Apple releases iTunes 10.5.3 with iBooks 2 textbook syncing

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014


iTunes 10.5.3 was released by Apple on Thursday, bringing support for the new iBooks 2 application for iOS and allowing users to sync their textbook purchases.



The new version of iTunes is available for download direct from Apple. It is a 102.15MB installer for Mac OS X, 66.11MB for Windows 32-bit, and 67.98MB for Windows 64-bit.



"iTunes 10.5.3 allows you to sync interactive textbooks to your iPad," Apple's description reads. "These Multi-Touch textbooks are available for purchase from the iTunes Store on your Mac or from the iBookstore included with iBooks 2 on your iPad."



The release of iTunes 10.5.3 comes as Apple on Thursday launched the new iBooks 2 for iPad. The major focus of iBooks 2 are new digital titles for education that Apple hopes will reinvent the textbook.



Apple's e-textbooks are much less expensive than their paper-based counterparts, priced at $14.99 or less from major publishers like McGraw Hill, Pearson, and DK Publishing. The digital titles are interactive and allow students and teachers new functionality like videos, slideshows and multiple-choice quizzes.











The creation of iBooks for iPad has also been greatly simplified with Apple's new iBooks Author tool for Mac OS X. The new, free software available on the Mac App Store can take a file like a Word document and turn it into text formatted for iBooks 2.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    Does anyone have any idea why the OS X installation is twice as large as the windows versions?
  • Reply 2 of 31
    It's a Universal Binary. The OS X version supports two processor architectures: x86 (Intel) and PowerPC.
  • Reply 3 of 31
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rare comment View Post


    Does anyone have any idea why the OS X installation is twice as large as the windows versions?



    iTunes is still a fat binary since it has to support PPC.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rare comment View Post


    Does anyone have any idea why the OS X installation is twice as large as the windows versions?



    Obligatory unnecessary bloat. I mean, we can't have those thumbnails actually load properly, now can we? Nope, we have to have the user scroll past every single one of them before they actually load.
  • Reply 5 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    It's a Universal Binary. The OS X version supports two processor architectures: x86 (Intel) and PowerPC.



    one would think that this could be addressed by downloading only the necessary binary - especially if running snow leopard or lion given that they don't even support ppc.
  • Reply 6 of 31
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,462member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rare comment View Post


    one would think that this could be addressed by downloading only the necessary binary - especially if running snow leopard or lion given that they don't even support ppc.



    ^ This.



    G4 and G5 support still lives in iTunes.
  • Reply 7 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


    ^ This.



    G4 and G5 support still lives in iTunes.



    What we need is a true iTunes redesign for iTunes 11 in the spirit of iMovie '08, QuickTime X, and Final Cut Pro X. Then we can finally drop PowerPC support entirely.
  • Reply 8 of 31
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    It's a Universal Binary. The OS X version supports two processor architectures: x86 (Intel) and PowerPC.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    iTunes is still a fat binary since it has to support PPC.



    But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison. I bet supporting SL and Lion features accounts for more of a difference. Overall I think the Mac app is bigger because it's bigger*.





    * Meaningless tautology for the win.
  • Reply 9 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    What we need is a true iTunes redesign for iTunes 11 in the spirit of iMovie '08, QuickTime X, and Final Cut Pro X. Then we can finally drop PowerPC support entirely.



    Well I doubt that will happen--unfortunetely, because they won't do what they probably should do. i.e. split iTunes into smaller apps ala iOS (except for movies, and then add DVD support to iTunes), stick all apps in the appstore, and sync everything with a dedicated syncing app.



    Because they must support Windows machines, it's easier to write one program that syncs almost anything.



    Though if we are talking about hypothetical re-writes, I have another to add to the list: Why doesn't itunes store its various media types in the dedicated folders in the home directory? This seems like a no-brainer.....
  • Reply 10 of 31
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison.



    Actually they do roughly double the size of an app.



    Nothing can be shared between the two binaries because PowerPC and Intel use completely different CPU instruction sets (which is what application binaries are composed of), so you have two entirely unique binaries. The size of each may not be exactly the same, but it's usually pretty close.



    Sorry, just to be clear, you can share image files (resources) between the two binaries, but it's usually the executable itself which is the largest part (especially in something as big as iTunes).
  • Reply 11 of 31
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Now let's get to my beef: why can't books in iBooks be read on Mac OS X? Is this going to change now that textbooks have been added?



