iTunes popularity to surpass RealPlayer by mid-year

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Denton View Post


    I'd rather be gang-raped in the ass by angry monkeys than use Real Player again. What could anyone like about the way that company operates? I was reminded, just the other day, how much I hate them when I came to a site where there was some video (I think) that wanted to use Real Player. I decided that I would install the damned thing (it's been a couple of years since the last time I had RP on my computer).



    The first thing I was greeted with when attempting to install was a registration page: why the fuck does Real need me to set up an account with them (email address -- [email protected] -- name, postal code, etc) to install their software? Then once it was installed I had to go mucking around in the Windows Configuration Utility to remove RP from the automatic start-up programs -- a gripe I also have with QuickTime, actually (no I don't want to load your damned program into memory every time I start-up on the off-chance that I'll need to play some media that is only viewable with RP!). Then I had to go through the list of registered file-types to reset the default applications by filetype (for god's sake, I want to open mp3s with iTunes, not RP!). On top of which, when I plugged my iPod into my computer, RP even high-jacked that and asked if I'd like to synch using RP (NO!).



    I swear, if I ever meet a Real employee, I'll eviscerated them with a spoon. I didn't even watch the video I was after because it didn't work, and I proceeded to un-install RP with much cursing and glee, and promising myself that I will never, ever, EVER install Real Player on my system again!



    Does that answer your question?



    EDIT: I just remembered a quote by Frank Herbert which sums up my feelings on Real



    "Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy." [from Dune]



    I entirely forgot about how it was like to use the Windows Version



    Sebastian
  • Reply 42 of 59
    i didn't know itunes streamed anything besides internet radio. if you open any other streaming format it'll throw it over to the quicktime player.



    if this is true (which i'm not sure of), then is itunes' radio streaming beating real's video and audio streaming combined? somehow i'm doubtful.



    i guess i'm not informed on the subject. i really do hate sites that stream unless it's flash video because flash video is the only streaming video that seems to work in a decent amount of time.
  • Reply 43 of 59
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:

    At the same time, broadband penetration in US homes has reportedly grown to 79.03 percent, up 0.62 percentage points since December. At current growth rates US broadband penetration should break 80 percent among active Internet users in March.



    By 'broadband penetration' rates (ooh, sounds vaguely dirty), the article means 79% of people in the US live in an AREA where they COULD get broadband if they WANTED to, right?



    I'm pretty sure that the number of people in the US who actually HAVE broadband at home is less than 79%. Maybe in places like the SF Bay Area or New York, but you have a lot of 'wide empty spaces' states bringing down the average.



    In fact, doing some research, the actual broadband ADOPTION rate (i.e. you actually HAVE broadband) is 42%, if we consider adults only:



    http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_...trends2006.pdf



    Forgive me, I just hate confusing terminology. \



    .
  • Reply 44 of 59
  • Reply 45 of 59
    In order to us iTunes on either Mac or Windows, don't you have to have QT installed also? A bit confused as to why the "active", whatever that means, Quicktime users is so low compared to iTunes?
  • Reply 46 of 59
    What I've never understood is why Apple has never really tried to give windows users a quality product as far as Quicktime. I've used iTunes for windows and it is very close to the Mac version. I have never heard a windows user say anything nice about quicktime for windows.



    It's sad for a couple of reasons... the first being that quicktime/mov will never be as popular due to the fact that windows users despise quicktime. Plus they took out a majority of features and made them "pro" only... which is unfortunate because many non "pro" users would appreciate or WANT those features... full screen? Plus the cost to upgrade to pro is a bit high... $10-20 would be much more appropriate.



    Also, any software Apple releases to PC's is a potential hook to convert them to Mac. Obviously that's not the same for MS, if you look at WMP... since it has been dropped for Mac.
  • Reply 47 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I'd rather chew my own arm off than use Real.



    Ditto that.
  • Reply 48 of 59
    Could someone post some REAL information about these numbers. There are over 100 million ipod users (ie itunes software needed) and there are over 20 million OSX users.



    Did everyone miss these obvious numbers?



