Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


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

Apple is Porting iTunes to Windows 223

Posted by pudge 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple is Porting iTunes to Windows More

Apple is Porting iTunes to Windows

Comments Filter:

  • Betcha they bundle it with the iPod. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 ) <mwheinz@nOSpAm.me.com> on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:22AM (#5842307)
    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 @09:22AM (#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."

  • Dont look for this to require an iPod (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ihatewinXP ( 638000 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:26AM (#5842333)
    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.

    • Finishing my own thought (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ihatewinXP ( 638000 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:37AM (#5842399)
      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.

      • Re:Finishing my own thought (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @01:14PM (#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 @09:28AM (#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.

  • And now for our daily Keanu moment... (Score:5, Funny)

    by redtail1 ( 603986 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:29AM (#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.

  • iTunes for Windows, good and bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:29AM (#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.

    • Porting the other way... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, I heard that, contrary to the rumors of Apple porting OS X to the X86 platform, they have secretly been porting Windows to PowerPC architechture. They've been doing it via old-fashioned reverse engineering methods. Why would they do this, you may ask?

      It's simple; they knew they were going to have to port some of their apps to Windows eventually, and this way, they can do it without actually buying a single Windows license!

    • Rendezvous (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trillan ( 597339 )

      The source code to Apple's Rendezvous implementation is already available for download. It includes implementations for Windows, Mac OS X, Mac OS 9 (yes, they're different stacks) and Posix.

      I've only tried the Windows implementation (I'm only interested in Windows and Mac OS X, and I think it's a safe bet that Mac OS X works). It seemed to work perfectly.

  • Yeah! iTunes for Windows (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rgraham ( 199829 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:30AM (#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.

  • This would be a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shr1n1 ( 263515 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:32AM (#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 @10:00AM (#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.

    • Re:This would be a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jlower ( 174474 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:02AM (#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.
    • Wonder if they would force .mac subscription on windows users.

      A .Mac subscription isn't required for the Apple Music store. All you need is an Apple ID. That's the same ID you would use for the Apple Store. I see few problem for Win32 people getting the songs once iTunes 4 has been ported.

  • iPod Syncing for Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by n-baxley ( 103975 ) <nate@baxleysIII.org minus threevowels> on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:32AM (#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.

  • The implications are more QT/AAC vs Windows Media (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alispguru ( 72689 ) <bob,bane&me,com> on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:48AM (#5842474) Journal
    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.

  • Slow your roll, Cochise... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Surlyboi ( 96917 ) * on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @09:50AM (#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.
  • If it is, will they port webcore too or will they rely on internet explorer for HTML rendering??

  • Apps aren't all of it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by derch ( 184205 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:16AM (#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.

    • Re:Apps aren't all of it (Score:5, Informative)

      by medeii ( 472309 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @01:18PM (#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.

      • Being pissed at Apple... (Score:5, Funny)

        by ghunza ( 669642 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @08:49PM (#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...

  • A Poor AppleMusic Review (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Slur ( 61510 )
    As long as we're on the subject, take a moment to set these morons straight [kuro5hin.org] about the realities of marketing, business partnerships, "coalition building," and the absurdity of platform-bashing. I'd keep flaming away there myself but I'm too flabbergasted by the uncharacteristic silliness I'm seeing on Kuro5hin in the wake of what appears to me as a promising turn of events. A healthy dose of SlashDotting is what those wannabes need right about now.
    • Seriously, I want a few clear intelligent voices with multi-platform and real-world experience - you know who you are - to contribute some sanity that unfortunate K5 thread. No flaming required if you don't feel like it.

      It's the internet, people. IF we don't cross threads once in awhile then stupidity just keeps spinning around and around and around.... Don't let the 'net become like a clothes dryer.

  • jobs talks about it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by squarefish ( 561836 ) * on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:23AM (#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.

  • This is a way of selling more expensive hardware (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grrr223 ( 668009 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:33AM (#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.

  • Safari for Windows just as important (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Johnny Mozzarella ( 655181 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:36AM (#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.

    • Re:Safari for Windows just as important (Score:5, Insightful)

      by capmilk ( 604826 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:59AM (#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.

    • "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."

      But if Apple make a habit of porting their applications to Windows, why bother migrating at all - people will just "expect" each app to be ported sooner or later.