    Frustrating to say the least...
  • Reply 12 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    Now let's get to my beef: why can't books in iBooks be read on Mac OS X? Is this going to change now that textbooks have been added?



    What does this have to do with iTunes? I don't want to see people threadjacking with this for the next few months.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    diddydiddy Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    Is this going to change now that textbooks have been added?



    Frustrating to say the least...



    No, that would require a Mac OS app. Apple doesn't seem interested with desktop ebook readers.
  • Reply 14 of 31
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    Actually they do roughly double the size of an app.



    Nothing can be shared between the two binaries because PowerPC and Intel use completely different CPU instruction sets (which is what application binaries are composed of), so you have two entirely unique binaries. The size of each may not be exactly the same, but it's usually pretty close.



    Sorry, just to be clear, you can share image files (resources) between the two binaries, but it's usually the executable itself which is the largest part (especially in something as big as iTunes).



    1) You say that it double double the app and nothing is shared but then do state what I stated.



    2) iTunes 10.5.2 is 185MB. The executable is only 56MB, less than 1/3 of the total file size. The resources folder containing images and localizations is 114MB, over double the size of the executable. Now if you remove the PPC code you end up with a executable about 1/2 the size as it was, but you only reduce your 185MB iTunes app by about 23MB. That is NOT half the size of the app. That is NOT the largest part of the app. You can't just exclude all parts of the app that are not the executable if they are in the .app package. They are part of the app!
  • Reply 15 of 31
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    What does this have to do with iTunes? I don't want to see people threadjacking with this for the next few months.



    This thread has to do with iBooks syncing in iTunes. How is asking a question as to why I can't read my books on my Mac (synced via iTunes) not relevant to that topic?
  • Reply 16 of 31
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    1) You say that it double double the app and nothing is shared but then do state what I stated.



    You weren't clear about the difference between executable code and images. I was clarifying that (and thinking aloud as I went).



    Quote:

    2) iTunes 10.5.2 is 185MB. The executable is only 56MB, less than 1/3 of the total file size. The resources folder containing images and localizations is 114MB, over double the size of the executable. Now if you remove the PPC code you end up with a executable about 1/2 the size as it was, but you only reduce your 185MB iTunes app by about 23MB. That is NOT half the size of the app. That is NOT the largest part of the app. You can't just exclude all parts of the app that are not the executable if they are in the .app package. They are part of the app!



    I hadn't had a chance to open up the installer to see what it contained yet, so I was going off of my typical experience where the binary parts (main executable + utility programs) are usually bigger than the images and other resources (NIB files and whatnot). I guess iTunes is different.



    I'd assume that the Windows version would need the same images, so then I have no idea why the Mac version is twice the size. More localizations? More functionality (which requires more images)? Higher res images?
  • Reply 17 of 31
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    You weren't clear about the difference between executable code and images. I was clarifying that (and thinking aloud as I went).



    I clearly compared the sizes of the binaries to the app. App encompasses everything within the app, which often seems to be a lot of extras that really don't need to be included.
  • Reply 18 of 31
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I clearly compared the sizes of the binaries to the app. App encompasses everything within the app, which often seems to be a lot of extras that really don't need to be included.



    This is what you originally stated:



    "But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison."



    In comparison to what? Humpback whales? Clearly.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    This is what you originally stated:



    "But the binaries don't double up the size of the app. They are quite small in comparison."



    In comparison to what? Humpback whales? Clearly.



    Why is this so hard? In comparison to the size of the APP. I even went to the trouble of detailing the size of the app and various components in an earlier reply to you and you're saying you have no idea that I was comparing the size of the binaries to the app yet you failed to note that you didn't understand that earlier???
  • Reply 20 of 31
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Why is this so hard? In comparison to the size of the APP. I even went to the trouble of detailing the size of the app and various components in an earlier reply to you and you're saying you have no idea that I was comparing the size of the binaries to the app yet you failed to note that you didn't understand that earlier???



    I'm pointing out what was said in your very first post, which is what I originally responded to with details about the difference between binary files and images. After which you detailed all of the components of the application bundle, and derided me for not somehow seeing that was in your mind when you made the first post.



    If you would have posted those details in the first place, I would have accepted your argument and not bothered to clarify anything. But instead I now find myself battling revisionist history...



    (Edit: the miscommunication here is over the term 'app', which I interpret as 'application', or any piece of software which can be run. There are plenty of 'apps' on Mac OS X which don't have 'application bundles'. That's why the comparison of the binary to the 'app' wasn't the same in my mind.)
Sign In or Register to comment.