Wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft actually made a better music and video store than Apple? It would cause Apple to redesign iTunes to work better and have a more user friendly interface. I do think iTunes could improve a lot. . . .
Bold emphasis added.
Smallwheels, I have heard others elsewhere suggest there are problems with iTunes but I never see anyone actually listing them. I don't see any problems. It's a very sophisticated application and the learning curve for a newbie might be fairly steep as is the case with many complicated programmes. But if one has used iTunes for a while, each iteration seems to get better, I find, and it doesn't take much to learn and continue as usual.
Would appreciated it if you and/or other members could point out any problems with iTunes. Being so familiar with iTunes, I may just be blind to any problems it may have.
Smallwheels, I have heard others elsewhere suggest there are problems with iTunes but I never see anyone actually listing them. I don't see any problems. It's a very sophisticated application and the learning curve for a newbie might be fairly steep as is the case with many complicated programmes. But if one has used iTunes for a while, each iteration seems to get better, I find, and it doesn't take much to learn and continue as usual.
Would appreciated it if you and/or other members could point out any problems with iTunes. Being so familiar with iTunes, I may just be blind to any problems it may have.
Seriously? That is the most sluggish piece of bloated software I am forced to use. Itunes' handling of its database of songs and apps is atrocious. I also get lock ups frequently and severe slowdowns where I can't arrange my apps on my iDevice's without waiting like 5-10 mintues. iOS 5 at least releases us from the slug that is iTunes. Granted, I am a power user with multiple iDevices, hundreds of Apps, and thousands of songs. My computer has a quad core processor with 8GB of memory.
Seriously? That is the most sluggish piece of bloated software I am forced to use. Itunes' handling of its database of songs and apps is atrocious. I also get lock ups frequently and severe slowdowns where I can't arrange my apps on my iDevice's without waiting like 5-10 mintues. iOS 5 at least releases us from the slug that is iTunes. Granted, I am a power user with multiple iDevices, hundreds of Apps, and thousands of songs. My computer has a quad core processor with 8GB of memory.
Agreed.
Other stuff:
You can't do a simple sync of just a few new songs. Instead, iTunes goes through all the bullsit, backing up, checking contacts, etc.
And god forbid that you pull the plug in the middle of a sync. Your phone will be thoroughly borked and you will need to wipe the drive and reinstall everything. I have never had any device that needed the drive to be reformatted and the OS reinstalled as much as my iPhone - not even Windows 3.1 running on a '486. Why can't iTunes recover elegantly from such a situation?
How about the checking for "gapless" music business? When you try to add a few gigs of music, you wait and wait and wait.
Then there is the broken album art issue: If you rip a classic album which is out of print, and iTunes supplies the album art, you end up with a motley collection of various Greatest Hits album covers instead of the one correct album cover.
Compilations are handled horribly. You end up with dozens of artists, each with one song, when using the Album view.
Oh - the iTunes library is not dynamic. If you move your stuff to a different directory, it breaks the iTunes library.
Want more? I find iTunes to be miserable, both at the paradigmatic and conceptual level, and in its execution.
BTW, I realize that the solution to most of my issues is "Just don't hold it that way". If I were to have a modest library of music, and if I were to buy everything from Apple, my problems would be fewer. If I were to allow everything to be placed into the iTunes Music directory, my problems would be fewer. If I were to load only a couple of Megs at a time, instead of sometimes loading several Gigs, my problems would be fewer. If I were to do everything only the Apple-prescribed way, instead of doing things the way that make sense for every other purpose I have, my problems with iTunes would be fewer. Unfortunately for me, I don't always think the Apple-prescribed method is optimal, and instead, I think different.
If itunes is a free app(which it has always been), no charge. BUT, if someone buys music via this itunes app, MS could, in the future charge 30% of that( as an in app purchase). Just like Apple wants for subscriptions.
Which they will. MS isn't stupid. This makes sense as a strategy for them. If you can't beat them, eat into their profits. Can't make money in mobile? Sue Android OEMs to get a cut. Can't make money selling music? Demand a 30% cut of every song sold on iTunes on Windows.
Apple will be forced to price up songs or accept almost no profit and hope that most users simply download music without using their iTunes PC app.
Not so. The Kindle Reader app is certainly free, but that hasn't stopped Apple from setting up their policies to try to charge Amazon 30% for books purchased through that app. So if Apple brought a Metro version of iTunes out, it would logically follow that Microsoft could charge Apple 30% of all music/video/book purchased through it.
That's a good point but I think Apple has a solution in place with their new re-downloading service of nearly all their content at will. If it's a tablet-based system with no "classic" desktop option you will likely have another machine in which you can buy iTunes content.
They could also create a browser-based solution that will then download from within the native MetroUI-based app after you've made the purchase.
Not so. The Kindle Reader app is certainly free, but that hasn't stopped Apple from setting up their policies to try to charge Amazon 30% for books purchased through that app. So if Apple brought a Metro version of iTunes out, it would logically follow that Microsoft could charge Apple 30% of all music/video/book purchased through it.
I actually think that's a crap policy on Apple's part too - there are legitimate reasons for taking a cut on apps, but if you have something where the content is well known, the distribution mechanism is NOT through Apple's servers, etc., it seems pretty rich to try to enforce the same cut.
The thought had crossed my mind, but in that scenario, Apple probably wouldn't offer iTunes at all on Metro, because Apple has no vested interest in turning Windows 8 tablets into iPods.
OTOH, if Apple is forced to pay this "Metro tax" for content purchased through iTunes, Apple would probably remove the Music Store feature from iTunes and convert it into a HTML-based Web 2.0 application. The iTunes application on Windows would then turn into just a music player and tool for syncing iDevices. Windows 8 users wouldn't be able to buy songs through iTunes.
EDIT: Haha! I didn't see solipsy's post before replying... looks like we're thinking the same thing...
Seriously? That is the most sluggish piece of bloated software I am forced to use. . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Agreed. . . You can't do a simple sync . . ., iTunes goes through all the bullsit, backing up, checking contacts, etc. . . Unfortunately for me, I don't always think the Apple-prescribed method is optimal, and instead, I think different.
