Rotten Apple?

The funniest thing is, if you tell this to a Mac fan (i.e. it's all about Apple's awesome branding and marketing, not superior technology), they're so freaking adamant that it's not fandom.

I find it funny that you ascribe a third party (unsanity) with being the voice of Apple Computer (Apple did not claim it was "Revolutionary") The hacks to do that have also been around in on shape or form, for OS X, since at least 10.1. (and the capability existed in the "classic" OS starting in 7.6 - I think). Apple was "late to the party" on this because of there belief that it could cause user confusion - the same logic they use to (still) ship a one button mouse.

You are correct that in the various things Apple did not do in regards to digital music. What they did do (much like the GUI itself) was produce a commercial "success". They were able to produce an electronic ecosystem that satisfies (most) users and (most) record companies and (most of) the artists. (obQuote about pleasing everybody all of the time). "Best Option" is a matter of opinion.

Sure it's fandom, it's a product worth being a fan of :)

Even if themes were new to OSX (in fact, they are not), they have existed (in the form of the 3rd party kaleidescope program) for os9 since the early nineties. As one of the posters mentioned, apple itself discouraged development of these programs (after toying briefly with them) with the logic that they would confuse users and blur the distinctiveness of the interface.

We all have ideas on a regular basis, but it is the ones who implement them best that reap the glory. One famous proverb says 'there is nothing new under the sun'. So what does it mean to innovate? To me, it means to implement an idea in such a way that makes it useful and demonstrates a greater degree of skill and thought than any previous implementation of that idea.

iTunes measures up to that definition, as does OS X, especially the latest Panther. iPod is innovative though not a new idea, the implementation is still the best out there. There are innovations in the PC world as well. Dell's manufacturing process is a major business innovation, though not originally their idea, they implemented it so well that other multi-billion dollar companies (even IBM) have still not been able to catch up. Microsofts integration of productivity applications into a office suite of software catapulted them to the top and fed adoption of their Windows OS. (Though the ensuing illegal forcing of the distribution channel to sell Windows on every PC was not innovative but turned out to be criminal as was the illegal bundling of IE to kill Netscape, those aren't innovations those are anitrust counter-innovative moves that have hurt the industry and the Windows consumers.)

No one can claim that John Lennon and Paul McCartney invented the D minor scale and the English language, but they did write Eleanor Rigby. Apple may not have invented EVERY ELEMENT of the graphical user interface, CDs on PCs, WYSIWYG, etc., etc., but it was Apple who put them there. Without Apple, computer users would probably be still using some form of DOS - a text based system.

Check it out. This is not "worship." And check out the "NeXT" OS. Screenshots of that look REMARKABLY like Windows 95/8.

John Davis

Applès critics like to point out that Apple did not invent the graphic interface...this is flying over the issue at 30000 feet. Xerox gui was designed to run on the Star Altos...$100.000 at the lowest config price and up...machines with unheard of amounts of ram (8 mb! for another $24000). Apple not only created a gui os that ran in 128k of ram, the gui was superior to anything Xerox had concieved...which most of the head engineers at Xerox conceeded...and many went to work for Apple subsequently.
What Apple did was truly revolutionary then, and now with OSX...
Another point mentioned here, that Apple stole the interface from Xerox, in order to equate them with Microsofts innovations in dishonest and dishonourable methods (dragging the business culture of America into the dirt for decades). Apple PAID for the right to examine Xeroxs technology...not the source code, just the concept, and then invented their own.

I was changing the appearance of my Mac and giving sounds to the interface back in 1989, when everyone else in the office was using DOS on their PC's, and all they could do is a 'beep' noise. Much of the GUI was invented by Apple. The Xerox Parc stuff was infantile compared to what Apple did on their first Mac in 1984. And Apple did not steal the GUI idea, they *paid* Xerox for them, who had no intention of using the ideas they developed.

Why do you care? Seems like you are mad that Apple might have good press about it's recent products. Can you really say that before Apple sold millions of songs via their download store that people where hot to buy music from the other stores that were out there? Or that everyone who had a 128Mb MP3 was stoked to have that much memory. The fact is Apple saw a way to improve a product and millions flocked to it. Look how many internet music stores are opening up since the release of iTunes. So is the item you mentioned Appearance a market moving feature. Are thousands or better yet millions of PC users running to by Windows or Linux because they can change the look of the desktop. No you bring up a non issue. Your just mad that Apple has some good press. And when they have bad press you will be happy.

My 2 cents

Well, well, well.

I refuse to be dragged into a "my OS is bigger than your OS" war over comments that I made about my ire over people stating falsely that Apple invented things that they didn't, or that people "stole" from Apple where they didn't.

