Check this out-Email from MusicMatch

[Frisco]

As a valued Musicmatch customer and iPod user, we want to alert you to a serious software conflict caused by iTunes for Windows.

Apple iTunes for Windows prevents Musicmatch® Jukebox from working with the iPod by deleting critical files used by Musicmatch. If you install iTunes, you will not be given a choice between Musicmatch Jukebox and iTunes - Apple makes this choice for you.

To avoid any problems and to get the best possible experience when managing your MP3 collection and transferring music to your iPod, here is what we recommend:

1) DO NOT install iTunes for Window on your PC if you are using Musicmatch Jukebox and wish to continue using Musicmatch Jukebox with your iPod.

2) If you have already installed iTunes for Windows but want to continue using Musicmatch Jukebox, please follow these steps:

____·_ Disconnect the iPod from your computer if it is still connected

____·_ Double click on 'My Computer'

____·_ Double click on 'Control Panel'

____·_ Open 'Add or Remove Programs'

____·_ Select and uninstall 'iTunes'

____·_ Select and uninstall the 'iPod for Windows' item

____·_ Select and uninstall the 'Musicmatch iPod Plugin' item

____·_ Select and uninstall the 'iPod System Software Update' or any other iPod related _______items that might be listed

____·_ Select and uninstall 'Musicmatch Jukebox'

____·_ Close the 'Add or Remove Programs' control panel

____·_ Restart your computer

____·_ Delete the contents of the iPod directory by dragging the files to the Recycle Bin _______and then emptying the Recycle Bin

____·_ Navigate to the '\program files\Musicmatch\Musicmatch Jukebox\' folder

____·_ Delete the files, but not the folder, in the Musicmatch Jukebox folder

____·_ Reinstall Musicmatch Jukebox from the installation CD that came with your iPod or _______download the iPod software from the following URL: _______http://www.musicmatch.com/download/free/?OS=pc&OEM=APPLE

____·_ When finished, reboot your computer

____·_ When the computer finishes rebooting, connect the iPod to your system

____·_ Open Musicmatch Jukebox


If you continue to experience problems or have any questions about this issue, please do not hesitate to contact Musicmatch Customer Support at http://www.musicmatch.com/form/support/index.htm.

We hope you have the best possible music experience with the world's most popular jukebox software - Musicmatch Jukebox.

Thank you.

The Musicmatch Team

[SilentPanda]

They're probably tired of getting support calls/e-mails about it. Makes sense to me.

[jamesatzones]

This looks like a last ditch effort to save biz...

[Frisco]

Originally posted by SilentPanda
They're probably tired of getting support calls/e-mails about it. Makes sense to me.

After installing iTunes, who would have the energy to call MusicMatch and complain that it isn't working?

I would only call MusicMatch to complain if it was working :D

[Foxer]

Doesn't sound like much of "serious software conflict" to me. Itunes deletes MusicMatch. Ergo, no conflict;)

[Sun Baked]

Too complicated...

Somebody should write an Applescript to to this with a single double-click.

Oh right, it's a PC.

Why would anybody want to make a complicated process easy, when you can "pay" somebody to do it for you. I keep forgeting about that bloodsucking MS IT infrastructure leech.

[radhak]

Wonder if that was from MusicMatch? (because it does not actually promote it ;) )
By detailing out 18 steps to do this, the email does not have any hope of attracting fans.
More likely, people would run out of breath going down the list (i did), and say, 'all this just for not using iTunes ?!!?' and pass out :D

[idea_hamster]

Doesn't seem to discourage iTunes use -- just tells you how to us MusicMatch if you installed iTunes and want to go back.

Never used MM, so I'm not necessarily up on all the info, but I don't recall ever hearing that iTunes would interfere with MM. I know that I'd be a little shocked if I decided to try out iTunes and found that "you can't go home again".

I suppose that Apple thought of MM as a stop-gap measure, but that's no reason not to come clean on how your "best Windows program ever" interacts with other programs -- especially if it get a "doesn't play well with others".

[stoid]

Originally posted by Frisco
We hope you have the best possible music experience with the world's most popular jukebox software - Musicmatch Jukebox.


Is it legal for them to say that, I didn't think that MusicMatch was the world's most popular jukebox software?