I agree that there is a time wait to syncing but I sort of expect a huge library of various media might be the cause. Touch wood, I haven't had any problems mentioned though I suspect I have lost some pod castes that I don't think I deleted. The question mark thing used to show up but haven't seen it recently. I haven't noticed any problems with my iPt and I don't have an iPhone.
Just being curious, is there something better elsewhere either for OS/iOS or other for other platforms? I am not being obstinate or argumentative. I'm just curious.
I also would add that I am possibly more patient than many and the slow sync I see as relative. I am also slimming my music down to make selection easier. But I find this in all walks in life. Accumulate and life becomes more of a struggle.
If itunes is a free app(which it has always been), no charge. BUT, if someone buys music via this itunes app, MS could, in the future charge 30% of that( as an in app purchase). Just like Apple wants for subscriptions.
Not much chance of Apple porting iTunes to Metro *. Apple hasn't ported iTunes to Android which, likely, will sell more ARM tablets than Windows 8 ARM tablets...
* especially after Apple repeatedly disallowed PalmOS/WebOS devices to connect or sync to iTunes.
Well, with each passing day, this is changing to become less and less of a risible analogy and more and more a direct statement of fact (and it's not so humorous anymore).
Microsoft builds its Company Stores in very close proximity to Apple Stores on the assumption (by almost everyone) that it's for symbolic reasons (like intimidation), to appear to be still relevant and to appear to be "breathing down Apple's neck."
I'm not so inclined to give Microsoft that much "credit" (if you consider it credit). I'm more inclined to surmise that it is actually a cheap way of benefitting from the very extensive research Apple's retail team does in carefully choosing locations for Apple Stores so that not one has to be shuttered (like every single Gateway store including those at dank strip malls situated right next to a "Dollar Store").
(Ever been in a Microsoft Store? All I can say is "Yawn"; whereas an Apple Store is more fun than a petting zoo.)
Apple buys expensive studies about proposed locations, plus does its own extensive (and expensive) marketing and demographic research and analysis before they carefully decide upon each retail store location. Microsoft can easily benefit from this lengthy, expensive research by simply building Microsoft Stores as close as possible to Apple Stores. And, they have "plausible deniability" by pretending it's only a symbolic move, designed as a conspicuous "show of force" to consumers prepared to switch platforms ? Oh! And to the media. (Microsoft's insanely jealous of all the mainstream media attention Apple and Steve Jobs is getting, whereas Apple is "Insanely Great.")
If true, this borderlines on "infringement" or stealing proprietary corporate Intellectual Property, in this writer's own personal opinion.
It's been widely reported that Microsoft is actively "poaching" highly experienced and highly trained (on Apple's dime) Apple Store employees. While I don't like it, it's a common practice and is legal. BUT! It doesn't end there! It's been reported and is a matter of public record that, after successfully poaching skilled Apple Store employees to a Microsoft Store ('round the corner, probably) the defectors, allured and mesmerized by grossly inflated new salaries (does this mean they're "bought"?) are then pressed to recruit their friends and coworkers from the Apple Stores they defected from! If this isn't illegal under some law, say, antitrust law, it sure is downright sleazy, in my own personal opinion.
And Microsoft's desire to not just be inspired by Apple or influenced by Apple but to "photocopy" Apple is evident in this next piece of probative info:
Still more, Microsoft hired the treacherous, self-promoting, in my own personal opinion, Don Norman, the driving force behind Aqua, Mac OS X's Graphical User Interface, when Microsoft was developing Vista.
Unfortunately for him (as things would turn out) he was tasked with "Aqua-fying" Windows Vista ? a product in the good company of New Coke and the Edsel as the greatest, most conspicuous of colossal failures in the annals of product marketing. I haven't checked recently, but enough time has passed that the Vista epic saga may be included, along with the other two, in recent college Marketing textbooks (as a cautionary tale).
So, when you Google "Don Norman" you'll notice what can only be described as an effort to disassociate himself with Microsoft and the unmitigated flop, Windows Vista, in my own personal opinion.
If he's cornered with the facts interviews, he seemingly goes to great lengths to downplay his involvement with Microsoft, often saying, in so many words, he was merely a consultant of little consequence.
But how would he explain the close resemblance of the Trash icon in Vista to the Trash icon in Aqua/Mac OS X? Only the merest of coincidences, I'm sure.
Microsoft's intent to no less than "photocopy" Apple becomes clearer when you consider the fact that there is an infinite universe of designs possible for a trash icon or wastebasket or "recycle bin" icon. The only limit is the imagination. Oh! There's our answer! Microsoft has no imagination, no taste and is forced to transplant it from Apple.
(Oh! My bad. Microsoft's icon is completely different, as Vista's is a "recycle bin.")
But! Consider the company we're talking about here; they seem to be immune to shame. (With a company founded by someone who still boasts about "dumpster diving" in his youth to steal printouts of code laboriously toiled over by someone else, this should not come as unexpected. And the dumpster diving "point of personal pride" apparently was no mere "isolated incident," but the first known example of pathological thievery, in my own personal opinion, and a corporate culture Microsoft's co-founder inculcated throughout the company. See: What's nicknamed "The San Francisco Canyon" lawsuit. Pay particular attention to the statement "thousands of lines of 'significant programming code' for video acceleration").
As to Microsoft's "photocopied" online "app store," I hope no one from Microsoft reads this, but to "prime the pump" they might want to consider a schedule for reaching 30% over a period. As just one example, for every new app, Microsoft takes 15% for one week (7 day period); 20% after two weeks; 25% after one month; 30% after six weeks and thereafter.
After 30% is reached, nothing would be charged for any of the (sometimes very frequent) free updates and bug fixes to apps, of course, but would apply to sales of new milestone versions that are not free (e.g. "First Person Zombie Shooter II.")
Apple might consider something similar.