If you think that Apple makes the best computers and programs around, bully for you. Go and buy one. Enjoy your purchase. Bask in the glory of a well matched technology to owner. Proclaim the Mac superior for reasons that only you know, or express the reasons that you think it is superior.

However, I'm tired of the Linux-bashing, Mac-bashing, Windows-bashing, etc-bashing. I have a Windows OS based PC and it works well for me. I tried Linux on one machine, and didn't like it so much (far too much care and feeding for my tastes, but I'm sure that's due to unfamiliarity with it). I've tried Macs in the past, and I have major issues with them that keep me from enjoying them (like that one-button mouse - and yes I know you can buy a different one).

When it comes down to it, the more options, the better. The more each company "borrows" from each other, the better. (Not stealing, but borrowing. Stealing is wrong).

As for iTunes, I'm surprised that it's so popular, given the fact that it seems to suck. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's great, but I think the software issues that iTunes for Windows has (poor compatibility with older iPods, crashing other CD burning software) and reliance on one companies music player (Apple's iPod), and rumors of fair quality audio files, not to mention the inability to re-download the files that you've purchased onto other computers, all add up to a sub-par system. I think it has been a very good "proof of concept" and that it's likely a great fit for Mac owners, iPod owners, and most of all Mac owners who also own an iPod. But I still think it kinda sucks. Yesterday I wasn't certain that any of the digital music stores was anything but suckitude, and then I got sucked in to Napster's new digital music offering, and I may have to reconsider.

Now if we want to get into the "it's a crying shame that the best computer/OS isn't the most popular" rant, then please call up all the Commodore fans, and Atari ST fans, and the Linux fans, BSD fans, Sun fans, SGI fans, AIX fans (heh, like there are any), etc. etc. and we'll all duke it out in a big room. I'll referee, since I'm really pretty non-bias, but everything will be judged on the fantasy that each fan's platform of choice dominated the market until all others were extinguished.

And if you really want to know, clearly I'm a Nintendo Fan Boy.

Ok before I was willing to let it go as someone's ill-informed opinion, but you've just crossed the line into pure FUD. Nearly every Apple-related assertion in your reply contains information that you know is wrong, because to be aware of so many issues implies that you've read enough you'd have to know the truth about at least a few. I'm not even one of those rabid Apple fanboys, but I just hate seeing the truth twisted by someone with enough skill to make it sound oh so reasonable to the lesser-informed.

Example one: the "poor compatibility with older iPods" refers to the fact that iTunes for Windows doesn't support the first generation iPod which was never marketed for Windows and certainly never supported by Apple for use with PCs. These were Mac-only iPods. The fact that PC users wanted to buy them so badly that third party software got written doesn't obligate Apple to later officially support such use in their own software. The truth is that iTunes for Windows supports EVERY iPod ever sold by Apple as being Windows-compatible.

Example two: "crashing other CD-burning software". That was a very limited issue affecting only Win2000 users with outdated drivers and was rectified with an update realeased by Apple within two or three days of iTunes for Windows release. Not too many software companies even fix problems that affect so few users, fewer still so quickly and let's remember folks this is a free application we're talking about. Hell I'm still waiting on Microsoft to fix bugs that have been affecting me and millions of people for years in software that cost plenty!

Example three: "Rumors of fair quality audio files". Source please. I keep abreast of the digital music scene daily and I've yet to see any impartial sources decry the AAC codec to which I presume you refer. It's vastly superior to the MP3 format most people are currently using (in fact was designed as the next generation replacement for the MP3 standard) and certainly the equal of the proprietary Windows Media Format at low bit rates and quite a bit better at higher rates. As for the iPod the audiophile press are pretty united in praise for its sound quality (and these are people not favorably disposed to digital anything).

Example four: "Inability to re-download the files that you've purchased onto other computers". It's been very clear from the outset that songs purchased from the iTune Music Store can be copied to a total of three computers, Mac or PC. If the computer you want it on has access to the net (which it would have to in order to "re-download") then what's preventing you from sending it from the computer you orginally used to download it. This is the worst sort of red-herring because you are trying to insinuate that another service offers something Apple doesn't and that something prevents you from having your iTunes music files resident on several computers.

It's not surprising that you used all those twisted "facts" to reach the conclusion that it adds up to a "sub-par system" and to bolster your original arguments that Apple's getting too much press and that they haven't made the best options available. I'm not sure what best means to you, but if iTunes/iTunes Music Store/iPod aren't the best options, what are? Let's hear your vote for the best jukebox program, best online music store and best portable player. Tell us what makes them together a better system and be prepared to have them held to similar standards :-)

David wrote: "Proclaim the Mac superior for reasons that only you know, or express the reasons that you think it is superior."

Consider the statements of Bill Joy re: Linux, MacOS X, and Windows, in the Dec. 2003 issue of Wired:

"Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux....I find Windows of absolutely no technical interest. They took systems designed for isolated desktop systems and put them on the Net without thinking about evildoers, as our president would say."

