IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
iTunes coming to PC sooner, mid-October is rumored date
blessingx
post Sep 15 2003, 23:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 22-April 03
From: just west of san fran
Member No.: 6131



And Apple, NEWSWEEK learned, quietly informed some music insiders that it’s moved up the date for expanding its current Mac-only iTunes for the vast universe of Windows-based PCs to mid-October.

Article.


Should increase AAC adoption as the Mac version has.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KAMiKAZOW
post Sep 16 2003, 01:36
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 18-October 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 317



Why does anybody care about iTunes for Windows?
Just look at the quality of QuickTime Player for Windows (I mean only the player, not the codecs or file formats).
The QT Player just sucks. It's slow and it looks like some alien application. Dows anybody think that iTunes will be different?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 16 2003, 02:08
Post #3


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (KAMiKAZOW @ Sep 15 2003, 09:36 PM)
Why does anybody care about iTunes for Windows?
Just look at the quality of QuickTime Player for Windows (I mean only the player, not the codecs or file formats).
The QT Player just sucks. It's slow and it looks like some alien application. Dows anybody think that iTunes will be different?

I see. So you criticize before even waiting to see how will it be?

Besides, for your information (since you are obviously uninformed about iTunes), the feature everyone is looking forward is the possibility of easy ripping, batch encoding and tagging MP4 with it.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Sep 16 2003, 02:32
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 4962
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



AAC encoding isn't free. Will they be including it in WiniTunes anyway?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 16 2003, 02:35
Post #5


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Sep 15 2003, 10:32 PM)
AAC encoding isn't free.  Will they be including it in WiniTunes anyway?

Maybe in a paid-for version of iTunes. One of the major purposes of WiniTunes is offering official windows support for the iPod (the other is offering an interface to the Apple music store). So, AAC encoding is a must.

One might also suppose that you get AAC encoding for free if you own a registered version of QT Pro.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cygnus X1
post Sep 16 2003, 02:44
Post #6





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 676
Joined: 5-June 02
From: New York
Member No.: 2224



QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Sep 15 2003, 08:32 PM)
AAC encoding isn't free.  Will they be including it in WiniTunes anyway?

It was free via an upgrade on my Mac. I do not have QT Pro, as I refuse to pay the extra 20 bucks to upgrade (although I would love to make that annoying little prompt to do so go away!). When I bought my PowerBook last month, I upgraded the QT player to version 6.3 and installed iTunes 4.1. After this, I was able to encode to AAC without paying anything. I'm not sure if the PC version will work in the same manner, but I'd be willing to bet that it would not.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sublimelouie
post Sep 16 2003, 02:56
Post #7





Group: Banned
Posts: 83
Joined: 1-August 03
Member No.: 8114



i dunno guys i mean when i heard iPod coming out for Windows about a year or so ago, I thought it would've been chaotic (and i was right had there not have been a 3rd party prog called EphPod tongue.gif ). MMJB simply sucks and that was WiPod's only flaw, but i think that Apple might know what they're doing and might come out ahead from their problems... ...thats if, and only if they keep their name wink.gif (beatles screw you)

chances of succeding IMO is 1:4 chance! i dont take a fancy to AAC at all

This post has been edited by sublimelouie: Sep 16 2003, 02:56
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blessingx
post Sep 16 2003, 03:23
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 22-April 03
From: just west of san fran
Member No.: 6131



I agree about Window's QT. It's as bad as Mac's WMP. I'm not sure why either can't come up with a decent product there.

Except for some TV commercials in some markets, the iPod and iTunes (and by extention Apple Music Store), is going to remain the introduction to Apple for many of those on "the dark side". ph34r.gif It seems Apple has a lot riding on getting this right. They are under time pressure with other services starting, but I can't believe this wouldn't be the most important thing under development in Cupertino right now. For short term (Apple Music Store and iPod sales) and long term (possible Apple Mac sales) reasons. Anyway you look at this it's important to them. Then again Apple has missed opportunities before.

I also suspect this may dramatically increase the use of music management software. WMP didn't get it right and many avoid it for that reason, preferring to do things manually (not counting the other advantages of WinAmp and Foobar). Will be interesting to see how that changes things.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hmurchison
post Sep 16 2003, 04:28
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 16-September 03
From: Seatte
Member No.: 8867



Quicktme has nothing to do with this. I don't even know why the first poster launched into a rant.

What I'm hoping for as a Mac user and PC users is parity.

iTunes PC would cause me to ditch MMJB entirely. Quicktime is a seperate application. What we're looking for is the same usage rights which as of this day are MUCH better than buymusic.com. With iTunes you can burn your playlist 10 times. You can transfer music to 3 computers, authorize or deauthorize on the fly. The site is easy to use and you know what you're getting as far as DRM.

I'd give them far more than a %25 percent chance at succeeding. The point really is people want an easy source of downloadable Digital Music files which doesn't put the burden on the end user to decipher what you can do with each song.

ITunes Music Service is basically HTML that is accessed through iTunes the application. PC users will eventually view it as just another site in a way. I look forward to it as the current offerings leave me wary.