That timeworn Marketing phenomenon where shoppers will buy significantly more SKUs of a product priced at 99¢ than the same product priced at $1, has changed little (if at all) over time. Contemporary studies still show that this buyer behavior is just as alive-and-well in 2011 as ever.
I guess "metal" currency is not considered "real money" by consumers, but paper currency is ? even one dollar. This might explain why song purchases on iTunes have dropped since Apple moved to $1.29 per song instead of that magical 99¢.
The "value-added" benefits of the $1.29 versions are triple (at least) than the 99¢ versions, but this seems to be lost on average consumers. (And, being more than 99¢, the 30¢ higher $1.29 is "real money." One would think that it wouldn't make very much of a difference, but many aspects of costumer behavior are inscrutable. We have to live with them and adapt to them.)
The value-added benefits of $1.29 tracks are worth at least triple the value of 99¢ tracks, but the people I know care nothing about (or can't appreciate any palpable difference) between a 128kbps audio file verses even a 320kbps "lossless" audio file. Speaking of "audio files," "audiophiles" can appreciate the difference. : )
Steve Jobs was right (of course) about 99¢ being the "sweet spot," and consumers would much rather own their purchased music than "rent" it from an online music subscription service (no matter how many songs they could "rent"), and of course he was proven right ? yet again <Yawn>.
(I can fully appreciate the $1.29 versions and have always bought those when available. Now, I think the vast majority of "tracks" on iTunes are $1.29 with no other choice.)
If I remember correctly, Apple had to move to $1.29 to keep the record labels happy and prevent them from possibly "pulling out." (If anybody knows the accurate account, please teach me.)
I don't know much about the business relationships between the record labels and Apple/iTunes, but if they would agree, Apple could have two "buy" buttons in iTunes List View: one for the popular (yet crappy, IMHO) 99¢ quality, and, next to it, a second button for the "audiophile" $1.29 version of the same song.
"But, if now given this choice, and most everyone gravitates to the 99¢ versions (PAH! Pocket change! Now a dollar bill, that's something), wouldn't Apple and the record labels make less money?"
Probably just the opposite.
Volume sales might more than make up for the 30¢ difference. Just ask the world's largest retailer (at last check, anyway, Wal*Mart is the fifth most valuable company in the world...after AAPL rained on their parade. Wal*Mart has been #1 and #2 in the past) who achieved their lofty "perch" not by maximizing profit margins, but by making them impossibly slight and selling cheap products in volumes that boggle the mind.
Wal*Mart is so powerful in fact, that they can "blackmail," in my own personal opinion, food companies into changing their ingredients!, like lowering trans fats or sugar content or else it's "bye, bye shelf space." (Sending chills up product makers' spines.)
Michelle Obama got on Wal*Mart's case, prompting them to start doing this. Speaking personally, it's been reported that Wal*Mart plans to pressure Kraft/Nabisco to cut the amount of sugar or HFCS in many of its products including my favorite cookie, Oreos!
You can do almost anything you want to me, but DON'T %#&$ with my Oreos!
(BTW, the four-letter-word was "mess.")
I don't care if it's "low-brow"; I make it no secret that Oreos are my favorite cookie!
But, back on track, 99¢ x Volume might exceed revenues and profits of $1.29 x Volume.
Apple could very easily market test this.
<? Click (or touch) him ? and I know you'll never believe me ? but this is NOT an Apple Store.
The "photocopying" has grown so audacious that the lit signs over the entrance of every Microsoft retail store contain no words, no letters (I hope they didn't spend too much on that rope line), just a symbol or "logo," (if it even qualifies). But it is only the merest of coincidences ("But we didn't have room!") that Apple Store signs also contain no words, no letters, just a monochromatic logo ? except it's a shape of an object that dates back at least to The Garden of Eden (B.C.) and is instantly recognized in any language and in any country on Earth.
I have a sneaking suspicion this variation of the Windows logo will become the logo for the whole company, to "communicate" "Microsoft" without using letters or words. They may even use it alone, without the word "Microsoft"....almost...like the way Apple's brand "name" is actually a silhouetted shape with no letters or words! But, OH!, how it communicates!
You'd sooner recognize something meaningful in a Jackson Pollock painting or a Rorschach ink blot than Microsoft's new...thing.
Oh, I'm not suggesting Microsoft is SO stupid as to ditch the "Microsoft" brand name, recognized by billions the world over, costing billions to promote, and is an intangible asset worth billions.
I'm suggesting that the letters M-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t and the word they comprise might now be communicated via a logo or symbol (Mmmmmm?...kind of like Apple?). The problem for them is that the symbol is abstract and doesn't communicate the word "Microsoft" at all! And necessarily colored, the logo cannot be rendered as a silhouette (unless a perfect square is expected to stand for "Microsoft")
"Artist" Prince already tried this, but gave up when his efforts didn't work ("were an abject failure" is more precise) and even became a widespread topic of ridicule and mockery. Hey Monkey Boy, you really need to consult Prince ASAP!
IBM's venerable logo was designed by the amazing, legendary Paul Rand, graphic designer of hundreds of works including the logos of NeXT, American Express, Westinghouse, ABC (TV), UPS, Walt Disney Pictures and countless others, and was even the photographic subject of an Apple "Think Different" ad and poster (a high honor in my book), ANDwas lauded by Steve Jobs (so any of you who think Steve Jobs is all arrogance and no humility, Think Different).
Uh-oh, could this one by Paul Rand have inspired the original iPod's iconic design? IDK, but I doubt it. (Just funnin'.)
The late Paul Rand's IBM logo with its unique vertical black (or empty) stripes across each letter is so widely recognized that it has been shown that people don't see three letters and read them; they see one iconic logo that stands for "IBM," paying no attention to the individual letters.
This is not unlike when you see a stop sign. Do you read the letters S-T-O-P, or do you recognize it in a gestalt fashion, taking in the octagonal shape, its reflective "Fire Engine Red" color, and white capital letters you no longer consciously read?
