I agree with you SOOOO much! Please, if anyone related to Apple are reading this; please forward the urgent need of a better application for us with 100k+ songs. The sluggishness of the current one is barely usable.
My guess is if you have enough money to legally have enough money to have 100k+ songs, you're either an oil baron, or the head of a ponzi scheme. In either case, you'd have enough money to pay someone to write an application just for you. Apple knows that virtually no one can afford that much music, and they are not going to rewrite their application to give music pirates a better experience.
I don't see how YouTube or Google has anything to do with open standards. This has nothing to do with making parts of Apple more open and transparent, this is just a further tie into YouTube at the expense of competing services. Again, while this is positive for YouTube users, this is not open. And open standard would an agreed standard between all parties like YouTube, MSN Video etc to receive pushed video from various apps/platforms. Just plain bad reporting on AppleInsider's part to keep pushing this with words such as open and standards.
On the other hand... hopefully it works. I know in iMovie 08, YouTube publishing never worked for me. I haven't tried in 09 yet as I have not made any new videos for YouTube recently.
Obviously I can't speak for Apple, but I think the way they see it the H.264 video standard is "open" (it is), and they are also pushing using the open HTML 5.0 elements to display it on the web (as opposed to Flash, Silverlight etc.).
The part where you can upload it to YouTube *is* proprietary, but I'm assuming that they will allow this upload to other services if they ask and if it seems like there are enough people who want to use it. In iPhoto for instance, you can upload to MobileMe, Flickr, and some others.
All the talk of Quicktime X has been associated with Snow Leopard. But what about previous OS X and Windows? Will Quicktime X be available for them too? It seems more work to maintain 2 separate version if Apple wants to keep Quicktime X Snow Leopard exclusive.
You know for just a simple OS update thats supposed to have little new features this seems to be a release with lots of little things added into it all of a sudden. I hope these are last minute additions that will make the OS release buggy. I'm not complaining at all, just saying.....
All the talk of Quicktime X has been associated with Snow Leopard. But what about previous OS X and Windows? Will Quicktime X be available for them too? It seems more work to maintain 2 separate version if Apple wants to keep Quicktime X Snow Leopard exclusive.
I thought QuickTime X was just an underlying technology thats going to be built into Snow Leopard? Is QT X actually the application and not the underlying technology?
QuickTime X is a framework underpinning QuickTime player. As such it's built on other changes in the OS and leveraged against them. Apple therefore won't port it to a lower OS... If those apps use QuickTime they'll just default to the older, less sophisticated API.
Besides why would Apple give up a bargaining point to get people to buy what seems , in many users eyes, to be an otherwise maintenance release of the OS (it's not but that's the view Apple are fighting)
I thought QuickTime X was just an underlying technology thats going to be built into Snow Leopard? Is QT X actually the application and not the underlying technology?
QuickTime X is marketing term used to mess with your mind. QuickTime X is a cloud filled with candy.
Im my view we all need to throw these terms out the window and see how the OS and that app perform when they are RC Gold. Everything else is just bullshit.
Hmmm... it seems to me like perhaps this has something to do with the hints of video we have found in the iPhone 3.0 beta.
I would think that if Apple includes video recording, not only would they want to have the ability to upload and make small edits directly from the iPhone OS but also better flesh out publishing capabilities on the desktop.
If the camera is really good, then maybe they are interested in really promoting the creative aspect, through a combination of the a) new Hardware and b) Software to do truly amazing things with it. Youtube seems like the logical means to allowing people to share their videos.
If Apple truely want's everyone to be buying their music, TV shows and Movies from the ITMS, then they really need to optimize iTunes for large libraries. The larger of my 2 libraries is pushing 1TB with all the (Legal) CD, DVD-TV, and DVD-Movie rips. They should probably come up with a moderately priced server solution designed to be paired with the ATV, but that is a whole different discussion.
P.S. Don't assume that those with large audio collections are pirates. I agree that 100k songs appears to mean a pirate, but my wife is a professional music teacher and she buys a couple albums off of iTunes a month. That's not even counting the accompaniment CD's she's backed up to her computer for all the music she teaches. The accompaniment CD's are usually just the same song 2x with one being instrumental, but they add up fast even if they are small albums.
Comments
Maybe if they start releasing Mac versions of their apps first (before Windows and fully featured), Apple will let them on the iPhone.
I agree with you SOOOO much! Please, if anyone related to Apple are reading this; please forward the urgent need of a better application for us with 100k+ songs. The sluggishness of the current one is barely usable.
My guess is if you have enough money to legally have enough money to have 100k+ songs, you're either an oil baron, or the head of a ponzi scheme. In either case, you'd have enough money to pay someone to write an application just for you. Apple knows that virtually no one can afford that much music, and they are not going to rewrite their application to give music pirates a better experience.