[arn]

This is a somewhat odd situation.

Some people might find this to be deceptive of Apple... but Apple did provide MusicMatch for PC users... so it could be considered an upgrade.

If MusicMatch was called iTunes 0.5b, no one would fault Apple for upgrading to the latest of Apple's iPod Syncing software
(aka iTunes 4.1.1)

That being said.... it is on the aggressive end of the spectrum. :)

arn

[Macette]

Surely people who download iTunes actually want to USE it? And I don't know about "serious" software conflict... i would say that Panther destroying information on external firewire harddrives qualifies as "serious", while a few config problems with jukebox software may scrape in as "slightly irritating and worth a small whinge".

Or something.

[Sol]

Why would anyone want to go on using MusicMatch with their iPod after iTunes was ported to Windows? MusicMatch should forget the iPod and concentrate on their DellPod.

[rainman::|:|]

i like the line "apple made this choice for you". like they came and installed iTunes on your computer. granted it's not good when software conflicts with other software, but seriously. plus, i would think it would be difficult to use two different programs on one iPod.

so the only way this would be a problem is if someone installed iTunes and then wanted to go back to MM. but, ah, why?

pnw

[sethypoo]

I wonder why Apple didn't try to make a patch for this in advance? :confused:

[iJon]

who cares, musicmatch made more problems than it solved with the ipods. all my friends started using ephpod.

iJon

[beefcake]

My first impression of that was that MusicMatch is trying to get people to stop using iTunes by making it seem as if iTunes will ruin their iPod. The first thing you read is a warning that iTunes will screw with iPod connectivity. I don't think it will matter much, as most iPod users are familiar with iTunes as being the original program developed for the iPod. This email will prevent annoying tech support calls, but probably won't sway many users from iTunes.

[skymaXimus]

Originally posted by stoid
Is it legal for them to say that, I didn't think that MusicMatch was the world's most popular jukebox software?
Yah, and its leagal to say that iTunes for Windows is the best Windows app ever written.
I don't see MM complaining that Apple made the original choice for their iPod customers of what jukebox software to use (Music Match). So how can they get upset w/ Apple for changing the direction of what they say should work w/ the iPod? Apple makes the iPod MM, not you!!
The whole thing is totally bogus. A last ditch effort if you ask me.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I don't see this as a problem, especially since Apple now recommends the iPod be used with iTunes and packages them with it. MM still functions, just can't interact with the iPod anymore. Apple has every right to control what their devices will interact with. I wouldn't be surprised if future revisions to the iPod are incapable of working with MM at all.

And besides, people choose to install iTunes and likely want it. MM just doesn't want to have to give up being "the most popular jukebox software" out there. I would think Windows Media Player or WinAmp were more popular though.

[iPC]

As usual, Apple is against choice. iTunes on a PC shouldn't conflict with MM, or Napster 2.0, etc etc, IF IT WAS WRITTEN PROPERLY!!! Last I checked, the installer file of music program B is not supposed to delete settings files of music program A. That is what is known as "anti-competitive behavior" and if proven true, could see Apple in court.

However, if there is a warning during the install process (none that I have heard about), then it would be okay by me.

[cr2sh]

I'm not sure about this, what if a PC user installs iTunes, but also has a copy of MusicMatch.. but no iPod. I agree with Arn, if iTunes is thought of as an upgrade.. then its okay. What though, if the PC user didnt have Music Match as a result of owning an ipod? Does iTunes still deactivate MusicMatch? If so its kinda shady.

Admin Edit: No, iTunes does not "deactivate" MusicMatch. It only takes over iPod synching functionality. Please re-read the post.

[skymaXimus]

Originally posted by cr2sh
I'm not sure about this, what if a PC user installs iTunes, but also has a copy of MusicMatch.. but no iPod. I agree with Arn, if iTunes is thought of as an upgrade.. then its okay. What though, if the PC user didnt have Music Match as a result of owning an ipod? Does iTunes still deactivate MusicMatch? If so its kinda shady.
It sounds to me like it only deactivates iPod connectivity w/ MM. Thats why you have to trash all those iPod programs from the Add/Remove panel.

