Mockup of new iTunes 8.0 interface published

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Unless there are some MAJOR changes to iTunes for OS X, it'll be the same old bloated piece of shit that it's been since iTunes 4.



    By major change, I do not mean putting more bloat in. I mean, trimming the app by separating what's video into a new app.



    I do not expect major changes. I fully expect more bloat. I fully expect Apple to complete destroy this once beautiful app.



    RIP iTunes.



    So... to put movies, tv shows and music on your iPod, you'll need to open two applications? That makes little sense. If you don't want video in your iTunes, don't put it in?
  • Reply 42 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sausage&Onion View Post


    So the Genius only recommends you the music you already own? What a bunch of shit.



    no, i believe that this Genius recommends based off of what you own. so a 'if you like Coldplay (and clearly you must since you bought it and ranked 4 of the songs as 5 stars and the rest of 4 stars), try X, Y and Q' type thing.



    but here's what's funny. it's already there. it's called the iTunes MiniStore. it's been there for like 3 versions of iTunes. so this is nothing new. just a different name. and perhaps better programming.
  • Reply 43 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ColeSQ View Post


    ...perhaps it will afford users of the new subscription service





    assuming there ever is one. i'm not believing that rumor until I see it.
  • Reply 44 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ColeSQ View Post


    On the surface I know it sounds lame, but we already have multiple apps exposing data for all these devices and it's getting a lot more cluttered and confusing when you really sit down and develop good playlists/albums/etc. with 15,000 songs, a couple hundred movies, 25,000 photos, and lots of TV shows.





    yes but you have to also think about Joe and Jane Public who would be confused as heck if they had to open up 3-5 different programs to get stuff on their iphones and ipods. they are the ones that itunes as a one stop shop for syncing was designed for and they are still a dominant market for apple. some 70-80% if not more of iphone and ipod buyers are PC users and Apple hopes to get at least half of them using Mac computers instead. but if you make the handheld to confusing for them, they won't want to make the switch.
  • Reply 45 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by agentlion View Post


    How about they implement this one interface change:

    Move the "browse" button to the main toolbar!! And second, change it from that strange eye icon.



    I have talked to several people who claim they don't like iTunes because it's hard to find music by a certain artist, a certain song, a certain album, etc. I tell them when you use the Browse feature, it's easy. "What's that?" is the most common reply. So, i tell them to click the "eye button" down in the lower right, which makes the iTunes interface infinitely more user friendly.



    I have no idea why 1) Browse-mode isn't enabled by default (when you install itunes for the first time, it just gives you a big long list), 2) it looks like and eye (i "get it", conceptually, but surely they can create a better icon), and 3) why it's buried in the lower-right corner, where very few people look. It should be promoted in a prominent spot in the main toolbar!



    For me, the absolute worst part of iTunes is the search engine. If the artist or album you are searching for is misspelled or slightly incorrect, it chokes. Google and Amazon have much better search technology that allows for the inevitable errors on the part of users.
  • Reply 46 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Maybe because its HIS JOB as a journalist to report the news.




    there is reporting the news and then there's leaking it out early, trying to call it just 'my theories' or 'rumors on the web' and turning a major event into something majorly anti-climatic.



    and that's the issue some folks have. that some 'journalists' are leaking stuff out early and disrespecting that the folks behind the news don't want it out there just yet.



    just like some tv show and movie writers don't want whole scripts out there in advance, record companies don't want leaks of whole albums etc.



    and saying "if you don't want to know don't click the link" isn't enough. the link is still there. places like this site and MacRumors etc are still there. still posting the information and spreading the information early. in some folks views also disrespecting that Apple, Microsoft whatever doesn't want the information out there until they put it out there.
  • Reply 47 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skottichan View Post


    So... to put movies, tv shows and music on your iPod, you'll need to open two applications? That makes little sense. If you don't want video in your iTunes, don't put it in?



    That method won't work. But what about Apple releasing a second commercial app called iTunes Lite, that does simple music and video playback and syncs your iPod/iPhone. This could even a toggle switch of the normal iTunes so users can see a much simpler iTunes for the syncing tasks that the perform often.
  • Reply 48 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Unless there are some MAJOR changes to iTunes for OS X, it'll be the same old bloated piece of shit that it's been since iTunes 4.



