Well, it should be obvious. But if it isn't, I'll indulge...
Suggesting that because an email application displays graphics in an email message is really not a valid argument that the email program is a "multi-function" application. It is still single function in the sense that it is displaying the contents of an email message (text, formatted or not, images, etc.) No matter how far you torture or stretch the definition of "multi-function" it doesn't stand up to the "giggle test".
I'd argue that iTunes showing videos (as someone else weakly used in this or another thread) is only a marginally better example of "multi-function" application design. And I am being generous.
What is meant here is something like Outlook which supports (in a tightly integrated fashion) the following major user functions/tasks:
- email
- todo list
- calendar/scheduling
- notes/stickies
- file management
- contact management
- journaling
(and probably more that I don't even know about)
Or perhaps the popular "works" application (Apple or Microsoft):
- word processing
- drawing
- presentation
- painting
- spreadsheet
- database
All tightly integrated as a single application.
There are a multitude of arguments against the integrated approach (and certainly some arguments in favor of it). Chief among these might be:
- ability (theoretically anyway) to utilize "best of breed" for each function. Plug and play at the high level function. Use the best calendar, address book, email application and let them all integrate with one another using (hopefully) open standards and well-defined APIs.
- ability for some application function to be leveraged and used by more than the application it is integrated with (e.g., the word processor using the address book application for mail merging, Delicious Library using both the address book and calendar application, etc.)
- allowing each application to have a user interface (and preferences interface...Outlook it utterly pathetic in this regard) that are optimized for its primary function (e.g., calendar, address book, etc.)
These are not certainly ironclad reasons, but a good start at least. In fact these three are good enough for me.
Additionally, there is actually a whole other underlying application/service/data/API architecture philosophy at play here. One which (it appears) Apple has (mostly) embraced (and have since they were NeXT), which involves underlying data stores, service APIs for access to the data, and a so-called "thin UI" on top of it all...which all enables other client applications (e.g., Mail, iCal, Delicious Library, Address Book widget, etc.) to utilize Address Book (for example) services/data without even launching the "application".
Good.. the beginnings of an intelligent response. Perhaps i should have used calendar as an example?. Open calendar, set up an appointment, then select attendees from your address book, then click on the word "attendees" and click send invitation from the popup menu..viola, it sends it via mail. Is that multipurpose?.. Does the fact that calendar interacts with mail make it multipurpose?... are we objecting to the fact that outlook allows you to directly go to calendar rather than having a calendar application that can access mail?. Isn't this like the kettle arguing with the pot who is blacker?. What about the services menu of mail?. Any developer can choose to have his application be on the services menu. Is that any different from outlook?. The services menu of my mail app has caboodle.. what does that have to do with mail?. Also my services menu has an option labelled "Make sticky notes". Yes, outlook has stuff tightly integrated while with mail, it is loosely integrated. Both microsoft and apple took the same approach, albeit differently. Microsoft decides to integrate functions for you, apple allows other developers to do so (stickies was definetly not there when i initially got my computer.. i downloaded a stickies app that decided to make itself a service to the mail app, same with caboodle). Now we are getting into minuatae.. the paths may be different but the end result is the same.. you can choose to have a mail app that only sends mail or you can choose to have it do lots of things while microsoft has choosen for you. I like the apple way (i can pick and choose) but i think at the end of the day, we are merely arguing about methodology (tight intergratin vs loose integration).
BTW, calendar launches the address book.. i was not able to make it utilize address book without launching the application. Also when sending mail from within ical, it opens the mail application before sending the mail. So i guess apple is not taking advantage of your last point about accessing the underlying api of other services without launching their applications. Too bad huh?.
are we objecting to the fact that outlook allows you to directly go to calendar rather than having a calendar application that can access mail?. Isn't this like the kettle arguing with the pot who is blacker?
No. No.
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
What about the services menu of mail?. Any developer can choose to have his application be on the services menu. Is that any different from outlook?.
In my view, yes. Applications expose services (through the Services menu) to other applications based on clip/paste board data types. It is a very loosely coupled model. It works pretty well too.