[arn]

Originally posted by cr2sh
I'm not sure about this, what if a PC user installs iTunes, but also has a copy of MusicMatch.. but no iPod. I agree with Arn, if iTunes is thought of as an upgrade.. then its okay. What though, if the PC user didnt have Music Match as a result of owning an ipod? Does iTunes still deactivate MusicMatch? If so its kinda shady.

it deactivates MusicMatch ipod synching. MusicMatch still works.

arn

[cr2sh]

Originally posted by arn
it deactivates MusicMatch ipod synching. MusicMatch still works.


I don't agree with it then. If it were an upgrade, it should have completelly removed MM.

[LegionCSUF]

Originally posted by arn

If MusicMatch was called iTunes 0.5b, no one would fault Apple for upgrading to the latest of Apple's iPod Syncing software
(aka iTunes 4.1.1)

This falls apart in one very important area: these are programs by two different (and now competing) companies.

This isn't a company updating a shoddy old version of their software (as an "iTunes 0.5b" would be). This is another company's software.

We shouldn't assume that every instance of the software that it breaks exists only to serve the iPod. I don't doubt that there are plenty of MM owners that were using the software before they even bought an iPod. I bet there are others that are using versions of the software newer than what was bundled with their iPod. Having bundled old versions of a software in the past doesn't give you free reign to do something to break a feature of all instances of that software.

Not everyone that installs iTunes is going to keep it. Software choice is a very fickle personal thing, and there are almost for certain a large chunk of MM users that will prefer MM over iTunes. I know we Apple users can't fathom someone not absolutely adoring an Apple software product, but there are plenty that don't. One should be able to experiment with various software packages without having some of them covertly damaging others.

I don't fault Apple for wanting to promote iTunes as the means for Windows users to connect with their iPod, but I do not like the outcome here. If it's an unintentional technical problem, I'd like Apple themselves to say so, and perhaps "fix" it if possible. But if intentional, it's just way too Microsoftian for me.

[arn]

Originally posted by cr2sh
I don't agree with it then. If it were an upgrade, it should have completelly removed MM.

Well, MusicMatch is not Apple's software. Removing it would (definitely) be stepping over the line.

Look at it this way.

Apple ships iPod with [iPod Synching Software 1]. Apple has just updated [iPod Synching Software 1] to a new version called [iPod Synching Software 2] that is the version that now ships with all iPods.

iPod Synching Software 1 = Music Match
iPod Synching Software 2 = iTunes

That being said, I could see people having a problem with this.

arn

[arn]

Originally posted by LegionCSUF

We shouldn't assume that every instance of the software that it breaks exists only to serve the iPod.

The upgrade doesn't "break" anything. iTunes just takes over iPod syching functionality, and does not allow you to "downgrade". So, yes, we can assume that it only affects iPod owners.

MusicMatch still works otherwise.

arn

[Freg3000]

Very Microsoftish. Very. I don't care if Apple had first used MM to sync with the iPod, people should still have a choice. If Microsoft did anything like this, most people here would be screaming for another monopoly lawsuit.

I understand why Apple did this, but I'd like to see what would happen if M$ did something along similar lines.

[iHack]

how much trouble could a revert option have been? Just park the 'affected' MM files to the side somewhere, when putting the iTunes stuff there, change back if the user so desires. Maybe a few register key would have to be updated. Can't be hard at all - many other programs do this kind of stuff all the time.

Although... I haven't seen a program that snatches the linked extensions (or what are they called again) that will restore them to their former programs. An app doing that without asking first would be seriously frowned upon, I guess...

M.

PS. It feels good to realise I'm actually forgetting this windows stuff from before I switched last April. Or is repressing a better suited word ;)

[SiliconAddict]

Considering its iTunes that is messing things up I would put the blame squarely on Apple for dicking around with an already functional setup. They've been putting out MM for how long? They should know what to look for during setup to make sure they don't BREAK something.

[dongmin]

It does seem a little sneaky of Apple, but we don't know the terms of their deal with MusicMatch. It's quite possible that Apple wrote in something in the agreement that legally ALLOWS them to turn off ipod synching with MM.