    By major change, I do not mean putting more bloat in. I mean, trimming the app by separating what's video into a new app.





    or perhaps they found a way to remove some of the bloat and still keep audio and video together for ease of syncing etc. why don't we wait and see
  • Reply 49 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    For me, the absolute worst part of iTunes is the search engine. If the artist or album you are searching for is misspelled or slightly incorrect, it chokes. Google and Amazon have much better search technology that allows for the inevitable errors on the part of users.



    which could be something they are fixing in this new version.
  • Reply 50 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skottichan View Post


    So... to put movies, tv shows and music on your iPod, you'll need to open two applications? That makes little sense. If you don't want video in your iTunes, don't put it in?





    Yes...what the fuck is wrong with opening another app and syncing movies to your iPod? It makes lots of sense. YOU make little sense. iTunes can't be the end-all app that syncs everything but the kitchen sink (haha) to your iPod...because that makes it unnecessarily bloated.



    Listen to what you're saying, man. What if I told you "So... to read e-mail or browse the web on Mac OS X, you'll need to open two applications? That makes little sense. E-mail and browsing the web are two internet-related activities and should be combined into one app."



    My ass it does. YOU make no sense.
  • Reply 51 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    I wish iTunes8 would let us rip DVDs directly in iTunes for ATV and iPods- wishful thinking.



    if there was a way that they could have iTunes attach some kind of id to the file so that it would only play on ATVs and iPods that you own and not on every device out there (ie, someone using itunes to rip a dvd and then pirate it to the world) the studios might think about letting you do it.



    but at least they are getting more hip and some new releases have a free download of the movie included when you buy it. that's better than nothing at this point
  • Reply 52 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    So you have proof that someone broke their contract?



    anyone that works in a company like Apple will have a contract that says that you keep your mouth shut. you don't talk about what's coming out, when, what they are thinking about maybe doing at some point etc.



    if it had been some blogger that had never said a word about itunes and suddenly posted that he managed to grab one of those accidental copies and here's what was inside that would be one thing. but Kevin has been posting about itunes for a while and it's going to be very suspect if his guesses and theories turn out to be correct.
  • Reply 53 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Are you sure they are given to Apple as a master copy or CD or some other format? I find it hard to believe that they deliver it to Apple in Apple's own lossless codec. I think 256kbps AAC is fine, but I think it would go a long way to make then 320kbps, which has been considered "CD quality" by most, despite the nature of the MP3s that it was encoded in.



    That is only an extra 64kbps added to the song, so I think that is doable. whereas Apple Lossless would be around 1Mbps. That is about 7.5MB per minute of audio. The DL times and storage space are now about 4x as much as 256kbps audio and 8x as much as 128kbps audio.





    here's the catch, many ipod users can't tell the difference between 256 and 320 or 120 and 160 or whatever. so the loss of a 1000 songs by stepping up the 'quality' is going to not make any sense to them.



    now I could see itunes offering a couple of qualities at slightly different prices so that the generic "I just want my music and a lot of it' folks can have theirs and the 'I want my music to sound fan-bloody-tastic' can have theirs. like perhaps 160 at 99 cents a track and 320 at the 1.29 they were using for the DRM free for a while.
  • Reply 54 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Yes...what the fuck is wrong with opening another app and syncing movies to your iPod? It makes lots of sense. YOU make little sense. iTunes can't be the end-all app that syncs everything but the kitchen sink (haha) to your iPod...because that makes it unnecessarily bloated.



    Listen to what you're saying, man. What if I told you "So... to read e-mail or browse the web on Mac OS X, you'll need to open two applications? That makes little sense. E-mail and browsing the web are two internet-related activities and should be combined into one app."



    My ass it does. YOU make no sense.