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
Both microsoft and apple took the same approach, albeit differently.
Both Microsoft and Apple took the same approach but not the same approach?
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
Now we are getting into minuatae.. the paths may be different but the end result is the same.. you can choose to have a mail app that only sends mail or you can choose to have it do lots of things while microsoft has choosen for you.
I don't think it is minuatae, but whatever.
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
but i think at the end of the day, we are merely arguing about methodology (tight intergratin vs loose integration).
And philosophy.
But these different philosophies have affects on usability, choice, etc. too. I prefer the Apple approach (and loathe the Microsoft approach)...and I use both every single day.
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
BTW, calendar launches the address book.. i was not able to make it utilize address book without launching the application. Also when sending mail from within ical, it opens the mail application before sending the mail. So i guess apple is not taking advantage of your last point about accessing the underlying api of other services without launching their applications. Too bad huh?.
I guess I was wrong about those two examples (though Address Book doesn't appear to launch for me from iCal). And it is too bad, yes. I don't claim that Apple has is all right (yet). But the other examples (I believe) hold true (Delicious Library's use of iCal and Address Book, and the Address Book widget's use of Address Book). However, I could be wrong since I always has all these applications running anyway (making the whole, "Gee, now I have to launch another application if I want to use my calendar" argument moot).
Good.. the beginnings of an intelligent response. Perhaps i should have used calendar as an example?. Open calendar, set up an appointment, then select attendees from your address book, then click on the word "attendees" and click send invitation from the popup menu..viola, it sends it via mail. Is that multipurpose?.. Does the fact that calendar interacts with mail make it multipurpose?... are we objecting to the fact that outlook allows you to directly go to calendar rather than having a calendar application that can access mail?. Isn't this like the kettle arguing with the pot who is blacker?. What about the services menu of mail?. Any developer can choose to have his application be on the services menu. Is that any different from outlook?. The services menu of my mail app has caboodle.. what does that have to do with mail?. Also my services menu has an option labelled "Make sticky notes". Yes, outlook has stuff tightly integrated while with mail, it is loosely integrated. Both microsoft and apple took the same approach, albeit differently. Microsoft decides to integrate functions for you, apple allows other developers to do so (stickies was definetly not there when i initially got my computer.. i downloaded a stickies app that decided to make itself a service to the mail app, same with caboodle). Now we are getting into minuatae.. the paths may be different but the end result is the same.. you can choose to have a mail app that only sends mail or you can choose to have it do lots of things while microsoft has choosen for you. I like the apple way (i can pick and choose) but i think at the end of the day, we are merely arguing about methodology (tight intergratin vs loose integration).
I think you're missing the point. It isn't about integration into an app as much as it is about ease of use and UI. Separate apps allow you to have very clean and easy interfaces. When you need the a certain function you open the app that is appropriate and because it is a specialised app it generally has a much easier learning curve.
Furthermore Apple's approach doesn't specifically insist you choose one vendor for all my needs. I can pick whatever is the most suitable. If I want to change my app down the line in theory I don't need to reenter a pile of data because one stored it all in proprietary databases, as entourage does on the Mac.
By your line of reasoning why not just buy an OS and have it do everything for you? It could be this single window with a billion tabs to cycle through for all the different functions. There's a reason they don't do that and a reason you don't want to add too many functions to apps unless they are core.
Microsoft chooses to lock you into their services, Apple lets you have options, normally. Apple can be just as bad as Microsoft at times if they feel it'll help their bottom line. The problem really comes down to most vendors don't want to use open file formats though. Not enough control and too easy for customers to get away.
I'd argue that iTunes showing videos (as someone else weakly used in this or another thread) is only a marginally better example of "multi-function" application design. And I am being generous.
You can be generous all you want, but you're not right. iTunes does a *lot* of things which are not necessarily related to its name or its original function.
