43AM (#5842894)
    A while ago (like, 2000) some of my friends were discussing the significance of QuickTime on Windows. I think it came out of Apple's testimony in the MS antitrust case about Windows appearing to "break" QuickTime. (A lot of Windows people tend to bash QuickTime on x86. I've played with it, and while I agree that it's somewhat clunkier - somewhat - than the Mac version, it works fine for everything I've thrown at it. I've often suspected that these people who hate Qt/Win are used to v3 or something.)

    QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning. It can literally do anything (I used to joke that the cure for cancer was in QT if you knew the right keyboard shortcut.) I've seen people juggle dozens of disparate codecs, publish automated PDF spreadsheets, and control remote cameras and robots w/QT. (Okay, I like QT.)

    Now, QT on Windows I've always regarded as a sort of Apple Secret Weapon. The original QT-Win port actually contained a really significant chunk of the Mac Toolbox API out of necessity. Don't know if that's still true. What my friends were discussing all that time ago was whether or not Apple could use this installed base of what amounts to a mini-OS against Microsoft, if the media wars every truly got nasty.

    Think about it - you hook everyone on something like, say, movie trailers [apple.com], get everyone to install it.

    Now you roll out iTunes, which everyone loves, which relies on QT for many functions, not the least of which your new DRM (FairPlay - good name) for the Music Store you just launched. Hmm.

    Nothing really insightful here but QuickTime could pose some major problems for Windows hegemony in media dominance. It's already captured the format for the MPEG4 spec (MS just howled bloody murder over that). It's been around since the dawn of time. iTunes for Windows is just the head of the spear. Apple has been playing defence for a long time but this is really significant, especially of consumers really glom onto Apple's method of DRM. Palladium, anyone? (I know its not the same, but do you think any typical users know that?)

    Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback. That's so fucking funny to me now, it hurts. Helloooo, iMovie. Slightly OT: Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux. The port alone, while earning them no money, would be very strategic.

    • A lot of Windows people tend to bash QuickTime on x86. I've played with it, and while I agree that it's somewhat clunkier...

      QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning.

      It may have a stunning architecture but until it starts following the Windows GUI guidelines and looks like my other apps, it'll be a second class citizen as far as I'm concerned. I want visually consist

      • by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @02:11PM (#5845909)
        It may have a stunning architecture but until it starts following the Windows GUI guidelines

        I'm sorry.. the what?

        the Windows GUI guidelines

        The what?!?

        the Windows GUI guidelines

        I can hear and understand the words, but I can find no meaning in them.

        Joking aside, if you're looking for interface consistency then you are using the wrong OS. Windows is many things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I mean, Microsoft's own media player looks absolutely crazy-like. Same with WinAmp, same with nearly every media player.

        Yes I know about the classic skins. Besides, interface consistency is kind of a weak argument in this instance. I could understand that for something that needed you to do more than poke 'Play' and maybe adjust the volume.

          • by derubergeek (594673) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @10:10PM (#5850170) Homepage Journal
            Are you deaf?

            Deafness isn't the issue. The problem is that he's not blind, or he might actually get conned into believing that MS follows their own guidelines.

            Check out the MS CD player on Win2k sometime. Or the MS media player.

            Here are a couple of simple ones for you...
            What does CTRL-F do? If you said 'Find' you're obviously not using Outlook....in Outlook it does 'Forward'.

            So, how does one do a Find in Outlook? Well, that depends on what you think 'Find' means. Could be F3. Then again, it could be F4. Depends....

            What a wonderful use of those consistent guidelines. But then again, MS does say "Most first-class applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system share a familiar and consistent user interface."

    • ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely

      This may not be terribly relevant, but there is an easy way to disable that nag dialog. Set your system clock to the year 2500 or so and launch QT player. Quit it, and set the clock back to 2003. You'll be nag-free for 497 years. I know this works on the mac; it may work on Windows as well.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @11:52AM (#5844273) Homepage Journal
      Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux.

      Here's a third one; let you view movies full screen in the non-pro version. I don't mind paying $30 to be able to encode, but it's a bit steep to have to pay just to be able to watch clips full screen. (I did buy QT Pro 6, and haven't regretted it, but even so...)

  • by fname (199759) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @10:44PM (#5850330) Journal
    I think this may have been overlooked so far. A lot of people I know (e.g, me) have a Mac at home and a PC at work. So I can't share my iTunes collection from my home Mac with my PC at work. However, if they make iTunes for PCs, then I will be able! Plus, browse for tunes when on a non-Mac, and buy them too. I think iTunes for Windows is a big plus for those of use with one foot in the Mac world, and the other foot in the PC world.
    • Every time someone suggests that, God kills a pygmy marmoset [reference.com]. Please, for the sake of the marmosets, stop.
        • ...users would prefer to go for the cheaper platform that performs just as well or better...

          No, the chief argument is that all of a sudden you've got millions of people expecting to get "the Mac experience" by loading OS X on:

          [Motherboard T] + [CPU U] + [Video Card V] + [Audio Card W] + [RAM X] + [HDD Y] + [Power Supply Z]
          (where variables T --> Z are a wide array of possibilities)

          You no longer have a series of machines that 'just work' - instead you have "that other OS thingie that flakes-out almo

            • Perhaps it is. I've re-installed Windows something like 5 times on this machine. First 2000, and I had no problems. Then, xp Pro and it started doing some of the strangest things.

