Microsoft Dismisses Apple's iTunes for Windows 916
fewnorms writes "Microsoft's general manager for the Windows Digital Media division, Dave Fester, yesterday dismissed the new iTunes for Windows version, saying it was too limited for the average Windows users. Choice quote: "[Apple's music store] ... is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device." Of course Apple doesn't feel to worried about this, simply stating their products will (and have) lived up to the hype." The points made are all valid- but contradictory to standard Apple product design where simplicity always takes priority over flexibility. Besides, iPod is growing market share, and iTunes will be the best choice for windows users who own it.
Has anybody noticed... (Score:4, Interesting)
I was just wondering if anybody else had similar problems. I mean, the interface is great, but if I can't code in VS while listening to music, then it's not very worth it to me.
Microsoft is scared (Score:5, Interesting)
ROFL! Talk about naked FUD. Choice, choice, choice. Yeah, that's the Microsoft Way, isn't it? NOT. What hypocrisy!
It's not even accurate. You CAN burn iTunes Store music to a CD. Rip it again to MP3, put it on any device you want. Oh wait, iPods are just about the best device you can use, so I'm just guessing that if you have an iPod you don't have too many other devices you care to have. For that matter, no matter what device you have, you probably don't have too many others. Why would you? Use what works and done with it.
Choice in music? Well, the biggest choice is probably Kazaa, but that's beside the point. We're talking about the pay sites, and iTMS has 400,00 and growing. Not much of a problem, and becoming less so as time goes on.
Apple just signed with Pepsi and AOL to do cross-marketing. That's some big partners to get the word out. But the word is out already. I see so many iPods in use it's amazing. In short, Apple did something right and Microsoft is running scared about it. With only the Mac market so far, Apple captured, what, 30% of paid downloads. Now the other 90% can use their service, so watch out Microsoft.
Windows Media Format vs. AAC (Score:5, Interesting)
Please allow me to Troll (Score:2, Interesting)
What typical Microsoft FUD!
That is a complete and boldfaced lie! You are absolutly NOT limited to music that you purchase from the ITMS if you use iTunes. I installed iTunes for windows the day it came out and today I have about 1.6 gig of music in my library. Guess how many of those songs are from the iTunes music store? Two. TWO! I have spent $1.98 on the ITMS and yet I have had no problem listening to all of the same music files that I had before. What that guy said was a complete lie.
About the portable devices: It is true that iTunes favors AAC encoding which is only on a limited amount of portable devices, but guess what? iTunes gives you the full ability to rip/encode with MP3! I promise you that there are more MP3 enabled devices out there than there are WMA devices, so the way I see it, iTunes has farther reach than Media Player does.He also called iTunes restrictive. Excuse me? Compared to what?! Has he even bothered to look at the WMA alternatives that his own department is putting out?
*sigh*
Ok, I'm done now.
Re:Has anybody noticed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Further, iTunes is the first pay service I've felt the desire to install and buy music from.
Re:Has anybody noticed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Has anybody noticed... (Score:1, Interesting)
llamaluvr: Use the iTunes feedback form! [apple.com] Tell them your EXACT configuration and problems. I'm just about sure that isn't supposed to be happening. I think they would be happy to have the data on your problem so they can figure out why it is happening and fix it.
Remember: Apple is accustomed to coding for one specific limited hardware platform. They're not used to the rediculous range of hardware and hardware bugs that is standard on windows. They're still having to get used to the PC world, where every computer is a beautiful and unique snowflake, and hammer out this thing that iTunes acts slightly wierd on certain people's computers and configurations. But in order to fix this, they need bug reports...
Microsoft Logic bad, all DRM stuff bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Our users expect flexibility, therefore we will make sure nothing we make talks to ipod or itunes.
Itunes is too limited for our users who are so complex they only want M$.WMA.
Poop on all the closed source DRM gimped up garbage. Zaurus cost $200, plays mp3 and ogg and takes non DRM'd compact flash. Get Open Zaurus and you can mount up a nice ext2 filesystem for all your long filenames, archiving and all that. Get a $100 wifi card and the thing can talk to any music server you would like to set up. Now that is total flexibility, why would anyone settle for less?
A windows convert, possibly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me say that over the years, I have tried dozens of MP3 players, only to keep coming back to Winamp. And yes, I'm one of the few that admits to liking version 3 more than 2.x.
Anyways, I've been searching for a long time for an app that will create a good, reliable, playable index of all my songs. I remember when Freeamp came out, its big claim to fame was the ability to build an index of songs according to their ID3 tags. Unfortunately, the app would ALWAYS crash while indexing. I went back to Winamp.
