Apple unwraps iTunes 5 - Page 3

Then they're idiots.

Sorry, it's not a decimal number. Period. End of story. If someone can't wrap their brain around that, they really should back away from the keyboard and sell the overly complex piece of electronics they bought.

Mediocrity is never a good reason to change a rational system.

They should have called it 4.9.5. Featurewise it would have been the most correct.

For many, rational thought is never a good reason to change a mediocre system. \

How the heck would we know if you need it? If you don't know if you need it then you probably don't.

And you can't legally download it. Ever heard of software piracy? There are plenty of places to buy it for under $100USD. Or buy a new Mac and it comes with Tiger installed.

Easy there, bit of a mis understanding I think. As far as I can tell, he was just wondering if you need Tiger to run the new Mail app, or if it can be obtained as a free download (like iTunes). So to answer the question, you do need Tiger to run the new mail app, as it is not available separately. Hope that clears everything up and everyone is happy!

Give me a break. A less confusing system is almost always superior to a more confusing one. Anyone who can't wrap their minds around that shouldn't be positing opinions about software design or release practices.

Never using "10" or above for a sub-version number of a major release is a lot less confusing, and therefore superior. Since the decision on what features are "major" and "minor" are mostly arbitrary anyway, your system makes no more sense and requires more thought to deal with. Add a thousand similarly stupid decisions and you get a system like Windows or Linux.

Oh forget it. Pandering to ignorance is apparently the wave of the future. Go for it.

Thank you very much, and yes that is what I ment.

So podcast is minor feature and screwed up title bar in the windows version is a major one. Check.

Apple would not confuse their customers with a .10 because it is not intuitive. Of course I understand but lots of people don't and won't - and there's no need to be patronising (Kichaha)

However, iTunes 2 was blue logo, iTunes 3 had the purple music logo, itunes 4 was green and now itunes 5 is green but has a new look. Major revisions have facelifts - garageband 2 looks very different from 1, equally iPhoto 5 from 2. iTunes 4.8 to 4.9 was minor - new podcasts. 5 was also a minor upgrade but gives a new refined look, search bar, smart shuffle etc. so comes under a major revision.

Anyway a decimal point is worth this much aggro surely!

OMG, at least the cross isn't red tinted.

What if Apple had made the podcasting version of iTunes version 5, but kept the same look and not added any of the current updates? What version number would bring it to what it is now?

To me, it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. What happened actually makes more sense to me than what I listed above.

Except that its not the same shade of gray!?

it should be but i think apple didn't want change itunes completely - it's a bit of a mish-mash to be honest!

Sorry for misunderstanding you, and thanks to G_Warren for correcting me.

If the ONLY reason they did that was to normalize the numbering system, fine. But the purpose of jumping a whole number is to designate a major upgrade. This was a tweek.

We're getting it backwards here. 2,3,4, didn't get those designation because Apple changed the colors. They got the colors to indicate the upgrade.

Now it's being said that because they made a tweek and went from metal to grey it's worth a 5. No sense at all to that. This WAS worth a 4.9.1 or so change.

Full video integration into the software with actual video sales would be worth a 5.

But as I say, if it were just to have everything in iLife say "5", then let's forget this whole thing.

am not sure if like the Grey interface happening with os x.

its.. well... grey.

may get used to it though.

On the surface, this was a tweak.

Under the hood, it signified a shift to QuickTime 7. That's not a tweak. If what I'm seeing in the binary is what I think I'm seeing, then this was indeed worthy of a major build increment.

If QT 7 were only available in iTunes, I would agree. But to simply make it compatable with it, which they HAD to do is something else.

When PS became compatable with JPEG2000, Adobe didn't give the program an update number, they just supplied a new plug-in. There isn't much different here. OS X didn't go to 10.4 because QT 7 came out. Neither should iTunes. Every app that Apple has must be compatable with QT 7. FCP didn't go to 5 because of it. That was a required but minor change. It went to 5 because of major improvements.

QT 7 had a pretty substantial change to a new API set. Make no mistake, QT 7 is perhaps the most important strategic product Apple has released in five years. AFAICT, iTunes 5 uses the *new* API, not the old one. Hence, a major update. I could be wrong, since I'm just poking into the raw binary by hand, but from what I can see it *looks* like they migrated. Having a little experience with this process... yeah, major build number time.

I am really unimpressed but if it's more solid under the interface I will grow to like it.

I really hope there is a lot of potential being created by a switch to QT 7. Maybe 4.9 -> 5.0 isn't a big step but further point releases will be.

And as I mentioned, so does everything else. QT got the version change - from 6 to 7. Everything that uses it shouldn't get a full version change as well.

You're missing the point.

QT < 7 had more or less one API that was added onto over the years. QT 4 brought about a cleanup, but it was still the same API at heart.

QT 7 brought a new, cleaner API to the table. (No, not QTKit, although the Cocoa API uses it.) Apps could either stick with the old API (which is now deprecated), and still work, or be updated to the new API and be ready for a number of future enhancements that they'll get for free. (It'll make moving from Carbon to Cocoa easier, for one thing.) It's like moving from the old Mac Toolbox to Carbon, or from Carbon to Cocoa. An API change is non-trivial.

iTunes 4 used the old API.

From what I can see, iTunes 5 uses the new one. It's still Carbon, but a heck of a lot cleaner. That's the major change under the hood in iTunes that warrants a new major build number.

If they'd stuck with the old API, it wouldn't have.

See the difference?

IMHO, the gui changes alone make it worth the download. I only wish they could/would make an option to have everything in seperate palletes for maximum flexibility (ala winamp).