And, Uh-oh, Could THIS ? released in 1982, discontinued in 1984 ? have inspired the ID of the original Macintosh? IDK, but it was a great Industrial Design, and I'm fine with Apple taking cues from it (if they did).
I don't think Apple did, but if they took any cues from the Vectrex, it only inspired them, and there's nothing wrong with that. The original Mac is a very different looking machine.
Drawing inspiration from talented people and their works was absolutely essential in creating some of histories greatest artists, thinkers and inventors. Would there have been a Plato had there been no Socrates? What's not OK is brazen plagiarism ? or "photocopying."
Nike's original logo was a stylized presentation of their spelled-out name. Nike's "swoosh" logo was designed by college student, Carolyn Davidson, for $2/hour or a total of $35.
But, unlike Microsoft (or Prince), Nike took a prudent approach. After the "swoosh" was designed, Nike continued to use their textual brand name/logo with the "swoosh" symbol below it. This associated the word and brand "Nike" with the new symbol. Then Nike weaned consumers off their logo "in letters" and on to the "swoosh" logo alone.
Yet the abstract "swoosh," or whatever you want to call it, is problematic.
Even internally, Nike employees refer to it as either "The Swoosh" or "The Wing" (I guess we were all supposed to know it represents a wing of the winged Greek goddess for victory, "Nike"). It is abstract, but is very successful at invoking the Nike brand without letters or words (after a lot of money was spent to achieve this).
Target has taken a similar approach, using its "wordless" brand logo. But their logo resembles its own name, like Apple's.
Yet, if you were to take Apple's silhouette logo and Nike's to a place in the world where people aren't aware of Nike and showed people both logos, my money's on them identifying Apple's logo that stands for an object with a name, not Nike's logo. (I can picture people squinting at the Nike logo, turning it sideways and upside down before they finally give up.)
But you get an A for effort, Microsoft. Good luck. Seriously.
The thought had crossed my mind, but in that scenario, Apple probably wouldn't offer iTunes at all on Metro, because Apple has no vested interest in turning Windows 8 tablets into iPods.
OTOH, if Apple is forced to pay this "Metro tax" for content purchased through iTunes, Apple would probably remove the Music Store feature from iTunes and convert it into a HTML-based Web 2.0 application. The iTunes application on Windows would then turn into just a music player and tool for syncing iDevices. Windows 8 users wouldn't be able to buy songs through iTunes.
EDIT: Haha! I didn't see solipsy's post before replying... looks like we're thinking the same thing...
Agreed with you and solipsism that Apple would never actually go for giving MS a 30% cut if they did decide to do a Metro version of iTunes (and also that doing streaming and NOT offering purchase through a Metro iTunes is a work-around), but the entire 30% cut of content sold through apps just seems pretty dubious when the same content can be sold through a web page or other avenue as well, doesn't use the OS providers distribution mechanisms, etc. Seems like an overreach.
The Kindle app is just another route to get a book (or was, anyway) outside of the Amazon web store or their own Kindle reader devices, so Apple screwing them because they are competing on book sales is just a pile of crap. How about offer at least a comparable price, equivalent selection, and allow your own books to work on multiple platforms? As it stands, I can but a Kindle book generally for less, use it on the Kindle, computer, or iPad, and find a lot of stuff that just isn't available on iBooks. Doing a 30% content charge to try to prevent people from finding the better priced stuff is just lame.
No, actually the article says that there WILL be x86 tablets released: "While PC makers can continue to sell x86 tablets, these devices, ranging from Tablet PC to UMPCs to Slate PC to convertible notebooks with tablet features, have never sold well in the past due to their performance and efficiency compromises and their significant cost premium over modern ARM tablets."
But what if Windows 8 actually runs WELL on x86 hardware? It runs remarkably on the dev preview tablets out in the wild, and those are only prototypes.
And according to Renee James from Intel, "[Windows 8 traditional] means that our customers, or anyone who has an Intel-based or an x86-based product, will be able to run either Windows 7 mode or Windows 8 mode," she said. "They'll run all of their old applications, all of their old files ? there'll be no issue."
So Intel, which is the King of chip makers is going nuts right now trying to shrink some form of x86 down to compete with ARM. I think for tablets this time next year they will be there. There whole "thin and light" stuff is pretty good now. They 1-2 revs coming out before Windows 8. This time next year, Windows 8 tablets on Intel's latest x86 chip for tablets = ability to run most x86 apps.
The line is going to blur between quad core ARM chips and Intel's latest attempt to shrink, the deciding factor may just be the many thousands of x86 apps out there now.
For consumer PCs, Windows 8 will ship as essentially Windows 7 overlaid with a new layer of Metro animated graphics capable of running new Metro apps. On standard x86 PCs, this will allow users to run both existing Windows apps as well as downloading new Metro apps from Microsoft's new Windows 8 app market.
The 'Metro' interface is not an overlay. It is the new shell (though I think the process name is still labeled as "explorer.exe"). The classic UI (in my mind) is the new Program Manager. It's also technically an app since it's not loaded by default. Also I'm betting (judging from some leaked build shots) that the standard shell will get an update (for example a Jensen Harris presentation at BUILD showed a different taskbar style).
So the Metro UI is actually just a layer. What happened to the classic desktop won't load if the user don't want it?!
Wrong, it's the new shell. If you read a post on the "Building Windows 8" blog authored by Steven Sinofsky, he states that the classic desktop is like an app and will only load when needed by the user.
Comments
Wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft actually made a better music and video store than Apple? It would cause Apple to redesign iTunes to work better and have a more user friendly interface. I do think iTunes could improve a lot. . . .
Bold emphasis added.
Smallwheels, I have heard others elsewhere suggest there are problems with iTunes but I never see anyone actually listing them. I don't see any problems. It's a very sophisticated application and the learning curve for a newbie might be fairly steep as is the case with many complicated programmes. But if one has used iTunes for a while, each iteration seems to get better, I find, and it doesn't take much to learn and continue as usual.
Would appreciated it if you and/or other members could point out any problems with iTunes. Being so familiar with iTunes, I may just be blind to any problems it may have.