1. It organizes music.
2. It organizes video.
3. It creates Audio CDs.
4. It has a music store built-in.
5. It allows you to listen to radio.
6. It has podcasts.
7. It syncs your iPod with music.
8. It syncs your iPod with video.
9. It syncs your iPod with pictures.
10. It allows you to play videos.
iTunes *grew* into being what it is now; and that's all because the iPod phenomenon dictated that it become the front-end to iPod wether that means music, videos, radio, pictures, or whatever.
iTunes is the WMP of the Mac. And that's a multi-purpose application. It serves a lot of needs: music, video, iPod syncinc, radio stations, music store, etc.
A single-purpose application would only allow you to play music and possibly sync your portable media player. I don't even think there's such an application out there anymore, with the possible exception of Muine for GNOME.
You can be generous all you want, but you're not right. iTunes does a *lot* of things which are not necessarily related to its name or its original function.
1. It organizes music.
2. It organizes video.
3. It creates Audio CDs.
4. It has a music store built-in.
5. It allows you to listen to radio.
6. It has podcasts.
7. It syncs your iPod with music.
8. It syncs your iPod with video.
9. It syncs your iPod with pictures.
10. It allows you to play videos.
iTunes *grew* into being what it is now; and that's all because the iPod phenomenon dictated that it become the front-end to iPod wether that means music, videos, radio, pictures, or whatever.
iTunes is the WMP of the Mac. And that's a multi-purpose application. It serves a lot of needs: music, video, iPod syncinc, radio stations, music store, etc.
A single-purpose application would only allow you to play music and possibly sync your portable media player. I don't even think there's such an application out there anymore, with the possible exception of Muine for GNOME.
It certainly has seen some "feature creep"...but in fairness your list carves things a little too finely (and I think the "single purpose" definition is a tad narrow...we are talking about logical groupings of tasks/functions). My list would be:
1. Music/audio jukebox (organization, ripping, playing, burning, radio, podcasts, music store front) -- all of these items are a reasonably logical grouping of functions
2. Video "jukebox"
3. Syncing
And iTunes could certainly use some "cleanup" (and we may yet see this in the future). But I'd still argue is way less than Outlook and/or the "works" applications.
( P.S. I know you'll "prove" me wrong in your next post. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. IMO iTunes is just not the best example of the Swiss Army Knife(tm) school of software design. )
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. Don't win any Disney Dollars doing that one.
But iTunes sure is one multi-purpose app. You forgot that it's also a front end to iTMS, which, in and of itself, is the purpose of this app as far as groupings go. Then you have organizing and such. So we have organization, burning, radio, music store, and syncing. That sounds like 5 things at the very least.
Some of the most (arguably) popular pieces of software are multi-purpose apps. Wether that's due to the fact that they perform several functions within one GUI or not, is, of course, a completely different matter, but I found it interesing when I thought about it.
A single-purpose application would only allow you to play music and possibly sync your portable media player.
I think that's the one thing iTunes *shouldn't* do. The syncing should be in iSync. iTunes should call up iSync to do it's syncing. Or you should be able to just use iSync to sync your iPod. iTunes currently syncs your addressbook, calendar and photos, which whilst convenient is at odds with having to use iSync to do the same on other devices like Palms and phones. Even more odd since they fecked up the sync toolbar icon in Tiger so it doesn't sync unless you've got iSync open already.
As to organising podcasts, radio, music, audible books and video and access to the store, it's fine all in one place. It's just the 'iTunes' name that's wrong now.
You can see why they've done it though. It's all a big cludgy compromise to sell iPods on Windows without having to port other apps to it. On the downside, it's meant iTunes on the Mac has become one of the worst, most out of date apps in the iLife suite.
I personaly thing that iWork is the second biggest competitor. Let me explain.
iWork is Apple's little experiment nest egg. If you look at the evolution pattern of iLife, you will see iLife started out almost compareably feature-lame, and expanded into a very powerful peice of software. iWork is still a 2nd Gen Suite, and Apple is not expecting right now to get a big return on it. First, if MS stops MS Office for Mac, Apple has a well developed and slightly distrubuted replacement. Second, if Apple does add the full, less template oriented option in iWork this will make it what MS office is and with the beautiful templtes a whole lot more.
Comments
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, it should be obvious. But if it isn't, I'll indulge...