[markm]

Wasn't iTunes originally written from the MusicMatch codebase? I think I remember Steve Jobs saying something like... "If this seems like MusicMatch, that's because it is" when iTunes was first announced. I could be very wrong, as it is a faint memory. If I am right, then it's funny that they are now competing.

[arn]

Originally posted by markm
Wasn't iTunes originally written from the MusicMatch codebase? I think I remember Steve Jobs saying something like... "If this seems like MusicMatch, that's because it is" when iTunes was first announced. I could be very wrong, as it is a faint memory. If I am right, then it's funny that they are now competing.

You're thinking of SoundJam.

In late 2000/early 2001, Apple acquired the distribution rights to SoundJam from Casady & Greene, a distributor of third-party software products, and retained SoundJam's developers to work on iTunes

arn

[dloomer]

Did MusicMatch write the iPod syncing functionality, or was this something that Apple wrote and threw into the iPod-bundled version of MM? If it's the latter, they probably have every right to do with it as they please, but I assume that's not the case if there's a controversy...

[SeaFox]

I notice MM is making the old iPod plugins for MMJB available to download. Since I assume at least a license with Apple was involved with the creation of the plugin, couldn't Apple Legal force MM to stop distributing their old plugin?

Also, even if iTunes is considered an "upgrade" to the functionality of the MMJB plugin (which it is), that's no reason to uninstall MMJB. I still use both and would be mega-pissed if iTunes deleted it.

I just changed the iTunes music folder location to the root level of my "My Music" folder and run the WatchFolder function on MMJB to add files iTunes added to MusicMatch's library.

[solvs]

<sarcasm>Oh no! Apple has become M$, breaking it's competitions software!!! Whatever shall we do!?!<sarcasm>

Oh wait, it's just the iPod syncing. You know, their own product. Now that MM is a competing program, you'd think they'd be allowed to change that part without people freaking out, but we all have to overreact to every stupid thing they do. MM still works just fine (well, as good as it ever did), they got a nice boost from Apple for awhile, but now if people want to use iTunes they can, and will. If they don't like it, they can just go back to MM.

Though, judging by the steps it takes to do that, most people will probably just stay with iTunes. But, I guess that's the point. <sarcasm>How dare Apple use their own products to promote their own products.<sarcasm>

Yeah, sometimes they p*ss me off, too, but I think we can let this one go people.

[macphoria]

As much as I love iTunes, Apple tempering with other company's software which is utilized by Apple's own hardware is not very cool.

[daddy-mojo]

I have no idea as to any of the wording on the Win iTunes install, but I know that I would like to be informed of that kind of change. Those of you who use Toast recall in OS 9 that when you install it, it tells you its going to disable the Apple CD Burner extensions before it actually installs it and tells you how to change it. Granted its a hell of a lot easier to make those changes on the mac vs. the 18 steps MM listed. I would just like to think that Apple would inform its potential user that the ipod synching was going to be changed over. Can anyone out there who has installed Win iTunes as to whether or not there is any kind of message indicating this? If it does say something in regards to the change, then there is nothing left to be said. However, if not, then it is shady of Apple to do so & they should notify users on the install.:rolleyes:

[LegionCSUF]

Originally posted by arn
The upgrade doesn't "break" anything. iTunes just takes over iPod syching functionality, and does not allow you to "downgrade". So, yes, we can assume that it only affects iPod owners.

MusicMatch still works otherwise.

arn

You don't quite get it.

1) Something in one software product that worked a certain way before is now altered and taken over by a completely different product. This is breaking something.

2) The point is that people aren't necessarily using MusicMatch only as "upload crap to my iPod" software. It does other things. For some people, it is a nice complete solution, and the last thing they want is other software products taking over features.

There's no good reason for these software packages to interact with each other. One should quite frankly not affect the other, and some people may have reasons to want to use both, or at least have both installed.

[Awimoway]

Reminds me of early versions of Jaguar (i.e. 10.2.0, 10.2.1, ...) when Internet Explorer would override any attempt to set another app as your default browser.

It's no way to build trust or respect. Apple should have included some kind of notification window during the installation process.

On the other hand, MusicMatch knows full well that the iPod was designed to work hand in hand with iTunes. Porting iTunes to Windows naturally means no more MusicMatch support for iPods.