You're making a joke, right? Zero existing Windows applications will work on these tablets. You know that.
THE ARTICLE EXPLICITLY SAYS THIS IS THE CASE.
Tablet's running on Intel processors will be able to run legacy apps.
Bold emphasis added.
Smallwheels, I have heard others elsewhere suggest there are problems with iTunes but I never see anyone actually listing them. I don't see any problems. It's a very sophisticated application and the learning curve for a newbie might be fairly steep as is the case with many complicated programmes. But if one has used iTunes for a while, each iteration seems to get better, I find, and it doesn't take much to learn and continue as usual.
Would appreciated it if you and/or other members could point out any problems with iTunes. Being so familiar with iTunes, I may just be blind to any problems it may have.
Seriously? That is the most sluggish piece of bloated software I am forced to use. Itunes' handling of its database of songs and apps is atrocious. I also get lock ups frequently and severe slowdowns where I can't arrange my apps on my iDevice's without waiting like 5-10 mintues. iOS 5 at least releases us from the slug that is iTunes. Granted, I am a power user with multiple iDevices, hundreds of Apps, and thousands of songs. My computer has a quad core processor with 8GB of memory.
Seriously? That is the most sluggish piece of bloated software I am forced to use. Itunes' handling of its database of songs and apps is atrocious. I also get lock ups frequently and severe slowdowns where I can't arrange my apps on my iDevice's without waiting like 5-10 mintues. iOS 5 at least releases us from the slug that is iTunes. Granted, I am a power user with multiple iDevices, hundreds of Apps, and thousands of songs. My computer has a quad core processor with 8GB of memory.
Agreed.
Other stuff:
You can't do a simple sync of just a few new songs. Instead, iTunes goes through all the bullsit, backing up, checking contacts, etc.
And god forbid that you pull the plug in the middle of a sync. Your phone will be thoroughly borked and you will need to wipe the drive and reinstall everything. I have never had any device that needed the drive to be reformatted and the OS reinstalled as much as my iPhone - not even Windows 3.1 running on a '486. Why can't iTunes recover elegantly from such a situation?
How about the checking for "gapless" music business? When you try to add a few gigs of music, you wait and wait and wait.
Then there is the broken album art issue: If you rip a classic album which is out of print, and iTunes supplies the album art, you end up with a motley collection of various Greatest Hits album covers instead of the one correct album cover.
Compilations are handled horribly. You end up with dozens of artists, each with one song, when using the Album view.
Oh - the iTunes library is not dynamic. If you move your stuff to a different directory, it breaks the iTunes library.
Want more? I find iTunes to be miserable, both at the paradigmatic and conceptual level, and in its execution.
BTW, I realize that the solution to most of my issues is "Just don't hold it that way". If I were to have a modest library of music, and if I were to buy everything from Apple, my problems would be fewer. If I were to allow everything to be placed into the iTunes Music directory, my problems would be fewer. If I were to load only a couple of Megs at a time, instead of sometimes loading several Gigs, my problems would be fewer. If I were to do everything only the Apple-prescribed way, instead of doing things the way that make sense for every other purpose I have, my problems with iTunes would be fewer. Unfortunately for me, I don't always think the Apple-prescribed method is optimal, and instead, I think different.
If itunes is a free app(which it has always been), no charge. BUT, if someone buys music via this itunes app, MS could, in the future charge 30% of that( as an in app purchase). Just like Apple wants for subscriptions.
Which they will. MS isn't stupid. This makes sense as a strategy for them. If you can't beat them, eat into their profits. Can't make money in mobile? Sue Android OEMs to get a cut. Can't make money selling music? Demand a 30% cut of every song sold on iTunes on Windows.
Apple will be forced to price up songs or accept almost no profit and hope that most users simply download music without using their iTunes PC app.
Well gee! I did not know infantile people were runnig Microthudd! Hahahahahahahahah
Windows 8 + winthudd 7 = screw the customer again! Oh! And again..and again...and
Not so. The Kindle Reader app is certainly free, but that hasn't stopped Apple from setting up their policies to try to charge Amazon 30% for books purchased through that app. So if Apple brought a Metro version of iTunes out, it would logically follow that Microsoft could charge Apple 30% of all music/video/book purchased through it.
That's a good point but I think Apple has a solution in place with their new re-downloading service of nearly all their content at will. If it's a tablet-based system with no "classic" desktop option you will likely have another machine in which you can buy iTunes content.
They could also create a browser-based solution that will then download from within the native MetroUI-based app after you've made the purchase.
Not so. The Kindle Reader app is certainly free, but that hasn't stopped Apple from setting up their policies to try to charge Amazon 30% for books purchased through that app. So if Apple brought a Metro version of iTunes out, it would logically follow that Microsoft could charge Apple 30% of all music/video/book purchased through it.
I actually think that's a crap policy on Apple's part too - there are legitimate reasons for taking a cut on apps, but if you have something where the content is well known, the distribution mechanism is NOT through Apple's servers, etc., it seems pretty rich to try to enforce the same cut.
The thought had crossed my mind, but in that scenario, Apple probably wouldn't offer iTunes at all on Metro, because Apple has no vested interest in turning Windows 8 tablets into iPods.
OTOH, if Apple is forced to pay this "Metro tax" for content purchased through iTunes, Apple would probably remove the Music Store feature from iTunes and convert it into a HTML-based Web 2.0 application. The iTunes application on Windows would then turn into just a music player and tool for syncing iDevices. Windows 8 users wouldn't be able to buy songs through iTunes.
EDIT: Haha! I didn't see solipsy's post before replying... looks like we're thinking the same thing...
Seriously? That is the most sluggish piece of bloated software I am forced to use. . . .
Agreed. . . You can't do a simple sync . . ., iTunes goes through all the bullsit, backing up, checking contacts, etc. . . Unfortunately for me, I don't always think the Apple-prescribed method is optimal, and instead, I think different.