  • Reply 49 of 59
    look at http://www.macnewsworld.com the number of iTunes unique users in Europe has grown to over 27 million customers and the growth rate is 47.5 percent.
  • Reply 50 of 59
    I totally agree on the QuickTime pro argument. For a "media/iLife/Digital Lifestyle" [etc etc etc] computer to not be able to even play a movie full screen is absolutely ridiculous. That 1 feature alone is such a major drawback I think to so many users, probably a huge amount on the Windows side as well. I wonder if the number of QT Pro sales actually can justify the virtual-cost of not having that single feature enabled on all versions of QT [or come on, at least the Mac version].



    Most of us know how to workaround the problem using another "helper" app or such. But for the Jane Doe that buys her Mac, gets home, downloads a new QT movie trailer, and can't watch full screen; I think it's totally pointless.



    If they want to keep QT Pro sales coming in, they could at least just reserve the true *PRO* parts of it. Maybe limit the available codecs that a basic user can encode to [but not lock out decoding please!]. There are lots of perks that the PRO version offers, but the full-screen-killer is certainly not one that should be included on a computer that is marketed to the Apple-digital-life stuff.



    For the Windows side:

    I always hear the same negative stuff also, but usually no really good solid answers. Just the usual "it sucks". I do not have much experience with the Windows version. Is it that bad? The one specific complaint I do remember is that it tries to take over most media file associations. So when someone tries to load a jpg or such that QT player will open it instead of Windows media player or equivalent. whatever it is these days, I don't even know. But I think the QT installer is smarter now and asks the user what to associate with it before installing. what else is so bad about it?
  • Reply 51 of 59
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tribulation View Post


    In order to us iTunes on either Mac or Windows, don't you have to have QT installed also? A bit confused as to why the "active", whatever that means, Quicktime users is so low compared to iTunes?



    Actual users is low, people who have it isn't.



    Everyone with a Mac has it if they didn't uninstall it, and about 99.9% of iPod users have it, the 0.01% being Linux workarounds and Linux on the iPod.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 52 of 59
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by artbits View Post


    Could someone post some REAL information about these numbers. There are over 100 million ipod users (ie itunes software needed) and there are over 20 million OSX users.



    Did everyone miss these obvious numbers?







    Actually even those numbers aren't correct. 1) The Most recent numbers, not that long ago, say 90 Million, and that's sold. Now take the number of Dead iPods, and people who use workarounds (mostly the Linux type) and subtract from that original number.



    It'll probably be closer to 75-85 Million.



    Also Quicktime USERS, not PEOPLE WITH QUICKTIME.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 53 of 59
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tribulation View Post


    I totally agree on the QuickTime pro argument. For a "media/iLife/Digital Lifestyle" [etc etc etc] computer to not be able to even play a movie full screen is absolutely ridiculous. That 1 feature alone is such a major drawback I think to so many users, probably a huge amount on the Windows side as well. I wonder if the number of QT Pro sales actually can justify the virtual-cost of not having that single feature enabled on all versions of QT [or come on, at least the Mac version].



    Most of us know how to workaround the problem using another "helper" app or such. But for the Jane Doe that buys her Mac, gets home, downloads a new QT movie trailer, and can't watch full screen; I think it's totally pointless.



    If they want to keep QT Pro sales coming in, they could at least just reserve the true *PRO* parts of it. Maybe limit the available codecs that a basic user can encode to [but not lock out decoding please!]. There are lots of perks that the PRO version offers, but the full-screen-killer is certainly not one that should be included on a computer that is marketed to the Apple-digital-life stuff.



    For the Windows side:

    I always hear the same negative stuff also, but usually no really good solid answers. Just the usual "it sucks". I do not have much experience with the Windows version. Is it that bad? The one specific complaint I do remember is that it tries to take over most media file associations. So when someone tries to load a jpg or such that QT player will open it instead of Windows media player or equivalent. whatever it is these days, I don't even know. But I think the QT installer is smarter now and asks the user what to associate with it before installing. what else is so bad about it?



    My Biggest problem with Quicktime, and later, iTunes 7 on a PC, is that they were so damn slow and buggy I was tearing my hair out trying to figure it out. Granted iTunes 7 had the excuse of a stupid plugin I installed, but even after I got rid of it it was still a pain in the ass, opening itself up whenever it feels like it.