    A bit angry there, kkp. The problem with having an iTunes that ONLY syncs your music and an iTunes that ONLY syncs your videos is that it offers no convenience and makes the work of doing a simple sync more complex and convoluted. Should there also be a version of iTunes that ONLY syncs your apps and games, too? You want a simpler iTunes, we get that, but making multiple iTunes that require a lot more effort to perform a simple task is going the opposite way. You can uncheck Movies, TV Shows, etc from the side bar. If you have none installed the only evidence you'll see of this is the tab listing when you click on the device.
  • Reply 55 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That method won't work. But what about Apple releasing a second commercial app called iTunes Lite, that does simple music and video playback and syncs your iPod/iPhone. This could even a toggle switch of the normal iTunes so users can see a much simpler iTunes for the syncing tasks that the perform often.





    how is that any different than what there is now. all you have done is removed the store from the application. otherwise your itunes lite still plays and syncs just like itunes does. and you can select your syncing already.
  • Reply 56 of 96
    Yawn... \
  • Reply 57 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    iTunes can't be the end-all app that syncs everything but the kitchen sink (haha) to your iPod...because that makes it unnecessarily bloated..



    sorry but I disagree. itunes as a one stop shop is what makes the most sense for the most people. remember the power users like yourself are only perhaps 5% of the computer users out there. perhaps much less.



    and I disagree that being the OSS for syncing is what might make itunes bloated or that it is an unnecessary bloat. Microsoft Office for the Mac is 200MB and most of it is tons of clip art and crap. now that is bloat. itunes and the library file is maybe 1/4 that.
  • Reply 58 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    here's the catch, many ipod users can't tell the difference between 256 and 320 or 120 and 160 or whatever. so the loss of a 1000 songs by stepping up the 'quality' is going to not make any sense to them.



    I agree, I can't tell 160 from 192 on any of the equipment I've ever owned. I mentioned 320kbps because of the perceived "CD quality" of the bitrate, but I think you are spot on that the average person would understand he loss of song capacity but not the increase in bitrate and have no idea that this iPod is still the same size. Apple has to cater to the 80% when it comes to iPod/iTunes.
  • Reply 59 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Please!!! (that's a sarcastic please in case you missed it). Thanks for your flawed inductive logic ... Maybe that's more of your inductive logic, thinking that because you feel that way every else MUST also feel the same way.



    Yeah, yeah, blah, blah blah etc.



    Someone who argues the way you are here should hardly be calling anyone out on their logic or lack of same.



    This is going exactly no where. You have just repeated your claim that it's "his job" with the implication that it's also "about the money." I purposely did not answer your question about why I clicked on the link because it's irrelevant to the point at hand. Again, possibly someone else besides me should brush up on their logic.



    Let me be the first to back out here and let you "win" if it makes you feel better*.



    What I posted is just my feelings about leakers, with a tiny add on argument about how people are just going a bit too far lately. A lot of people feel the same way and no, I am not going to go out and get statistics for you to back up that rather self-evident claim.



    I stand by the claim that this was a bit of a last minute and completely unnecessary deflation of the tires on Apple's big event tomorrow by Kevin rose, but it isn't the end of the world and I am not claiming it is. I also don't have a hate on for Kevin Rose or whatever, so if he's your best buddy or something you should probably chill. Everyone gets criticised now and then and it's how you react that says the most about you.



    *note: you haven't actually won anything, I just threw you a lolly.
  • Reply 60 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Unless there are some MAJOR changes to iTunes for OS X, it'll be the same old bloated piece of shit that it's been since iTunes 4.



    By major change, I do not mean putting more bloat in. I mean, trimming the app by separating what's video into a new app.



    I do not expect major changes. I fully expect more bloat. I fully expect Apple to complete destroy this once beautiful app.



    RIP iTunes.



    Completely agree! I hate trumpet the 'good old days' like some kind of old dude, but I really miss the way iTunes and iPod worked so easily and simplistically up until about '04 or so (whenever they added all the drop downs to the left bar). Simply put, it's the reason I switched to a Mac in '02.



    I know I'm sounding kinda hayseed in my description here but it always worked, it was extremely simple, and it was as beautiful for being simple as Microsoft apps are typically painful for their complexity. I still use Newsfire as my RSS for this reason yet it is missing the sync capabilities I would really love to have.



    Can't Apple break this thing up a little and simplify it?
Sign In or Register to comment.