I agree that there is a time wait to syncing but I sort of expect a huge library of various media might be the cause. Touch wood, I haven't had any problems mentioned though I suspect I have lost some pod castes that I don't think I deleted. The question mark thing used to show up but haven't seen it recently. I haven't noticed any problems with my iPt and I don't have an iPhone.
Just being curious, is there something better elsewhere either for OS/iOS or other for other platforms? I am not being obstinate or argumentative. I'm just curious.
I also would add that I am possibly more patient than many and the slow sync I see as relative. I am also slimming my music down to make selection easier. But I find this in all walks in life. Accumulate and life becomes more of a struggle.
If itunes is a free app(which it has always been), no charge. BUT, if someone buys music via this itunes app, MS could, in the future charge 30% of that( as an in app purchase). Just like Apple wants for subscriptions.
Not much chance of Apple porting iTunes to Metro *. Apple hasn't ported iTunes to Android which, likely, will sell more ARM tablets than Windows 8 ARM tablets...
* especially after Apple repeatedly disallowed PalmOS/WebOS devices to connect or sync to iTunes.
...smoke 'em if you got 'em!
"...apps designed to run on Microsoft's forthcoming Windows 8 for tablets will copy Apple's App Store business model of charging a 30 percent fee..."
Hmmmmm...exactly 30%. Sound familiar?
Apple's "teasing" banners at WWDC 2006 ? plus when (recently departed) Mac OS X lead, Bertrand Serlet, repeated one of the banners when he took to the stage: "Redmond, start you photocopiers" ? all began as just a humorous, innocuous, abstract analogy. (I'm saddened he's gone ? an Apple gem.)
Well, with each passing day, this is changing to become less and less of a risible analogy and more and more a direct statement of fact (and it's not so humorous anymore).
Microsoft builds its Company Stores in very close proximity to Apple Stores on the assumption (by almost everyone) that it's for symbolic reasons (like intimidation), to appear to be still relevant and to appear to be "breathing down Apple's neck."
I'm not so inclined to give Microsoft that much "credit" (if you consider it credit). I'm more inclined to surmise that it is actually a cheap way of benefitting from the very extensive research Apple's retail team does in carefully choosing locations for Apple Stores so that not one has to be shuttered (like every single Gateway store including those at dank strip malls situated right next to a "Dollar Store").
(Ever been in a Microsoft Store? All I can say is "Yawn"; whereas an Apple Store is more fun than a petting zoo.)
Apple buys expensive studies about proposed locations, plus does its own extensive (and expensive) marketing and demographic research and analysis before they carefully decide upon each retail store location. Microsoft can easily benefit from this lengthy, expensive research by simply building Microsoft Stores as close as possible to Apple Stores. And, they have "plausible deniability" by pretending it's only a symbolic move, designed as a conspicuous "show of force" to consumers prepared to switch platforms ? Oh! And to the media. (Microsoft's insanely jealous of all the mainstream media attention Apple and Steve Jobs is getting, whereas Apple is "Insanely Great.")
If true, this borderlines on "infringement" or stealing proprietary corporate Intellectual Property, in this writer's own personal opinion.
It's been widely reported that Microsoft is actively "poaching" highly experienced and highly trained (on Apple's dime) Apple Store employees. While I don't like it, it's a common practice and is legal. BUT! It doesn't end there! It's been reported and is a matter of public record that, after successfully poaching skilled Apple Store employees to a Microsoft Store ('round the corner, probably) the defectors, allured and mesmerized by grossly inflated new salaries (does this mean they're "bought"?) are then pressed to recruit their friends and coworkers from the Apple Stores they defected from! If this isn't illegal under some law, say, antitrust law, it sure is downright sleazy, in my own personal opinion.
And Microsoft's desire to not just be inspired by Apple or influenced by Apple but to "photocopy" Apple is evident in this next piece of probative info: Still more, Microsoft hired the treacherous, self-promoting, in my own personal opinion, Don Norman, the driving force behind Aqua, Mac OS X's Graphical User Interface, when Microsoft was developing Vista.
Unfortunately for him (as things would turn out) he was tasked with "Aqua-fying" Windows Vista ? a product in the good company of New Coke and the Edsel as the greatest, most conspicuous of colossal failures in the annals of product marketing. I haven't checked recently, but enough time has passed that the Vista epic saga may be included, along with the other two, in recent college Marketing textbooks (as a cautionary tale).
(Fortunately, since he "sold his principle-less soul," in my own personal opinion, and left Apple, Mac OS X's Graphical User Interface looks 1,000 x better, IMHO.)
So, when you Google "Don Norman" you'll notice what can only be described as an effort to disassociate himself with Microsoft and the unmitigated flop, Windows Vista, in my own personal opinion.
If he's cornered with the facts interviews, he seemingly goes to great lengths to downplay his involvement with Microsoft, often saying, in so many words, he was merely a consultant of little consequence.
But how would he explain the close resemblance of the Trash icon in Vista to the Trash icon in Aqua/Mac OS X? Only the merest of coincidences, I'm sure.
Microsoft's intent to no less than "photocopy" Apple becomes clearer when you consider the fact that there is an infinite universe of designs possible for a trash icon or wastebasket or "recycle bin" icon. The only limit is the imagination. Oh! There's our answer! Microsoft has no imagination, no taste and is forced to transplant it from Apple.
(Oh! My bad. Microsoft's icon is completely different, as Vista's is a "recycle bin.")
But! Consider the company we're talking about here; they seem to be immune to shame. (With a company founded by someone who still boasts about "dumpster diving" in his youth to steal printouts of code laboriously toiled over by someone else, this should not come as unexpected. And the dumpster diving "point of personal pride" apparently was no mere "isolated incident," but the first known example of pathological thievery, in my own personal opinion, and a corporate culture Microsoft's co-founder inculcated throughout the company. See: What's nicknamed "The San Francisco Canyon" lawsuit. Pay particular attention to the statement "thousands of lines of 'significant programming code' for video acceleration").