The odd thing is the parental controlls: who does all the "tech support"...the kids....who DLs the music tools...the kids....who is gonna lock the parents out of the parental controls before the parents even see the app? the bad/mischievious kids who this is trying to protect...still a good idea thoughl...for the parents 1337 enouigh to know it is there.

Also, I would love to see a patcher so the app doesnt need a reinstall for every worthless little point release.*

*this applies to the windows version - system update is seemless, but having a DL under 15 meg would be cool on the mac too

What the FUCK.

This is UGLY. It reminds me of Mail.

That is all I have to say now.

Damn.

The window is too sharp. The boxy progress (yellow) window is retarded. I've really grown used to the rounded Metal.

And the side of the window...doesn't have a border!?

Man Tiger and Panther's GUIs really look shitty. They were heading in the right direction in Jaguar. Damn. They lost their way.

As someone not too frequent on these boards i would like to thank you for making me read all that mumbo-jumbo about versions numbering...

:-)

As far as new look ...

I like shaded vs metal.
....and that's about it :-)

I HATE inconsistencies in recent apple apps...
Finder windows are metal, and they have a border, Safari is metal, but Safari windows don't have a border, mail is shaded, but it has a different colour than itunes...

Now, WTF is going on with the widow corners??? i mean really .... W T F ??


And that "LCD screen" in iTunes is just wrong... too much shade difference. (IMHO)

edit:
and obviously i haven't noticed Aquatic's post before mine...

Just in case anyone is interested.

As far as I am aware, gaps in iTunes are the fault of the MP3 format itself and perhaps the AAC codec. MP3s don't support gapless playback and always add space at the end of a track. Try ripping a mix CD in aiff format and seeing if you can burn a gapless copy using that.

My biggest question here would be the simplest: Why the hell does anyone care what the hell they call it? iTunes 5. iTunes 4.9.1. iTunes 4.10 (oh, and that would never work, we tried doing a version 3.10 once, and it completely confused the non-programmers out there who understood decimal numbers, not version numbers).

Does it really matter? If it was 4.9.1, would you be more or less likely to download it? Do you see "iTunes 5" and go "OMG! A whole new version! I gotta drop everything I'm doing, download this major upgrade, and check out all the hundreds of new features!"? (and if you do, you need a life)

The only time a version number specification irritates me is when you actually have to pay for the software, i.e. a v5 comes out and you have to upgrade, but its really more like v4.10 (think the last couple releases of Stuffit). And then it only matters if you can tell they're doing it just to sell the 'new' version. But since iTunes is free, I could care less if they just called it "iTunes 4.9.23.03.734.89"

Oh, I also remember this basic same argument, when Apple released 10.3. People couldn't believe they'd have to pay $100 for a freakin' point release, and they should've called it 11.0. Why? I have no idea. Its the exact same software, but in their heads they just think you shouldn't have to pay for x.y releases, x.0 only.

You know, the way you constantly talk down to people is getting really old. You're not so much smarter or better than everyone here.

I agree with you about most of that. All I'm saying is that it is QT that recieved the major hpgrade. no other programs were given a full number designation because they use it, that had only minor changes to the programs themselves EXCEPT iTunes.

Therefore iTunes doesn't deserve to go to 5. Unless the 5 has nothing at all to do with it, and is just there to fit in with iLife 5, as I and someone else said.

That would be purely a marketing decision, as it wouldn't indicate major additions or changes to the program.

*beats forehead against wall*

That's because the other apps didn't migrate to the new API.

QT7 includes both APIs. Old apps continue to use the old ones = no change to app = no change to version number. Maybe a tweak was needed, but that was all = minor build or bug fix bump. This is one of the great things about dynamic libraries and frameworks - upgrade the guts, and apps get a boost for free. Until the API changes.

*If* an app that previously used the old API migrates to the new API, that *is* a big deal. It justifies a major build number change. That seems to be the case with iTunes 5.0, from what I can tell.

If they had left iTunes using the old QT APIs then yes, it would not have justified a major build increment.

It's like the Carbon -> Cocoa move. An app can remain Carbon, and Apple can update the Carbon libraries without the app having to change = no version number increase for the app. Or, the developer can move to a new API, like Cocoa, and justify a completely new major build number because the underlying code has changed substantially. While the QT APIs haven't changed *that* much, it's still not peanuts.

QT got a major build increase because *it* changed substantially under the hood, iTunes got a major build increase because *it* changed substantially under the hood. The two bumps are independent, except that iTunes happens to use QT7 and the new API. iTunes didn't get a bump because QT7 was released, iTunes got a bump because it substantially changed under the hood.

It's so funny when geeks argue.

Not nearly as funny as when we party.

Is that what you call it?

Alrighty, I *refuse* to get into a meta-argument with you about partying.

Not sure I understand that "shift" since iTunes 5 runs on systems with QuickTime 6.

Because most "users" have absolutely no taste whatsoever Other than voting with their money and purchasing Apple products of course It's a joke, calm down.

If you insist, there's always ShapeShifter. It is your machine and you have the right to change the currently schizophrenic melty-chromed-random elegance, to whatever crayola paradigm makes you the happiest.

Does it? *checks on Apple*

BWAHAHAHAHA

Apparently what I was seeing was possibly detritus from the Windows code, which *DOES* require QT7.0.2. The Mac version only requires 6.5.2.

Nevermind. mel, you're right, I haven't a clue why they bumped it to 5. This should have been 4.10 from a feature point of view.

Then again, the "out of the box number experience" counts.
iLife5 == iTunes5, no?