I'm sure MusicMatch saw the handwriting on the wall the moment iTunes for Windows was pre-announced back in the spring. This email is typical tongue-in-check deception targeting less savvy computer users who will likely panic and not really understand that iTunes is actually better.

[jimjiminyjim]

Your mother and your mother-in-law each bake pies. Both pies go beautifully with ice cream. Your mother makes an apple pie. It tastes good. Mmmm. Your mother-in-law makes a blueberry pie. It is also delicious. Mmmm. Your mother makes an apple-cinamon pie. Mmm. She uses the ice cream, and does not allow you to eat ice cream with your mother-in-laws blueberry pie. I guess it's ok, since your mother made the ice cream too.

[ITR 81]

This would only turn maybe a new user that doesn't know anything about iTunes. But folks that bought iPod also probably know iTunes was part of iPod so I doubt many will change because of this email.

Whats crappy about this MM is trying to steal some it's customers back but they knew all along that iTunes would eventually come to the Win iPod because the only reason they got brought on board is so Apple could sell iPods to Win users.

[legion]

Originally posted by jimjiminyjim
Your mother and your mother-in-law each bake pies. Both pies go beautifully with ice cream. Your mother makes an apple pie. It tastes good. Mmmm. Your mother-in-law makes a blueberry pie. It is also delicious. Mmmm. Your mother makes an apple-cinamon pie. Mmm. She uses the ice cream, and does not allow you to eat ice cream with your mother-in-laws blueberry pie. I guess it's ok, since your mother made the ice cream too.

Now I'm hungry for apple pie, blueberry pie, apple-cinnamon pie and ice cream.

Arghhhh!!:D

[zync]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I would think Windows Media Player or WinAmp were more popular though.

Agreed though WMP sucks....WinAmp is definitely the winner but it's not classified as a jukebox software because it doesn't maintain a library.

[rainman::|:|]

has anyone considered that iPod connectivity may be something that HAS to be taken over, i think there would be serious problems with letting both programs access the iPod at the same time... like, data not being written properly, the database corrupting, etc. and the preferred method for the iPod to interface with the computer is iTunes... so if you had iTunes, your iPod would *really* prefer you sync with it rather than MM.

i do agree there should have been a warning in the agreement. something that said "by installing, you will no longer be able to sync Music Match with your iPod"...

pnw

[jimjiminyjim]

Originally posted by legion
Now I'm hungry for apple pie, blueberry pie, apple-cinnamon pie and ice cream.

Arghhhh!!:D

Just remember, you can't have ice cream with the blueberry pie.

[coolsoldier]

iTunes did not "Break MusicMatch" or anything even remotely similar. They just rewrote their own software (iPod Sync) such that it no longer interfaces with MusicMatch. BIG difference -- MusicMatch was using Apple's software for iPod connectivity. The fact that Apple is now a competitor of MM makes it perfectly acceptable for them to do this. No law, or even general code of conduct, requires Apple to make their software interface with their competitor's.

[GeeYouEye]

Fine, I'll agree that it's bad on Apple's part IF someone can provide a way of doing it differently. Can you imagine what would happen if you plugged in the iPod and both applications tried to sync to it? Assuming you didn't duplicate or wreck the file system, if there were fewer songs in one jukebox than the other, they could go into a recursive loop trying to write, erase, and overwrite each other's data. You'd lock up the system within minutes, and wear out the HD mechanism in the iPod.

No, far batter to just take over iPod syncing than leave to chance that Joe User will accidentally turn on syncing for iTunes without turning it off for MusicMatch. And it's not like iTunes can turn off syncing for MusicMatch from within it - protected memory and all that (you can mess with files, not programs, from within programs, unless they're specifically designed to be messed with a la Applescript).

[Dippo]

Can someone please find just ONE person who installed iTunes but decided to use MusicMatch instead???

If not, then this whole discussion is over nothing!

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
i do agree there should have been a warning in the agreement. something that said "by installing, you will no longer be able to sync Music Match with your iPod"...

pnw

Um, there was. It said plain as day you would not be able to use MMJB for iPod syncing.

It's just some people are too stupid to read the messages they get when they install software. Like those jokers who said iTunes never said it was going to rearrange files when the installer did and moreover they had to give it permission to do so. :rolleyes:

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Dippo
Can someone please find just ONE person who installed iTunes but decided to use MusicMatch instead???