As to Microsoft's "photocopied" online "app store," I hope no one from Microsoft reads this, but to "prime the pump" they might want to consider a schedule for reaching 30% over a period. As just one example, for every new app, Microsoft takes 15% for one week (7 day period); 20% after two weeks; 25% after one month; 30% after six weeks and thereafter.
After 30% is reached, nothing would be charged for any of the (sometimes very frequent) free updates and bug fixes to apps, of course, but would apply to sales of new milestone versions that are not free (e.g. "First Person Zombie Shooter II.")
Apple might consider something similar.
That timeworn Marketing phenomenon where shoppers will buy significantly more SKUs of a product priced at 99¢ than the same product priced at $1, has changed little (if at all) over time. Contemporary studies still show that this buyer behavior is just as alive-and-well in 2011 as ever.
I guess "metal" currency is not considered "real money" by consumers, but paper currency is ? even one dollar. This might explain why song purchases on iTunes have dropped since Apple moved to $1.29 per song instead of that magical 99¢.
The "value-added" benefits of the $1.29 versions are triple (at least) than the 99¢ versions, but this seems to be lost on average consumers. (And, being more than 99¢, the 30¢ higher $1.29 is "real money." One would think that it wouldn't make very much of a difference, but many aspects of costumer behavior are inscrutable. We have to live with them and adapt to them.)
The value-added benefits of $1.29 tracks are worth at least triple the value of 99¢ tracks, but the people I know care nothing about (or can't appreciate any palpable difference) between a 128kbps audio file verses even a 320kbps "lossless" audio file. Speaking of "audio files," "audiophiles" can appreciate the difference. : )
Steve Jobs was right (of course) about 99¢ being the "sweet spot," and consumers would much rather own their purchased music than "rent" it from an online music subscription service (no matter how many songs they could "rent"), and of course he was proven right ? yet again <Yawn>.
(I can fully appreciate the $1.29 versions and have always bought those when available. Now, I think the vast majority of "tracks" on iTunes are $1.29 with no other choice.)
If I remember correctly, Apple had to move to $1.29 to keep the record labels happy and prevent them from possibly "pulling out." (If anybody knows the accurate account, please teach me.)
I don't know much about the business relationships between the record labels and Apple/iTunes, but if they would agree, Apple could have two "buy" buttons in iTunes List View: one for the popular (yet crappy, IMHO) 99¢ quality, and, next to it, a second button for the "audiophile" $1.29 version of the same song.
Probably just the opposite.
Volume sales might more than make up for the 30¢ difference. Just ask the world's largest retailer (at last check, anyway, Wal*Mart is the fifth most valuable company in the world...after AAPL rained on their parade. Wal*Mart has been #1 and #2 in the past) who achieved their lofty "perch" not by maximizing profit margins, but by making them impossibly slight and selling cheap products in volumes that boggle the mind.
Wal*Mart is so powerful in fact, that they can "blackmail," in my own personal opinion, food companies into changing their ingredients!, like lowering trans fats or sugar content or else it's "bye, bye shelf space." (Sending chills up product makers' spines.)
Michelle Obama got on Wal*Mart's case, prompting them to start doing this. Speaking personally, it's been reported that Wal*Mart plans to pressure Kraft/Nabisco to cut the amount of sugar or HFCS in many of its products including my favorite cookie, Oreos!
You can do almost anything you want to me, but DON'T %#&$ with my Oreos!
(BTW, the four-letter-word was "mess.")
I don't care if it's "low-brow"; I make it no secret that Oreos are my favorite cookie!
But, back on track, 99¢ x Volume might exceed revenues and profits of $1.29 x Volume.
Apple could very easily market test this.
The "photocopying" has grown so audacious that the lit signs over the entrance of every Microsoft retail store contain no words, no letters (I hope they didn't spend too much on that rope line), just a symbol or "logo," (if it even qualifies). But it is only the merest of coincidences ("But we didn't have room!") that Apple Store signs also contain no words, no letters, just a monochromatic logo ? except it's a shape of an object that dates back at least to The Garden of Eden (B.C.) and is instantly recognized in any language and in any country on Earth.
I have a sneaking suspicion this variation of the Windows logo will become the logo for the whole company, to "communicate" "Microsoft" without using letters or words. They may even use it alone, without the word "Microsoft"....almost...like the way Apple's brand "name" is actually a silhouetted shape with no letters or words! But, OH!, how it communicates!
You'd sooner recognize something meaningful in a Jackson Pollock painting or a Rorschach ink blot than Microsoft's new...thing.
Curious: This and this...IDK???
Oh, I'm not suggesting Microsoft is SO stupid as to ditch the "Microsoft" brand name, recognized by billions the world over, costing billions to promote, and is an intangible asset worth billions.
I'm suggesting that the letters M-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t and the word they comprise might now be communicated via a logo or symbol (Mmmmmm?...kind of like Apple?). The problem for them is that the symbol is abstract and doesn't communicate the word "Microsoft" at all! And necessarily colored, the logo cannot be rendered as a silhouette (unless a perfect square is expected to stand for "Microsoft")
"Artist" Prince already tried this, but gave up when his efforts didn't work ("were an abject failure" is more precise) and even became a widespread topic of ridicule and mockery. Hey Monkey Boy, you really need to consult Prince ASAP!
IBM's venerable logo was designed by the amazing, legendary Paul Rand, graphic designer of hundreds of works including the logos of NeXT, American Express, Westinghouse, ABC (TV), UPS, Walt Disney Pictures and countless others, and was even the photographic subject of an Apple "Think Different" ad and poster (a high honor in my book), AND was lauded by Steve Jobs (so any of you who think Steve Jobs is all arrogance and no humility, Think Different).
Uh-oh, could this one by Paul Rand have inspired the original iPod's iconic design? IDK, but I doubt it. (Just funnin'.)
The late Paul Rand's IBM logo with its unique vertical black (or empty) stripes across each letter is so widely recognized that it has been shown that people don't see three letters and read them; they see one iconic logo that stands for "IBM," paying no attention to the individual letters.