Suggesting that because an email application displays graphics in an email message is really not a valid argument that the email program is a "multi-function" application. It is still single function in the sense that it is displaying the contents of an email message (text, formatted or not, images, etc.) No matter how far you torture or stretch the definition of "multi-function" it doesn't stand up to the "giggle test".
I'd argue that iTunes showing videos (as someone else weakly used in this or another thread) is only a marginally better example of "multi-function" application design. And I am being generous.
What is meant here is something like Outlook which supports (in a tightly integrated fashion) the following major user functions/tasks:
- email
- todo list
- calendar/scheduling
- notes/stickies
- file management
- contact management
- journaling
(and probably more that I don't even know about)
Or perhaps the popular "works" application (Apple or Microsoft):
- word processing
- drawing
- presentation
- painting
- spreadsheet
- database
All tightly integrated as a single application.
There are a multitude of arguments against the integrated approach (and certainly some arguments in favor of it). Chief among these might be:
- ability (theoretically anyway) to utilize "best of breed" for each function. Plug and play at the high level function. Use the best calendar, address book, email application and let them all integrate with one another using (hopefully) open standards and well-defined APIs.
- ability for some application function to be leveraged and used by more than the application it is integrated with (e.g., the word processor using the address book application for mail merging, Delicious Library using both the address book and calendar application, etc.)
- allowing each application to have a user interface (and preferences interface...Outlook it utterly pathetic in this regard) that are optimized for its primary function (e.g., calendar, address book, etc.)
These are not certainly ironclad reasons, but a good start at least. In fact these three are good enough for me.
Additionally, there is actually a whole other underlying application/service/data/API architecture philosophy at play here. One which (it appears) Apple has (mostly) embraced (and have since they were NeXT), which involves underlying data stores, service APIs for access to the data, and a so-called "thin UI" on top of it all...which all enables other client applications (e.g., Mail, iCal, Delicious Library, Address Book widget, etc.) to utilize Address Book (for example) services/data without even launching the "application".
Good.. the beginnings of an intelligent response. Perhaps i should have used calendar as an example?. Open calendar, set up an appointment, then select attendees from your address book, then click on the word "attendees" and click send invitation from the popup menu..viola, it sends it via mail. Is that multipurpose?.. Does the fact that calendar interacts with mail make it multipurpose?... are we objecting to the fact that outlook allows you to directly go to calendar rather than having a calendar application that can access mail?. Isn't this like the kettle arguing with the pot who is blacker?. What about the services menu of mail?. Any developer can choose to have his application be on the services menu. Is that any different from outlook?. The services menu of my mail app has caboodle.. what does that have to do with mail?. Also my services menu has an option labelled "Make sticky notes". Yes, outlook has stuff tightly integrated while with mail, it is loosely integrated. Both microsoft and apple took the same approach, albeit differently. Microsoft decides to integrate functions for you, apple allows other developers to do so (stickies was definetly not there when i initially got my computer.. i downloaded a stickies app that decided to make itself a service to the mail app, same with caboodle). Now we are getting into minuatae.. the paths may be different but the end result is the same.. you can choose to have a mail app that only sends mail or you can choose to have it do lots of things while microsoft has choosen for you. I like the apple way (i can pick and choose) but i think at the end of the day, we are merely arguing about methodology (tight intergratin vs loose integration).
BTW, calendar launches the address book.. i was not able to make it utilize address book without launching the application. Also when sending mail from within ical, it opens the mail application before sending the mail. So i guess apple is not taking advantage of your last point about accessing the underlying api of other services without launching their applications. Too bad huh?.
Originally posted by wnurse
Good.. the beginnings of an intelligent response.
Try to not be a prick.
Originally posted by wnurse
are we objecting to the fact that outlook allows you to directly go to calendar rather than having a calendar application that can access mail?. Isn't this like the kettle arguing with the pot who is blacker?
No. No.
Originally posted by wnurse
What about the services menu of mail?. Any developer can choose to have his application be on the services menu. Is that any different from outlook?.
In my view, yes. Applications expose services (through the Services menu) to other applications based on clip/paste board data types. It is a very loosely coupled model. It works pretty well too.