I don't see how YouTube or Google has anything to do with open standards. This has nothing to do with making parts of Apple more open and transparent, this is just a further tie into YouTube at the expense of competing services. Again, while this is positive for YouTube users, this is not open. And open standard would an agreed standard between all parties like YouTube, MSN Video etc to receive pushed video from various apps/platforms. Just plain bad reporting on AppleInsider's part to keep pushing this with words such as open and standards.
On the other hand... hopefully it works. I know in iMovie 08, YouTube publishing never worked for me. I haven't tried in 09 yet as I have not made any new videos for YouTube recently.
Obviously I can't speak for Apple, but I think the way they see it the H.264 video standard is "open" (it is), and they are also pushing using the open HTML 5.0 elements to display it on the web (as opposed to Flash, Silverlight etc.).
The part where you can upload it to YouTube *is* proprietary, but I'm assuming that they will allow this upload to other services if they ask and if it seems like there are enough people who want to use it. In iPhoto for instance, you can upload to MobileMe, Flickr, and some others.
All the talk of Quicktime X has been associated with Snow Leopard. But what about previous OS X and Windows? Will Quicktime X be available for them too? It seems more work to maintain 2 separate version if Apple wants to keep Quicktime X Snow Leopard exclusive.
I thought QuickTime X was just an underlying technology thats going to be built into Snow Leopard? Is QT X actually the application and not the underlying technology?
Unfortunately "people with 100k+ songs" represents less than .1% of iTunes users.
I don't even have 3000 songs. Taste ave I
Still, there's sluggishness and too much time to open the app. My music is in top quality though.
QuickTime X is a framework underpinning QuickTime player. As such it's built on other changes in the OS and leveraged against them. Apple therefore won't port it to a lower OS... If those apps use QuickTime they'll just default to the older, less sophisticated API.
Besides why would Apple give up a bargaining point to get people to buy what seems , in many users eyes, to be an otherwise maintenance release of the OS (it's not but that's the view Apple are fighting)
I thought QuickTime X was just an underlying technology thats going to be built into Snow Leopard? Is QT X actually the application and not the underlying technology?
QuickTime X is marketing term used to mess with your mind. QuickTime X is a cloud filled with candy.
Im my view we all need to throw these terms out the window and see how the OS and that app perform when they are RC Gold. Everything else is just bullshit.
it would be a little bit more seamless but itunes is kind of bloated already
May be, but that dialog reads "Publish your movie on YouTube". What you watch in player is rarely your movie.
What you have in iTunes library or in iMovie projects is oftenly your movie (OK, sometimes isquint'ed
So, Apple wants deliberately to be co-violator of copyrights.
I also remember hearing something about a Terminal command to reduce iTunes bloat.
Something like "rm -rdf Music/iTunes/"
*Jusk kidding* don't try this one at home.
Heh, heh. That's wicked.
I hope these are last minute additions that will make the OS release buggy.
You like buggy software? Perhaps you should switch to Windows Vista : )
QuickTime X is marketing term used to mess with your mind. QuickTime X is a cloud filled with candy.
I think you are confusing QuickTime X and Mobile Me.
You like buggy software? Perhaps you should switch to Windows Vista : )
Ooops...I meant to say "aren't" going to make it buggy.
BTW...Vista isn't all that buggy. But thats a different topic.
I think you are confusing QuickTime X and Mobile Me.
I was thinking the same thing! QuickTime X is just an underlying technology. It has nothing to do with cloud computing.....
I think you are confusing QuickTime X and Mobile Me.
No I'm not. Names are all they are.
I would think that if Apple includes video recording, not only would they want to have the ability to upload and make small edits directly from the iPhone OS but also better flesh out publishing capabilities on the desktop.
If the camera is really good, then maybe they are interested in really promoting the creative aspect, through a combination of the a) new Hardware and b) Software to do truly amazing things with it. Youtube seems like the logical means to allowing people to share their videos.
Thoughts?
P.S. Don't assume that those with large audio collections are pirates. I agree that 100k songs appears to mean a pirate, but my wife is a professional music teacher and she buys a couple albums off of iTunes a month. That's not even counting the accompaniment CD's she's backed up to her computer for all the music she teaches. The accompaniment CD's are usually just the same song 2x with one being instrumental, but they add up fast even if they are small albums.
I also remember hearing something about a Terminal command to reduce iTunes bloat.
Something like "rm -rdf Music/iTunes/"
*Jusk kidding* don't try this one at home.
Hey - it works for me! Much less iTunes bloat.
(Now if I could just do something to trim down my home directory...)