This is not unlike when you see a stop sign. Do you read the letters S-T-O-P, or do you recognize it in a gestalt fashion, taking in the octagonal shape, its reflective "Fire Engine Red" color, and white capital letters you no longer consciously read?
And, Uh-oh, Could THIS ? released in 1982, discontinued in 1984 ? have inspired the ID of the original Macintosh? IDK, but it was a great Industrial Design, and I'm fine with Apple taking cues from it (if they did).
I don't think Apple did, but if they took any cues from the Vectrex, it only inspired them, and there's nothing wrong with that. The original Mac is a very different looking machine.
Drawing inspiration from talented people and their works was absolutely essential in creating some of histories greatest artists, thinkers and inventors. Would there have been a Plato had there been no Socrates? What's not OK is brazen plagiarism ? or "photocopying."
Nike's original logo was a stylized presentation of their spelled-out name. Nike's "swoosh" logo was designed by college student, Carolyn Davidson, for $2/hour or a total of $35.
But, unlike Microsoft (or Prince), Nike took a prudent approach. After the "swoosh" was designed, Nike continued to use their textual brand name/logo with the "swoosh" symbol below it. This associated the word and brand "Nike" with the new symbol. Then Nike weaned consumers off their logo "in letters" and on to the "swoosh" logo alone.
Yet the abstract "swoosh," or whatever you want to call it, is problematic.
Even internally, Nike employees refer to it as either "The Swoosh" or "The Wing" (I guess we were all supposed to know it represents a wing of the winged Greek goddess for victory, "Nike"). It is abstract, but is very successful at invoking the Nike brand without letters or words (after a lot of money was spent to achieve this).
Target has taken a similar approach, using its "wordless" brand logo. But their logo resembles its own name, like Apple's.
Yet, if you were to take Apple's silhouette logo and Nike's to a place in the world where people aren't aware of Nike and showed people both logos, my money's on them identifying Apple's logo that stands for an object with a name, not Nike's logo. (I can picture people squinting at the Nike logo, turning it sideways and upside down before they finally give up.)
But you get an A for effort, Microsoft. Good luck. Seriously.
Monkey see monkey do. Damn Apple, why is it so successful? It must be because they charge 30% in their app store! We got to do the same!
Creepy. Next Microsoft will announce a new spaceship-like campus for Redmond.
Creepy. Next Microsoft will announce a new spaceship-like campus for Redmond.
Just so long as they don't announce a rectangular building with rounded corners.
The thought had crossed my mind, but in that scenario, Apple probably wouldn't offer iTunes at all on Metro, because Apple has no vested interest in turning Windows 8 tablets into iPods.
OTOH, if Apple is forced to pay this "Metro tax" for content purchased through iTunes, Apple would probably remove the Music Store feature from iTunes and convert it into a HTML-based Web 2.0 application. The iTunes application on Windows would then turn into just a music player and tool for syncing iDevices. Windows 8 users wouldn't be able to buy songs through iTunes.
EDIT: Haha! I didn't see solipsy's post before replying... looks like we're thinking the same thing...
Agreed with you and solipsism that Apple would never actually go for giving MS a 30% cut if they did decide to do a Metro version of iTunes (and also that doing streaming and NOT offering purchase through a Metro iTunes is a work-around), but the entire 30% cut of content sold through apps just seems pretty dubious when the same content can be sold through a web page or other avenue as well, doesn't use the OS providers distribution mechanisms, etc. Seems like an overreach.
The Kindle app is just another route to get a book (or was, anyway) outside of the Amazon web store or their own Kindle reader devices, so Apple screwing them because they are competing on book sales is just a pile of crap. How about offer at least a comparable price, equivalent selection, and allow your own books to work on multiple platforms? As it stands, I can but a Kindle book generally for less, use it on the Kindle, computer, or iPad, and find a lot of stuff that just isn't available on iBooks. Doing a 30% content charge to try to prevent people from finding the better priced stuff is just lame.
DED is a effing loon of the first order and publishing his trash makes AI look lame.
No, actually the article says that there WILL be x86 tablets released: "While PC makers can continue to sell x86 tablets, these devices, ranging from Tablet PC to UMPCs to Slate PC to convertible notebooks with tablet features, have never sold well in the past due to their performance and efficiency compromises and their significant cost premium over modern ARM tablets."
But what if Windows 8 actually runs WELL on x86 hardware? It runs remarkably on the dev preview tablets out in the wild, and those are only prototypes.
And according to Renee James from Intel, "[Windows 8 traditional] means that our customers, or anyone who has an Intel-based or an x86-based product, will be able to run either Windows 7 mode or Windows 8 mode," she said. "They'll run all of their old applications, all of their old files ? there'll be no issue."
So Intel, which is the King of chip makers is going nuts right now trying to shrink some form of x86 down to compete with ARM. I think for tablets this time next year they will be there. There whole "thin and light" stuff is pretty good now. They 1-2 revs coming out before Windows 8. This time next year, Windows 8 tablets on Intel's latest x86 chip for tablets = ability to run most x86 apps.
The line is going to blur between quad core ARM chips and Intel's latest attempt to shrink, the deciding factor may just be the many thousands of x86 apps out there now.
For consumer PCs, Windows 8 will ship as essentially Windows 7 overlaid with a new layer of Metro animated graphics capable of running new Metro apps. On standard x86 PCs, this will allow users to run both existing Windows apps as well as downloading new Metro apps from Microsoft's new Windows 8 app market.
The 'Metro' interface is not an overlay. It is the new shell (though I think the process name is still labeled as "explorer.exe"). The classic UI (in my mind) is the new Program Manager. It's also technically an app since it's not loaded by default. Also I'm betting (judging from some leaked build shots) that the standard shell will get an update (for example a Jensen Harris presentation at BUILD showed a different taskbar style).
So the Metro UI is actually just a layer. What happened to the classic desktop won't load if the user don't want it?!
Wrong, it's the new shell. If you read a post on the "Building Windows 8" blog authored by Steven Sinofsky, he states that the classic desktop is like an app and will only load when needed by the user.