              Really, I didn't notice the skipping until recently. Perhaps it was some Windows update that I installed? I haven't done anything else system related since I installed xp, so I wonder what it could be.

              Anyway, my point was that I've had some really bad experiences with my Athlon. Windows doesn't 'just work' the way that it should. I've got processing power and RAM to spare and it doesn't allocate it such that my MP3s don't skip. Meanwhile, my friend's iBook with one third the processor speed (I know, I know, unfair compairison) and half the RAM running at less than one quarter the speed doesn't have any problems whatsoever.
    • Re:Music Store (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SunnyElLoco (621085) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @09:03AM (#5842596)
      I believe that the sole reason for porting iTunes is so that they can get the iTunes Music Store for Windows users.

      The whole point of the iTunes Music Store is that Apple has control of the whole process: You buy the music from Apple with iTunes, load it up to your iPod or burn it to a CD using iTunes. That's what makes it special from the numerous websites selling music downloads.

      Apple already has iPod for Windows, but it ships with a 3rd party jukebox software. iTunes for Windows is the missing piece which will enable Apple to create a similar music purchasing experience for Windows users as it has for Mac users.

      That's only my opinion, but I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows.
      • I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows

        I wonder if it would be free. The Quicktime player is, but the functionality from QT vs. iTunes is miles apart (IMO). It wouldn't surprise me if iTunes comes as a $29 or so piece of software for Windows users.

        If it's been mentioned somewhere that iTunes for Windows will be free, then I'll stand corrected.
    • I would have believed that iTunes for Windows would have been started months ago...
      We have every indication that they did start the Windows port months ago. Jobs made a statement along the lines of: "[Windows Music Store version] software is a little less... predictable" in his presentation.

      They're probably looking for a veteran Win32 bug-hunter.
    • by pauljlucas (529435) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @10:35AM (#5843427) Homepage Journal
      What I'm wondering is why the music store is locked out to anyone except OS X users with iTunes 4.
      If you watched Jobs' special music event [apple.com], he wants the system to "just work," i.e., have the music automatically dropped into iTunes and not downloaded into some folder you have to go find, then add it to iTunes manually.

      The other reason, just as with the iPods, is to give all the innovations to Mac (OS X) users first. (The reason should be obvious.) If you meant OS 9 as opposed to OS X, Jobs has said a long time ago that OS 9 is dead.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30 2003, @11:32AM (#5844051)
      No, it's not bad marketing. It's brilliant marketing. I'm sure Apple hopes that the Music Store will be independently profitable, but I can guarantee you it's going to take a SHITLOAD of 99 downloads to reach that point. For now, the Music Store will drive iPod sales and, to a lesser extent, Mac sales. That's good marketing, not bad marketing.

      Now, let's talk about the assertion that the Music Store is a "web based app."

      Yesterday I bought "Birdhouse in your Soul" by They Might Be Giants. I clicked Music Store. I typed "Birdhouse in your Soul" in the search box and hit enter. I clicked "Buy Song." I typed my password and hit enter. I clicked "Buy" to confirm. I went and got a drink of water. When I came back, the song was sitting in my "Purchased Music" playlist and it was on my iPod, because I had it plugged in and I had auto-sync turned on.

      Total cost to me: 99. (I already had the Mac, the Internet access, and the iPod.) Total time required, not counting the trip to the kitchen: about thirty seconds.

      Try doing THAT with a cross-platform "web based app." It just ain't gonna happen.
    • On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.

      Actually, it just lets you view the playlists and play them. I'm almost certain you can't swap the files.
    • OMG - AAC!? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30 2003, @11:13AM (#5843816)
      I, sir, am shocked - SHOCKED - that your entire post came and went without a single mention of Ogg or Vorbis.

      Do you actually call yourself a true Linux User? I laugh at this assertion!
    • Re:OMG - LINUX!? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ElGanzoLoco (642888) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @07:36PM (#5849353) Homepage
      [DISCLAIMER] I've just posted this in another thread, but this is slashdot, so duping stuff around doesn't make me fill guilty. And, for it to work, we just need to pass this along. [/DISCLAIMER, thank you for your attention.]

      *****

      how about making it work with Linux!?

      Write to Apple. [apple.com] Bitch about Linux support (Quicktime [apple.com] / iTunes [apple.com]) 24/7. Eventually they might listen.

      I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About OS X. About the iPod. About iTunes. You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. No kidding. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. It's there. I asked for a "queue" playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way.

      Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc...) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there are opportunities to fight back Microsoft.

      But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.

    • by ElGanzoLoco (642888) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @07:29PM (#5849301) Homepage
      how about making it work with Linux!?

      Write to Apple. [apple.com] Bitch about Linux support (Quicktime [apple.com] / iTunes [apple.com]) 24/7. Eventually they might listen.

      I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About OS X. About the iPod. About iTunes. You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. No kidding. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. It's there. I asked for a "queue" playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way.

      Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc...) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there is a demand from this platform. It's worth trying, anyway.

      But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.

    • by ElGanzoLoco (642888) on Wednesday April 30 2003, @08:00PM (#5849507) Homepage
      Apple is usually a lot better about keeping announcements this big under wraps.

      Oh? So Steve Jobs announcing in front of the whole press that the iTunes Music Store will be available to Windows "by the end of the year" (actual quote, with big flashy Windows logo displayed behind him) is the best way to keep the announcement [...] under wraps?