Originally posted by wnurse
Both microsoft and apple took the same approach, albeit differently.
Both Microsoft and Apple took the same approach but not the same approach?
Originally posted by wnurse
Now we are getting into minuatae.. the paths may be different but the end result is the same.. you can choose to have a mail app that only sends mail or you can choose to have it do lots of things while microsoft has choosen for you.
I don't think it is minuatae, but whatever.
Originally posted by wnurse
but i think at the end of the day, we are merely arguing about methodology (tight intergratin vs loose integration).
And philosophy.
But these different philosophies have affects on usability, choice, etc. too. I prefer the Apple approach (and loathe the Microsoft approach)...and I use both every single day.
Originally posted by wnurse
BTW, calendar launches the address book.. i was not able to make it utilize address book without launching the application. Also when sending mail from within ical, it opens the mail application before sending the mail. So i guess apple is not taking advantage of your last point about accessing the underlying api of other services without launching their applications. Too bad huh?.
I guess I was wrong about those two examples (though Address Book doesn't appear to launch for me from iCal). And it is too bad, yes. I don't claim that Apple has is all right (yet). But the other examples (I believe) hold true (Delicious Library's use of iCal and Address Book, and the Address Book widget's use of Address Book). However, I could be wrong since I always has all these applications running anyway (making the whole, "Gee, now I have to launch another application if I want to use my calendar" argument moot).
Originally posted by wnurse
Good.. the beginnings of an intelligent response. Perhaps i should have used calendar as an example?. Open calendar, set up an appointment, then select attendees from your address book, then click on the word "attendees" and click send invitation from the popup menu..viola, it sends it via mail. Is that multipurpose?.. Does the fact that calendar interacts with mail make it multipurpose?... are we objecting to the fact that outlook allows you to directly go to calendar rather than having a calendar application that can access mail?. Isn't this like the kettle arguing with the pot who is blacker?. What about the services menu of mail?. Any developer can choose to have his application be on the services menu. Is that any different from outlook?. The services menu of my mail app has caboodle.. what does that have to do with mail?. Also my services menu has an option labelled "Make sticky notes". Yes, outlook has stuff tightly integrated while with mail, it is loosely integrated. Both microsoft and apple took the same approach, albeit differently. Microsoft decides to integrate functions for you, apple allows other developers to do so (stickies was definetly not there when i initially got my computer.. i downloaded a stickies app that decided to make itself a service to the mail app, same with caboodle). Now we are getting into minuatae.. the paths may be different but the end result is the same.. you can choose to have a mail app that only sends mail or you can choose to have it do lots of things while microsoft has choosen for you. I like the apple way (i can pick and choose) but i think at the end of the day, we are merely arguing about methodology (tight intergratin vs loose integration).
I think you're missing the point. It isn't about integration into an app as much as it is about ease of use and UI. Separate apps allow you to have very clean and easy interfaces. When you need the a certain function you open the app that is appropriate and because it is a specialised app it generally has a much easier learning curve.
Furthermore Apple's approach doesn't specifically insist you choose one vendor for all my needs. I can pick whatever is the most suitable. If I want to change my app down the line in theory I don't need to reenter a pile of data because one stored it all in proprietary databases, as entourage does on the Mac.
By your line of reasoning why not just buy an OS and have it do everything for you? It could be this single window with a billion tabs to cycle through for all the different functions. There's a reason they don't do that and a reason you don't want to add too many functions to apps unless they are core.
Microsoft chooses to lock you into their services, Apple lets you have options, normally. Apple can be just as bad as Microsoft at times if they feel it'll help their bottom line. The problem really comes down to most vendors don't want to use open file formats though. Not enough control and too easy for customers to get away.
Finally paragraphs are a beautiful thing.
I'd argue that iTunes showing videos (as someone else weakly used in this or another thread) is only a marginally better example of "multi-function" application design. And I am being generous.
You can be generous all you want, but you're not right. iTunes does a *lot* of things which are not necessarily related to its name or its original function.