AAC is going to be fine. Of course I wish Apple had chosen 160kbps. Perhaps someday they will upgrade.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 16 2003, 05:00
Post #10


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (hmurchison @ Sep 16 2003, 12:28 AM)
AAC is going to be fine. Of course I wish Apple had chosen 160kbps. Perhaps someday they will upgrade.

There have been rumours (spread by me mostly) that VBR AAC will be implemented in QuickTime. So, one can hope for VBR encodings at the Apple Music Store. Even VBR 128 is better than CBR 128.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Watchdog
post Sep 16 2003, 08:33
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 16-February 03
Member No.: 5018



I hope that article is correct, I've been anxiously awaiting the arrival of iTunes for the PC. I hear all these great things about iTunes and I envy Mac users for it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
danchr
post Sep 16 2003, 08:53
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 6-April 03
From: Århus, Denmark
Member No.: 5861



QUOTE (hmurchison @ Sep 16 2003, 05:28 AM)
Quicktme has nothing to do with this. I don't even know why the first poster launched into a rant.

Well, they do have a lot in common. For instance the fact that iTunes uses QuickTime for decoding and encoding AAC, and it uses QuickTime for playing unsupported file formats. Anyway, QuickTime isn't all that good; it's just the best there is for macs.

I would consider a freeware version with AAC quite likely. After all, it's free for mac (as long as you pay for the OS and the computer biggrin.gif), but still, they would probably hope to make the money on the iTMS and the iPod. They'd max out the AAC licensing fees anyway.

Apple have already "ported" iTunes to another platform; Max OS 9. Their Mac OS 9 version looks very much like the Mac OS X version: It uses the same scroll bars, font smoothing and buttons. If they could make that work, they can make it work for Windows as well. Just don't expect it to be without quirks from day one; it took quite some time for the last quirks to disappear from the mac version.

This post has been edited by danchr: Sep 16 2003, 08:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
robUx4
post Sep 16 2003, 09:11
Post #13


Matroska Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 410
Joined: 14-March 02
From: Paris
Member No.: 1519



I'm also waiting for iTunes for Windows. Even though it can only read a limited number of formats, what it supports it does it very well. The best way to handle a large base of MP3s so far and a consistent way of organising the files. Also it would allow me to have my MP3s in sync between the Mac and the PC.

I'm quite sure it will be free because it will be the way for Apple to open the door to their music store to all PC users.


--------------------
http://www.matroska.org/ : the best vapourware / http://robux4.blogspot.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
danchr
post Sep 16 2003, 09:57
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 6-April 03
From: Århus, Denmark
Member No.: 5861



QUOTE (robUx4 @ Sep 16 2003, 10:11 AM)
Also it would allow me to have my MP3s in sync between the Mac and the PC.

One of the neat features is that it allows you to share you music on a LAN - maybe that feature will make it to Windows too. In that case, you wouldn't have to keep them syncronised.

For us mac users, it might inspire more developers to develop for QuickTime, so we would see support for more formats smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
c15zyx
post Sep 16 2003, 12:24
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 20-December 01
Member No.: 697



Apple has to make win iTunes free, or a lot less people will be using AAC smile.gif.

About the quicktime rants... Mac QT Player doesn't look that much different from the PC version (a little better in some respects, but not that different), a lot of us mac users still complain about the brushed-metal appearance, etc. Tho iTunes does use QT for its encoding, its slightly different from exporting w/ QT Player... no resource forks are generated and the track duration is less accurate (an export from QT Player will show in iTunes as greater by maybe 0.001 seconds [sim. Vorbis], while an iTunes export will be greater by maybe 0.052 [sim. to LAME MP3].
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KAMiKAZOW
post Sep 16 2003, 12:56
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 18-October 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (hmurchison @ Sep 16 2003, 05:28 AM)
Quicktme has nothing to do with this. I don't even know why the first poster launched into a rant.

Of course it has. QT - just like iTunes - is an Apple app.
Compare the GUIs of QT and iTunes on Mac. They are simmilar.

Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator also have simmilar GUIs.
One app is usually an example for the philosophy of a company how it designs applications.

QT for Windows shows how Apple designs Windows apps. Instead of a GUI that looks and performs somewhat native, it's just a pile of crap.
Does anybody really think that Apple will use a GUI for Win-iTunes that fits into Windows?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Sep 16 2003, 13:14
Post #17


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5135
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



It's not just the GUI though, is it? I mean, it's more than looks. It's speed, design, speed, functionality, speed, ease-of-use, speed... did I mention how slow and clunky it is? wink.gif

Seriously - it will have to make people think "Wow - this is good!". QT has the opposite effect. Let's hope they've learnt.


If they have, get ready to witness a mini revolution.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 16 2003, 16:57
Post #18


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (KAMiKAZOW @ Sep 16 2003, 08:56 AM)
Of course it has. QT - just like iTunes - is an Apple app.
Compare the GUIs of QT and iTunes on Mac. They are simmilar.

Erm... so?

QUOTE
Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator also have simmilar GUIs.


Meanwhile, Adobe Photo Deluxe, Adobe Premiere and Adobe Encore DVD have quite different GUIs.