      Besides, Safari for Windows wouldn't create a revene stream. iTunes for Windows, with the Music Store, does create a revenue stream. Remember, these companies do exist to make money after all...

  • QuickTime in iTunes clothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @10:43AM (#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.

    • "Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback."

      It was the other way around - MS proposed that Apple could have authoring and MS would do playback - Apple told them to fuck off and MS has been trying to kill QT ever since.

    • 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

      • I'm sorry, did you say "consistency" and "Windows GUI guidelines" in the same sentence? I'm having trouble parsing that one.

      • apple.... juice? (Score:5, Funny)

        by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @03:11PM (#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.

        • I'm sorry.. the what? ...The what?!?
          Are you deaf? [microsoft.com]

          • Re:apple.... juice? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by derubergeek ( 594673 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @11:10PM (#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, and eliminate qttask.exe. That piece of shit is half the reason that Windows users hate Apple.

    • 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.

    • Re:QuickTime in iTunes clothing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @12:52PM (#5844273) 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...)

      • Is there no way to get QT to play fullscreen in Windows in the non-Pro version? On th Mac OS, it is possible via AppleScript- you simply write a script that tells QT to play in full-screen. The menu-option is still blurred out in the QT app, but it works fine via AppleScript.

        I doubt it (cuz WSH sucks), but would something like this be possible via the Windows Scripting Host? WHO KNOWS!

  • Okay, am I the only person who's wondering why Apple is posting this job ad at all? I would have believed that iTunes for Windows would have been started months ago...

  • It's About $$$ (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Fourtune reported Apple makes as much ecomonic profit on an iPod as an iMac. If this is true, then selling a million 'Pods gets Apple the same cash as a million iMacs. (Future profits be dammed)
    If there are a 10 million Windoz users that will never switch, but will buy an iPod -- Why not sell it to them?

  • Also Posted on Monster.com (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Apple Computer is looking for a Senior Software Engineer to design and build one of our newest Consumer Applications, iTunes for Windows.
    Must be possess strong skills in the areas of application design, solid API design principles, user interface engineering, and have a strong understanding of customer and workflow issues. Experience with Windows logo certification preferred. Candidate should have a history of successful large volume consumer product shipment.

    A B.S. or better in Electrical Engineering or
  • If any of you dimwits actually read the Fortune article [fortune.com] that was linked right here on Crapdot, you'd note that it says the Music Store will be available to Windows users by the end of the year.

    Jobs, however, isn't targeting just Mac users. He plans to roll out a Windows version of iTunes by the end of the year. (Apple already sells a Windows-compatible version of the iPod, which accounts for about half of all units sold.) It is a dramatic departure for Steve, who has deliberately kept the Mac's best featur

    • Yes and no. See, making the Music Store available for windows doesn't necessarily mean porting iTunes to windows. HUGE difference. Apple could easily add Music Service to MusicMatch, which is what they currently suggest to connect to iPods.
  • I think the best way for Apple to get Rendevous networking in the PC world is to start with iTunes 4. Just yesterday I was looking for a Rendevous plugin for winamp, didn't find one, but when iTunes comes out for the PC, I'll probably switch. (my work pc is a windows box, my home box runs OSX). It's all about leveraging their software to get their more lucrative divisions more business (Music store, hardware, etc.)
  • ... if the quality of these posts is any indication.

    Consumer applications does not necessarily mean an application that you have to pay for. QuickTime, iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes are all free -- if you want Pro (prosumer) functionality from QuickTime, you have to pay. If you want your iApps in a neato box, then you pay for iLife.

    So now that we got that out of the way...

    There's no good reason why Apple would charge for a Windows version of iTunes, but I can think of a couple of really good reasons not to

  • "yellow box" was running on win32 back in '98 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by awb131 ( 159522 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @11:26PM (#5850265)
    Just after Apple bought NeXT, I played with their "yellow box" development tools on a windows machine. This was basically a port of the ObjC runtimes and several of the basic NeXT frameworks that now make up the core of the Cocoa APIs. They had versions of TextEdit and Stickies that ran on my Windows NT workstation as part of the developer tools. (Talk about creepy.)

    Anyway, my point is, Apple has been thinking for a long time about the day when they would need one of their apps to run on a Microsoft operating system.

  • Shares iTunes b/w Macs and PCs! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Wednesday April 30, 2003 @11:44PM (#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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close