If not, then this whole discussion is over nothing!

I use both. There are feature in MM that iTunes does not have.

[leet1]

Originally posted by Dippo
Can someone please find just ONE person who installed iTunes but decided to use MusicMatch instead???

If not, then this whole discussion is over nothing!


http://r1-forum.com/forums/images/smilies/hellobye.gif

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
iTunes did not "Break MusicMatch" or anything even remotely similar. They just rewrote their own software (iPod Sync) such that it no longer interfaces with MusicMatch. BIG difference -- MusicMatch was using Apple's software for iPod connectivity. The fact that Apple is now a competitor of MM makes it perfectly acceptable for them to do this. No law, or even general code of conduct, requires Apple to make their software interface with their competitor's.

break http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=break
1. To destroy the completeness of (a group of related items) Or in this case a group of provided services
2. To vary or disrupt the uniformity or continuity of


I'd say by installing iTunes it has "destroy the completeness" of Music Match or if nothing else it has disrupted the provided service of Music Match. Apple doesn't have some automatic right to do whatever it wants on your computer. If the next version of MS Media Player integrated with the iPod and did the same thing iTunes is doing Mac users would be raising holy ****

[iPost]

Can someone please find just ONE person who installed iTunes but decided to use MusicMatch instead???

I'm one who prefers MusicMatch. While iTunes has a nice, consistent design, it's not a very feature-rich app. iTunes doesn't automatically tag my MP3's like MusicMatch's super-tagging does. I often rip CDs on my laptop when I'm not connected to the Internet. When I get back online, I can just use MusicMatch's super-tagging to automatically go look up the tagging information and fix up everything in my library. iTunes doesn't do that and I miss that feature. Also, iTunes' radio stations are pretty poor in my opinion. MusicMatch's artist-on-demand radio is so much better.

Also, I don't like the idea that I have to create a new playlist every time I want to play some songs while browsing the library. In iTunes, if I start playing something in the library and then do a search, the search results can actually affect what gets played next. This is my biggest frustration with iTunes. Why don't they offer a separate playlist window? I realize that you can double-click on a playlist name to fire another window off, but then it looks like you have two versions of iTunes running and it's confusing what's what and it takes up too much screen real estate.

In addition, I hate that three-pane Browse view that iTunes uses to display Genre, Artist, and Album. I like seeing the songs under each artist or album like MusicMatch displays them.

I realize that some people seem to like iTunes, but I'm not a big fan. The PC is all about choice (well, if the DOJ can keep MS in line), and it would be great if the PC offered a number of different programs to interact with the iPod. If Apple wants this to be the most popular player out there, it's a mistake to offer only one app to support it. In software, one size does not fit all. I wish Apple would learn that lesson.

[hokka]

Why is this a problem???

Think about the facts and you should realise Apple is doing so to protect it's customers.

1]. MusicMatch does NOT support AAC at the moment.
2]. if people buy iPod and are a PC user, unless very new they would of had to install MM as it's syncing / jukebox program.
3]. And if after the person installs iTunes (knowing it's from the maker of iPod), and they ended up buying from MM (say, by mistake) and realise iPod don't support WMA - and looking from another perspective (see point 1].), who do they blame?!!
4]. Apple is making sure the end user would purchase from iTMS (which is the whole intent of iPod) and what ever he or she purchase is playable on iPod.

And MM is trying to reach it's base and trying to persuade them to purchase from MM - which is uncompetitive gesture if you ask me considering they don't make iPod and don't support the format iPod supports.

[zync]

Originally posted by iPC
As usual, Apple is against choice. iTunes on a PC shouldn't conflict with MM, or Napster 2.0, etc etc, IF IT WAS WRITTEN PROPERLY!!! Last I checked, the installer file of music program B is not supposed to delete settings files of music program A. That is what is known as "anti-competitive behavior" and if proven true, could see Apple in court.

However, if there is a warning during the install process (none that I have heard about), then it would be okay by me.