QUOTE
One app is usually an example for the philosophy of a company how it designs applications.


Bullshit. I can't believe you are even saying this on this forum. Saying that because QT sucks all Apple apps suck is like saying that because MPC fails on one sample, it fails on all of them. You should know better than that by now.

QUOTE
QT for Windows shows how Apple designs Windows apps. Instead of a GUI that looks and performs somewhat native, it's just a pile of crap.
Does anybody really think that Apple will use a GUI for Win-iTunes that fits into Windows?


Well, I can think, off the top of my head, of several applications that don't even resemble the Windows API and still work very well. Most media players, for starters. And ICQ Lite. And Babylon Translator. And so on.

Anyway, I find it really interesting, you say that it will be crappy before it's even launched. Or maybe you have some secret contact inside Apple? If you do, you should better provide some hard data, because that's what this forum is all about: discussion over hard data, not speculation.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blessingx
post Sep 16 2003, 16:59
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 22-April 03
From: just west of san fran
Member No.: 6131



So the GUI is your problems with QuickTime on the PC? Mine is the buggy nature of it (and as mentioned WMP on the Mac).

Mac's have always had a more consistent GUI (though currently split between Aqua and Metal in OSX) terming it at various times as The Humane Interface or The Humane Environment. Until maybe XP, I didn't think PC's had the same and still probably doesn't to the same extent. In fact there's a history of standing out with unusual Windows, different toolbars, transparent edges, hiding a control box in the corner, etc.

We'll see how iTunes for the PC looks, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up like QT or iTunes on the PC. It may not, but brace yourself if that is what you most fear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Sep 16 2003, 20:15
Post #20


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2746
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



It will almost certainly be as iTunes is on the MAC, I wouldn't be surprised if 80% or more of the Code is the MAC version.


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Sep 16 2003, 22:47
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 4962
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Sep 15 2003, 05:35 PM)
QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Sep 15 2003, 10:32 PM)
AAC encoding isn't free.  Will they be including it in WiniTunes anyway?

Maybe in a paid-for version of iTunes. One of the major purposes of WiniTunes is offering official windows support for the iPod (the other is offering an interface to the Apple music store). So, AAC encoding is a must.

One might also suppose that you get AAC encoding for free if you own a registered version of QT Pro.

They'd better make it free to Ipod owner. I just paid 300 for the Ipod, the hell I'll pay them more for the ability to encode music for it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blessingx
post Sep 16 2003, 23:27
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 22-April 03
From: just west of san fran
Member No.: 6131



I can't imagine they'd charge for AAC. As mentioned it's free on the Mac and can only increase sales of the iPod. Windows doesn't charge for WMA, though it's also not free.

That said, didn't the Rio Nitrus portable just start shipping at $299 with tranfer and encoding (Ogg) software, but requires a $9.99 upgrade to encode MP3's?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
danchr
post Sep 17 2003, 00:08
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 6-April 03
From: Århus, Denmark
Member No.: 5861



QUOTE (spoon @ Sep 16 2003, 09:15 PM)
It will almost certainly be as iTunes is on the MAC, I wouldn't be surprised if 80% or more of the Code is the MAC version.

<nitpicking mode>
It's mac, not MAC. MAC is Machine Address Code.
</nitpicking mode>

As I said earlier, Apple already has iTunes functional on two platforms. On both, it looks very much like a Mac OS X application, using large portions of the Aqua look & feel. Apple has the entire source code for Mac OS X and all it's proprietary technology to dig into in the porting process. BTW, from a technical point of view, I'd say that Mac OS 9 sucks far more than Windows XP ever did.

Whether it will be horribly buggy or not is difficult to say. But there's a lot of prestige in the project...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blessingx
post Sep 17 2003, 00:13
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 22-April 03
From: just west of san fran
Member No.: 6131



I believe it's Mac not mac or MAC. blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hmurchison
post Sep 17 2003, 02:55
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 16-September 03
From: Seatte
Member No.: 8867



QUOTE (KAMiKAZOW @ Sep 16 2003, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (hmurchison @ Sep 16 2003, 05:28 AM)
Quicktme has nothing to do with this. I don't even know why the first poster launched into a rant.


Of course it has. QT - just like iTunes - is an Apple app.
Compare the GUIs of QT and iTunes on Mac. They are simmilar.

Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator also have simmilar GUIs.
One app is usually an example for the philosophy of a company how it designs applications.

QT for Windows shows how Apple designs Windows apps. Instead of a GUI that looks and performs somewhat native, it's just a pile of crap.
Does anybody really think that Apple will use a GUI for Win-iTunes that fits into Windows?

Your post was valid but your complaints centered around the UI of Quicktime. When using iTunes you never see that UI. You use the iTunes apple for playing and organizing music. Yes it uses QT APIs but I have yet to see the perfect Video Player UI. It certainly isn't Windows Media. I hope Apple has some suprises for QT 7.

I'm hoping the iTunes PC UI is exactly like the Mac. It's efficient ..can be shrunk down to just a small Widget and is elegant enough.

I'm hoping for the best. It's time for a few legit Music Services. I welcome all good ones...not just Apples.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th September 2014 - 09:11