If you don't know who Bill Joy is, read the Wired interview: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/billjoy.html

Ponder the fact that some of the world's other alpha geeks also prefer MacOS X: Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the web), James Gosling (inventor of Java), Tim Bray (co-inventor of XML), Moshe Bar (Linux cluster/kernel developer), and a lot of other software luminaries.

Unless you can cite from your own experience to counter the opinions of Bill Joy and some of the most sophisticated software geniuses on the planet, you're just blowing hot air from an ignorant, arrogant place.

I'll cite just one reason why MacOS X is superior to any form of Windows: there are ZERO viruses for OS X. None. I secure Windows networks and run centralized antivirus software for a living. I know. That's why I run only Macs at home, where I'm not paid to deal with "issues." :-D

Joe Grossberg spewed: "The funniest thing is, if you tell this to a Mac fan (i.e. it's all about Apple's awesome branding and marketing, not superior technology), they're so freaking adamant that it's not fandom."

I've worked for IBM, DEC, Compaq, and Fujitsu. I've used IBM PCs since 1983, and Apple Macs since 1987, and other computers (including the mainframe kind) as well. I've used every version of Windows from 1.0 to Server 2003, and I use Windows XP Pro SP1 everyday. I say this without the slightest qualification: Apple makes the best personal computers, and the best personal computer OS, period. Apparently, Bill Joy, James Gosling, Tim Berners-Lee, Tim Bray, Moshe Bar, and Tim O'Reilly agree. So, Mr. Grossberg, unless you're more knowledgeable than these giants of the software universe, your asinine remark is worse than useless.

Socket Scientist, just because I've heard of the troubles doesn't mean that I have the in depth knowledge about iTunes that you presume I have, or the intention of "turning people away" from it or some other sinister plot.

If you information is correct, that you have good arguments to support the iTunes product. Personally, when I compare it to other offerings, I don't see it as black and white as you do.

My rant started from a coworker and I discussing digital music offerings and how it seemed odd that neither one of us had actually purchased any music online, since we both work on the Internet for a living. He expressed something to his wife, who immediately took to the iTunes product and purchased some music. This made me think that I should take a second look, but I couldn't believe what we found.

In my humble opinion:

1. The cited reasons above make me nervous. I've seen apple walk away from many a good idea, and leave people high and dry. If I were purchasing CDs, this wouldn't matter, but as far as I can tell, you need the iTunes product to get the full value out of your purchases.

2. iTunes only supports one player. This seems really weak to me. The iPod, although sexy, and a good fit for some, is too pricey for me and I doubt I'll be picking up one any time soon. I've actually yet to purchase any digital music players, because none meet my price point and required functionality, but I'd like to leave my options open (which iTunes won't let me do).

3. AAC quality. I'd like to provide a URL, but (and yes it's lame) I didn't save the one impartial review that I could seem to find. Every other reference seemed to be so bias, I couldn't begin to tell what was spin and what was fact.

4. iTunes as a player application is a bit weak. It doesn't seem to have as many options as WinAmp or WindowsMedia, though I haven't done a feature by feature comparison.

5. As for the "re-download" issue, I think you are missing the point. It was an assumption on the part of my coworker (and I'm sure I'd make the same one) that the purchase that he made at home could be re-downloaded from iTunes at work. He and I were both surprised to find that he'd have to copy the file on his own. You seem to imply that that isn't reason enough, but I'm sure I can think of many a time that I don't have access to those files, but might want to copy them to another computer. And for the record, it appears that Napster does let you do this.

6. It appears to me that iTunes is required to playback songs that I've purchased from the iTunes store. This seems to lock me into one vendor. I can't purchase a few songs from iTunes, a few from Napster, a few from Wal*Mart, etc. and then burn them on to one mix tape. A few of these vendors all seem to be integrated directly into my Windows Media player, and don't seem to have that drawback.

It seems from your post that the iTunes/iPod is a best fit for you. That's great and I'm happy for you. Unfortunately I live in a windows world, I want more hardware options, I want more purchase options, and I just don't think iTunes will do it for me.

Kearns,

I think there are a few distinctions that need to me made:

1. If you buy from iTunes Music Store, you have to manage the music with iTunes. (Duh!) That's right...but then again it is the "iTunes" Music Store. However, you can rip and burn a CD and then re-import the same song as an MP3, or any other digital media format.

2. If you really want a song at work that you bought through iTMS, burn it onto a CD, or copy it to your iPod, put the file on your server and transfer it over to your authorized machine. The point is that iTMS is not free and unlimited use of the music. There are some restrictions that you have to work around. I guess gnutella or Kazaa are always there waiting for you if you can't live with some sort of limitations. Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that the new "Napster" or Dell music store are going to be better, though I can't say that they'll be worse on this score.