Eventually, the app I found that came the closest to doing what I wanted was MusicMatch jukebox. The problem came in its sorting - it would sort by album/artist/whatever, but I wanted an app that would sub-sort the songs in the order they appeared on the album.
For the record, I have about 300 albums' worth of songs. Each album has its own folder, and the songs are numbered in the order they appear on the album. I'm a big stickler for listening to songs in the order they were intended to be heard.
So I download iTunes. No, I don't want it to be my default audio player. You gotta earn that trust. No, I DO NOT want Quicktime to be the default video player! Why the hell are you asking me this? I tell it to index all my music, and not to copy the songs into the My Music folder (this is just plain dangerous for people that don't know how to organize their local files. I see lots of disks filling up due to copies of their songs living in multiple folders).
I fire it up, and nothing. Go into prefs, tell it where the songs live, and RE-TELL it not to associate Quicktime with my movie files (sigh).
This time it indexes all my songs. Pretty slick, if HUGE, interface. Still doesn't sub-organize songs by order on their album. But wait! Edit - Options - view track number! Huzzah!
Since my MP3 ripper of choice automatically puts the track number into my ID3 tags, suddenly I can see what order the songs are in! And it automatically sub-sorts by track number! This is huge!
The longest I used an MP3 player other than Winamp was probably the 2-day stint I did with Sonique back in 99 or so. But iTunes just might break that record. I'm very happy with it thus far. The only complaint I have is that it doesn't appear to have a 'compact' mode, where I can shrink the player to a reasonable size. Instead I have this huge monstrocity of an app on my desktop. But if it's the price I pay for a reliable, indexing MP3 player, so be it.
No (Score:2, Interesting)
WMA is far more flexible and portable, open, closed, or otherwise.
More flexible and portable than mp3? How is WMA "portable", last I checked it worked on 1) Windows 2) Macintosh, but very very poorly. If you're talking about AAC, no, you can play AAC on all platforms too, it's just at the moment you can only get through Apple's iTMS DRM in Windows and Macintosh. This hopefully will change..
Unless Apple adds WMA to the iPod and iTMS, they're not going to grow very much on the PC.
Funny, NO ONE that I know, including any of the PC users I know, uses WMA for *anything*. They all use mp3.
Troll. (Score:4, Interesting)
I *have* choice, damnit! (Score:3, Interesting)
I already have choices, and I choose iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. I've looked at other options, and with rare exceptions, they all suck. Some of them (like Buy.com's music downloads), sucked really fucking hard. If Microsoft (or anybody else) wants me to choose anything else, they should try creating something that doesn't suck, instead of telling me that I'm being "locked-in" when I choose to use iTunes.
Re:Please remember. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just about Microsoft worrying about their licensing revenues for WMA, and their reflex rejection to any standard or protocol they don't fully own. That's why you can't even rip to MP3 with WMP9.
Choice (Score:4, Interesting)
First, Apple is the current "innovator" in this market.
All jukebox hardware devices are compared to Apple's iPod. The iPod is clearly the leader in the market and defines the scale by which all others are measured. Apple leads the market with an outstanding combination of features, user interface, and overall design - from the iPods compact size to its pleasing, slick look.
The same same is true of the iTunes Music Store. Apple was the first to deliver a service that offered a decent selection, at an acceptable price, with acceptable DRM restrictions. With this service, one is able to not only get a quality download, but retain some degree of ownership; more if you're willing to jump through the very clear loopholes created by the service. Which isn't to say Apple's service got all all right - more on that later.
Apple does have its competitors - and there are clearly products coming out that are designed to directly compete with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. But if Windows users want to take advantage of the leading products, iTunes is the gateway. In this context, choice is not the issue.
But what if choice is important? Users will need to avoid DRM restrictions. And they'll want to use standard formats like MP3 and (now growing in popularity) Ogg Vorbis that can be played on a wide variety of software and hardware.
The iPod is still an option in this case... if your choice of format is MP3. But you'll have to look elsewhere if you prefer Ogg Vorbis. Some of the iPod competitors offer that choice - a distinction that may cost Apple some sales.
When it comes to music service, neither Apple's offering nor any service featuring Microsoft's technology offers the end user real choice. There are some small label services that manage to deliver a fairly nice catalog of music from non-RIAA affiliated sources. But then, the selection is indeed limited if the end user expects to find their old favorites.