    I actually preferred Quicktime Picture Viewer to Windows Picture and Fax viewer, but it also took far longer to open.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 54 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lanky_nathan View Post








    Awesome
    .
  • Reply 55 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    By 'broadband penetration' rates (ooh, sounds vaguely dirty), the article means 79% of people in the US live in an AREA where they COULD get broadband if they WANTED to, right?



    I'm pretty sure that the number of people in the US who actually HAVE broadband at home is less than 79%. Maybe in places like the SF Bay Area or New York, but you have a lot of 'wide empty spaces' states bringing down the average.



    In fact, doing some research, the actual broadband ADOPTION rate (i.e. you actually HAVE broadband) is 42%, if we consider adults only:



    http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_...trends2006.pdf



    Forgive me, I just hate confusing terminology. \ ....



    Yes, indiscriminate penetration will result in adoption... 8)
  • Reply 56 of 59
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Yes, indiscriminate penetration will result in adoption... 8)



    Bwahahahaha!!!! Nice.



    .
  • Reply 57 of 59
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tribulation View Post


    For the Windows side:

    I always hear the same negative stuff also, but usually no really good solid answers. Just the usual "it sucks". I do not have much experience with the Windows version. Is it that bad? The one specific complaint I do remember is that it tries to take over most media file associations. So when someone tries to load a jpg or such that QT player will open it instead of Windows media player or equivalent. whatever it is these days, I don't even know. But I think the QT installer is smarter now and asks the user what to associate with it before installing. what else is so bad about it?



    It is that bad - it's slow, doesn't support any formats - doesn't even decode MP4 well (VLC and MPC run circles around it, as well as supporting like every format under the sun). Even WMP supports nearly every format once you get the right codec pack installed, even supports full screen for free!



    If you don't even use QT, want to uninstall it, it will break iTunes, even if you don't watch videos with iTunes - I only use iTunes to sync with my ipod, as iTunes is too slow at converting videos and does a poor job at playing them back. Also the fact that it likes to install that stupid tasktray app. I find QT only a slight step up from Real on Windows.



    I look at QT for Windows and see all the complaints that Mac users had with WMP for Mac.
  • Reply 58 of 59
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    I've been using QuickTime7 on Windows XP2Pro for most of 2006 [no Mac ] and QT7 + iTunes is really not that bad. It has some issues, but to list them all here, and to say it sucks real bad, I would challenge anyone to do that in a comprehensive way. I think it's just that QT7 and iTunes on Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.3 is so seamless an experience. Along with the OS of course.



    Of all the complaints of stuff not working in Vista, I've been playing with QT7 and iTunes, and it really seems to be OK, and handles 720p easy on AMD64 2ghz 1gb RAM nVidia 6600GT 128mb vram. CoverFlow in iTunes is reasonable. My AMD64 rig is about 1.5 years old now and considered "mid-end" when put together.



    Anyways, nothing compares to the absolute PAIN that Real has been in my life for the past, oh, 5 years. It was good when it *first* launched and used in the late 90's. Around the turn of the century, it was pretty much a constant PAIN IN THE ASS since.
  • Reply 59 of 59
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    I look at QT for Windows and see all the complaints that Mac users had with WMP for Mac.



    Kinda, but QT for Windows has always been so well updated. WMP for Mac development stopped like more than 3 years ago or something like that. And as a plug-in in Safari, it was pretty much useless. In Mac OS X 10.4, thank goodness for Flip4Mac and Perian.



    Oh, and a Core[1]Duo 2ghz MacBook 2gb ram, Intel GMA950 64mb shared, 1080p trailers frickin' smooth as butter. Quicktime7 on the Mac, rocks. On Windows, yeah, could be better, but good enough for trailers and iTunes. Hopefully QT7 Windows streaming stuff will be better.



    Otherwise in any case I use Parallels or my PC to look at pr0n videos -- It's all WMV files nowadays. No longer the MPEG-1 of the old skool.
Sign In or Register to comment.