1. It organizes music.
2. It organizes video.
3. It creates Audio CDs.
4. It has a music store built-in.
5. It allows you to listen to radio.
6. It has podcasts.
7. It syncs your iPod with music.
8. It syncs your iPod with video.
9. It syncs your iPod with pictures.
10. It allows you to play videos.
iTunes *grew* into being what it is now; and that's all because the iPod phenomenon dictated that it become the front-end to iPod wether that means music, videos, radio, pictures, or whatever.
iTunes is the WMP of the Mac. And that's a multi-purpose application. It serves a lot of needs: music, video, iPod syncinc, radio stations, music store, etc.
A single-purpose application would only allow you to play music and possibly sync your portable media player. I don't even think there's such an application out there anymore, with the possible exception of Muine for GNOME.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can be generous all you want, but you're not right. iTunes does a *lot* of things which are not necessarily related to its name or its original function.
1. It organizes music.
2. It organizes video.
3. It creates Audio CDs.
4. It has a music store built-in.
5. It allows you to listen to radio.
6. It has podcasts.
7. It syncs your iPod with music.
8. It syncs your iPod with video.
9. It syncs your iPod with pictures.
10. It allows you to play videos.
iTunes *grew* into being what it is now; and that's all because the iPod phenomenon dictated that it become the front-end to iPod wether that means music, videos, radio, pictures, or whatever.
iTunes is the WMP of the Mac. And that's a multi-purpose application. It serves a lot of needs: music, video, iPod syncinc, radio stations, music store, etc.
A single-purpose application would only allow you to play music and possibly sync your portable media player. I don't even think there's such an application out there anymore, with the possible exception of Muine for GNOME.
It certainly has seen some "feature creep"...but in fairness your list carves things a little too finely (and I think the "single purpose" definition is a tad narrow...we are talking about logical groupings of tasks/functions). My list would be:
1. Music/audio jukebox (organization, ripping, playing, burning, radio, podcasts, music store front) -- all of these items are a reasonably logical grouping of functions
2. Video "jukebox"
3. Syncing
And iTunes could certainly use some "cleanup" (and we may yet see this in the future). But I'd still argue is way less than Outlook and/or the "works" applications.
( P.S. I know you'll "prove" me wrong in your next post. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. IMO iTunes is just not the best example of the Swiss Army Knife(tm) school of software design. )
But iTunes sure is one multi-purpose app. You forgot that it's also a front end to iTMS, which, in and of itself, is the purpose of this app as far as groupings go. Then you have organizing and such. So we have organization, burning, radio, music store, and syncing. That sounds like 5 things at the very least.
Some of the most (arguably) popular pieces of software are multi-purpose apps. Wether that's due to the fact that they perform several functions within one GUI or not, is, of course, a completely different matter, but I found it interesing when I thought about it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
A single-purpose application would only allow you to play music and possibly sync your portable media player.
I think that's the one thing iTunes *shouldn't* do. The syncing should be in iSync. iTunes should call up iSync to do it's syncing. Or you should be able to just use iSync to sync your iPod. iTunes currently syncs your addressbook, calendar and photos, which whilst convenient is at odds with having to use iSync to do the same on other devices like Palms and phones. Even more odd since they fecked up the sync toolbar icon in Tiger so it doesn't sync unless you've got iSync open already.
As to organising podcasts, radio, music, audible books and video and access to the store, it's fine all in one place. It's just the 'iTunes' name that's wrong now.
You can see why they've done it though. It's all a big cludgy compromise to sell iPods on Windows without having to port other apps to it. On the downside, it's meant iTunes on the Mac has become one of the worst, most out of date apps in the iLife suite.
iWork is Apple's little experiment nest egg. If you look at the evolution pattern of iLife, you will see iLife started out almost compareably feature-lame, and expanded into a very powerful peice of software. iWork is still a 2nd Gen Suite, and Apple is not expecting right now to get a big return on it. First, if MS stops MS Office for Mac, Apple has a well developed and slightly distrubuted replacement. Second, if Apple does add the full, less template oriented option in iWork this will make it what MS office is and with the beautiful templtes a whole lot more.