If consumers want true freedom and choice, they will have to continue using the current collection of illegal music swapping systems. And that has been the problem all along. When it comes to the business of music, choice has never been a consideration. It still isn't. The irony of the situation is that this mind set has created an increasing market for "pirated" data - a market industry trade groups become more and more vocal about and have taken more and more drastic actions to curb. What this does to consumer mindshare is fodder for other discussions.
Microsoft is correct to point out choice. But they're wrong in how it applies to the situation at hand.
Re:Cat got your tongue? (Score:1, Interesting)
My question is... how could iTunes make it any worse?.
iTunes supports a few good audio formats, supports many MP3 players, has simple user-oriented DRM and integrates most powerfully with the single most popular digital audio player.
Just one more choice in a sea of them IMHO, and a slightly better one than most.
Re:Stop wasting your time on lousy software (Score:4, Interesting)
I use my iPod for listening to music but I can tell you that's only part of what I like it for. I am constantly using it to store information I need to shuttle from one computer to another. I have contact information on there so I can call up a persons phone number or address in a second. It is great for storing little notes such as directions or shopping lists. The best thing is that all of these features can be displayed without a computer, they appear on the iPod display. So no carrying around address books or little pieces of paper, I shove it all on the iPod. Now you are able to do voice recordings and store digital photographs on the iPod. Very cool additions that I can see a million uses for.
As far as getting a Macintosh I have always said that people should get the computer they feel most comfortable with. I can personally say that for me Macs have the perfect balance between simplicity and complexity. If you want to just stay in the GUI then pretty much is simple and just works, if you want to use the Terminal then everything is as geeky as you want it. It's a great balance and I enjoy both sides of Mac OS X.
Re:The domination of Apple in the music industry (Score:4, Interesting)
AND have every AOL user on the planet instantly be abel [sic] to use the ITMS (it uses the credit card from the AOl account)
This is an interesting part of the deal, to be sure. Does anyone know if this means that AOL will ship iTunes for Win on their CDs? Or what? Not being an AOL user, can someone explain how this looks to them? ie Does one find the music they like (listed by AOL), click on the button--which takes the user to the iTMS, purchase the music--and then what? Do you have to download iTunes then? How much clue is given that this is required? Or does the iTMS music play in a AOL media jukebox?
I think that iTunes for Win is especially interesting, because, if I'm not mistaken, to install it a Win user also gets Qucktime installed--which is a trojan to a lot of other media opportunities for Apple. So, if AOL starts shipping iTunes for Win on their CDs, and then by extension, every AOL user has the latest version of QT installed--all of a sudden, QT is a market leader, or damn close.
Will someone who admits to the use of AOL elaborate on the default tools?
Re:"Open up?" (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, AAC is actually an ISO standard and is used in MPEG4 and is significantly better than mp3s which are at much higher bitrates. WMA is wholly owned by Microsoft and doesn't seem to offer appreciable sound benefits over mp3s.
Re:All of these new online music services are CRAP (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft is scared (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not at all a fair comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
You are totally missing the issue. With WMA, the devices themselves do not HAVE to support the protection mechanism, just like the IPOD itself does not support the protection mechanisms.
It is when the WMA files that ARE protected are transferred to the devices that any protection is considered. Either via Windows Media Player or third party applications like AUDIBLE.COM's audible manager.
The devices are nothing more than a medium, just like a CD, and even protected content can STILL be copied to these devices or to a CD if the protection of the content allows for it.
Period.
With WMA, you can burn them to a CD, or transfer them to your portable device. There is no difference between it and the Apple offering in concept.
The difference is that WMA players are more available and have better features - even though you like your iPod, many people have chosen the iRiver and other devices because of more features than what the iPOD offers. (Space available, sound quality, price, etc.) Everyone likes different features for different reasons. At least with WMA and tons of people supporting it, there are 'choices' - something Apple is not in the market of offering.
Sure you can take iTunes and rip the song to a CD - Resampling the compressed song back up, and then rip it to a MP3 or WMA - resampling the song back down. But does anyone else realize that no matter how well this is done, there WILL be a loss in quality. Check out the Audio equivalent to the Moire effect. Compression taken up and back down in other format will lose original quality - EVERY TIME.
Additionally with music quality the WMA format at smaller file sizes STILL way outperform other codec formats. This is why there are over 300 manufacturers that support the WMA format in addition to the MP3 format.
With WMA, you can get twice the amount of content on a device with the same sound quality of MP3s.
Which is very important when storing audio data like books, or even standard songs on a 64mb audio device. Instead of a CD, you can get two at the same quality for example.
I suggest you take a serious look at the WMA devices and how they work, and why WMA is a viable music format standard.