3. If you obtain a song from a format other than iTMS, you can still put it into your iTunes library, and transfer it to your iPod, without any restrictions. The iPod even handles multiple formats (even .wav), and not just .aac.

4. Your comment about Apple dropping innovative product and technologies was earned. Some were not good products (Apple IIe), some were great products that were just a bit too early (Newton / eMate300), and others were great products that just couldn't meet the right market (G4 cube). What ever the good and bad of these products, they just didn't sell enough to justify their presence. does that mean that the iPod or iTMS will get axed? Maybe, but if it's selling, I can't see it being offed too quickly.

5. Windows options...Yeah, well...

Nothing bugs me more than someone with an agenda who pretends not to have one. I think this statement sums it up perfectly: "I want more hardware options, I want more purchase options, and I just don't think iTunes will do it for me". That is the company line from Redmond, almost word for word from the MS PressPass "interview" with Dave Fester, general manager of the Windows Media Division (www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2003/oct03/10-15MusicServices.asp) published the day iTunes for Windows was released. Mr. Fester's comments have been deconstructed elsewhere on the net, so I won't bother, but let me ask you this: what is ultimately more important: choice or quality? Personally I'd rather have the one best option than a bunch of inferior options just for the sake of having choices.

This is an old argument that Microsoft has used very effectively to change the PC hardware market from a vertical to a horizontal model. While that benefits everyone when they buy hardware, it came at the enormous expense of creating a vertical software market for PCs, with all the attendant MS lock-in and suppression of innovation that entails. As a simple example of this, why is it that you expect the iPod to play Windows Media files -- based on a proprietary codec -- but you apparently think it's ok for the other (WMA-based) portable players to ignore the AAC codec -- which is an open standard that accounts for about 80% of legal online music purchases to date? I think you hold Apple to a higher standard than Microsoft and its "partners".

Incidentally there are other products being introduced in the wake of iTunes' success that use the AAC file format. Nokia's latest cell phone models, for example. And note that because iTunes Music Store only sells tracks (and doesn't stream or rent music with a subscription model), if they shut it down tomorrow your music will still be playable indefinitely. Try that with those Napster "downloads" after they're gone. Finally, as others have pointed out, there is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from using the Apple service AND any other service of their "choice", so in that sense iTunes is increasing, not limiting, your beloved right to choose.

Guppy fish -- I think you miss the point. Those work arounds are just that... workarounds. ;)

It would be nice to have a service that meets everyone's needs. I don't think there is one yet. I used emusic's unlimited service for a while -- for $10 a month, I could download anything on their site. They had reasonable rules about moving songs around between computers -- you could put it on whatever computer you and your immidiate family used to listen to music. If you had 20 computers, that was fine. Burn it to a CD for the car, whatever. You could also purchase songs individually, if you didn't want the "unlimited" service, or get an entire album for a discount. It was nice.

Originally, you could use anything to download the songs, though they did have their own player that would give you more download options, but they changed that over time to require that one player. But that was just for downloading -- you can still play the songs on whatever you want to play them on. The website would also keep track of what you had downloaded so it was easier to just get all your songs again on another computer.

It was pretty nice, and it was doing this 5 years ago... They were the innovaters! It does mostly focus on music from independent labels. Unfortunately, they recently changed their terms of service, and I realized I hadn't been downloading anything new for a while, so I cancelled my subscription. If I need any new songs, I can just buy them individually.

About me: I have an iPod and several Macs and I do like Safari/Panther/etc. But Apple fanboys sure do annoy me, too. I also have a couple PCs, a sun, and I have no idea what else (it changes a lot...). And the best computer ever was the Commodore 128. Oh, and I have a GameCube, because David kept raving about them, and I adore it.

Speaking as the top name in simulation auto racing* I have the “ower” to state that Windows is far superior to any other OS at this time for one reason and one reason only. You cannot race NASCAR with the realism of NASCAR Racing 2003 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000077WA5/nascarnetcom-20) because the developer community to better the game does not exist to support the mac version. You must race with lame logos instead of real tobacco and alcohol logos, how horrible is that? That being said, lets realize that my comments have nothing at all to do with the original post... I just am a mac bigot, or as I like to call it, a migot.

Alex "The Top Name In Simulation Auto Racing" Santantonio
http://www.nascarnet.com - The Influent Site

* June ’97 - voted #1 of the top 15 most influent person in SimRacing?? by ymenard, compiled from an arbitrary list that included one person listed twice and the author listed as #14 - http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2202035951d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=339132A7.6E12%40cam.org

(I am also a total a-hole and previous co-worker of THE David Kearns)

Sorry for the copy and paste links, the blog doesn’t like HTML