And don't hate it just because MS is its author, as I said above, Microsoft also had a hand in authoring many of the other codecs in use - even the ones used by Apple and the iPod.
Re:Stop wasting your time on lousy software (Score:4, Interesting)
I have not Turned it off in over 6 months, just reset after Dling updates, and rest of the time, shut it and go, then open it back up and within a second or two it powers up and ready to go.
I work as a small business consultant (technology mainly) and I tell every one to spend the extra money on a Mac. So far I've only had 1 out of about 23 clients not like mac, because "it doesn't have solitare". Everyone else likes them because they don't crash, everything works, easy to use, and gets them the basic software they need. Quickbooks, MS Office, and even Point-of-Sale software that is easy to use with an USB hand scanner and cash drawer.
Re:Not at all a fair comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
The devices are nothing more than a medium, just like a CD, and even protected content can STILL be copied to these devices or to a CD if the protection of the content allows for it.
Of course they are copyable - but are they playable? Are you saying that WMA files with a restriction "No transfer, no recording" can move to any WMA device and play just fine? At what level does the protected nature of the file live if not within the file itself, and then to what end is it there if some players are able to arbitrarily ignore it? I was under the impression that the content was basically encrypted for protected WMA files and only allowed to be decrypted by trusted players that obeyed the restrictions.
It's true I have not done a lot of research on this exact aspect of DRM for either system. I had wondered about similar issues with AAC files for the iPod - if I can get that into another iPod, will it just play?
It seems that if WMA files were as free to fly about as you indicate Apple would not command a 70% share of all online music sales with a Mac only store. What is stopping people from buying WMA files online then? Why is that so unpopular in the Windows world when it has taken of so forcefully on the Mac?
The devices are nothing more than a medium, just like a CD, and even protected content can STILL be copied to these devices or to a CD if the protection of the content allows for it.
Now that is basically saying that if copying is allowed, you can copy it... which is fine, though seemingly redundant. The nice thing about the "Apple Way" if you will is that there is no "You cannot burn this, or copy that" thinking. It's just a bit less restrictive though very similar.
The difference is that WMA players are more available and have better features - even though you like your iPod, many people have chosen the iRiver and other devices because of more features than what the iPOD offers. (Space available, sound quality, price, etc.) Everyone likes different features for different reasons. At least with WMA and tons of people supporting it, there are 'choices' - something Apple is not in the market of offering.
The iPod has gotten great reviews for sound quality, and has pretty much any feature you would generally want - and they have been adding fringe features as time goes by (including many user suggested ones). Although many people have chosen these other devices, Apple has the leading device in this market and is recognized to be the "best" player by the general population buying portable digital music players (based on what they buy). I have to say that as a consumer I just find it has many little touches which make it a joy to use and many other devices frustrating ( I had a few before the iPod).
Sure you can take iTunes and rip the song to a CD - Resampling the compressed song back up, and then rip it to a MP3 or WMA - resampling the song back down. But does anyone else realize that no matter how well this is done, there WILL be a loss in quality. Check out the Audio equivalent to the Moire effect. Compression taken up and back down in other format will lose original quality - EVERY TIME.
You do not lose quality if you reload the song from CD in a lossless format. Of course you loose some quality burning to CD and ripping to mp3, but generally this operation would be to transfer to a device where the quality is not vitally important, like a car. But as you noted you can mostly do this with either format (unless of course you have a WMA file that prohibits CD burning).
Additionally with music quality the WMA format at smaller file sizes STILL way outperform other codec formats. This is why there are over 300 manufacturers that support the WMA format in addition to the M
Re:iTunes only plays registered iTunes aac's - wtf (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, AAC support in QuickTime is part of their support for the MPEG-4 standard. An MPEG-4 audio file encoded using AAC should work, regardless of who encoded it. But older MPEG-2 AAC files won't. (Does this have anything to do with the steep licensing fees for MPEG-2?)
Here is choice, MS style, for you. (Score:3, Interesting)
Try to rip tracks of perfectly legal CD to disk.
Try to find way of *chosing* mp3 format in place of the default WMA, MS owned, format.
Realize *there is not choice of format* by default.
Find out in the net that you need a third party plugin for this.
Install another application to achieve what you want.
Thank MS for the choice they have given you by completely ignoring the most widespread format to store music in digital format.
This surprises who? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can save an Excel document in RTF, but you can't open it in any other program in the world. And try opening one of today's Word files in an RTF interpreter made two years ago. Lousy, non-formatted, and occasionally crash-inducing.
Yes, Microsoft created RTF... you can tell.
-fred