Ummm, we're all forgetting the major point here. The iPod Plugin for MM is an APPLE program. They wrote it. They bundle it with MM. It's not a part of the MM program. MM still works fine, albeit very crappy, as it did before. If Apple removes the iPod plugin's functionality from Music Match it is within their rights though they should offer a solution or a disclaimer saying that iTunes will not be able to sync an iPod while MM is set up for it because it would be total chaos for both programs to acces an iPod at the same time. Still, being a former MM, then ephpod, now mac iTunes user I can say that no one in their right mind besides a newbie computer user would have the desire to even keep Music Match on their system. I mean just try to create playlists and rearrange songs in them. I don't even think it had drag capabilities in playlists so you had to go through tons of BS to rearrange a playlist if you didn't drop the songs in it in the right order. Actually I think you could rearrange them but it kept their "track numbers" with them so the list was still, in effect, the same. No one would use MM over iTunes if they fully understood both programs. MM is one of those windows programs that makes ignorant mac users (don't read mac users in general) believe that even XP sucks...

[zync]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict

I'd say by installing iTunes it has "destroy the completeness" of Music Match or if nothing else it has disrupted the provided service of Music Match. Apple doesn't have some automatic right to do whatever it wants on your computer. If the next version of MS Media Player integrated with the iPod and did the same thing iTunes is doing Mac users would be raising holy ****

Except, the provided service of Music Match is Music Match itself not the iPod plugin which is provided by apple. Music Match still works, other than it's other flaws.

Originally posted by iPost
I'm one who prefers MusicMatch. While iTunes has a nice, consistent design, it's not a very feature-rich app. iTunes doesn't automatically tag my MP3's like MusicMatch's super-tagging does. I often rip CDs on my laptop when I'm not connected to the Internet. When I get back online, I can just use MusicMatch's super-tagging to automatically go look up the tagging information and fix up everything in my library. iTunes doesn't do that and I miss that feature. Also, iTunes' radio stations are pretty poor in my opinion. MusicMatch's artist-on-demand radio is so much better.

I don't know how iTunes isn't feature rich...also you could alternatively put all your CDs in while it's online and then rip them whenever you want. Personally I'm too much of an audiophile to let any program name anything for me so I really hate that about MM. I guess I must be the only person who ever manually enters CD info instead of bothering to go online to get it (unless it's for more than a few CDs). With MM, doing that doesn't tell it hey, this is the correct CD info and when you go online it comes up with however many CDs you've entered in manually over your lifetime and takes forever to look up the info. And it's not like the internet has perfect info so you have to go back and make sure it's correct. Which leads me to another pain in the ass MM un-feature. It handles about as many genres as ID3v1 and I do like music from other genres that fall into other categories that ID3v1 doesn't have like music in other languages and stuff like alternative. If you classify half of the music you listen to as alternative you're screwed and have to manually edit it. Also I don't remember whether or not MM does batch processing of ID3s. I don't think it did and frankly didn't care as I used WinAmp for everything even MP3 tagging by hand until I found Dr. Tag.

Originally posted by iPost
In addition, I hate that three-pane Browse view that iTunes uses to display Genre, Artist, and Album. I like seeing the songs under each artist or album like MusicMatch displays them.

I might as well just censor myself. Music Match has one of the crappiest, most useless interfaces I have ever seen, especially it's iPod view. You can't get any info on Multiple copies of songs when you manually add them to your iPod. It doesn't do anything about copies. It's terrible, but hey, it's what Apple had to work with and they did a cut up job with it. You'd have to call it cut up when Apple had to sew the pieces of Music Match together to work with such an instrument of precision like the iPod.

Sorry for the non-brevity of my monologue/rant. I just friggin' HATE Music Match. It brings the quality of windows software down, WAY DOWN.

[iPost]

Originally posted by zync
Ummm, we're all forgetting the major point here. The iPod Plugin for MM is an APPLE program. They wrote it. They bundle it with MM. It's not a part of the MM program.

I think you're missing the point. I don't care if it's within Apple's right or not to do this. And, who cares what anyone thinks about MM? That has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue and question here is: why is Apple so adamant about there being only one *official* software program available on the PC that can sync with the iPod?

They should be taking the opposite approach... providing an iPod SDK free of charge to anyone willing to write software for it. There should be iPod plugins for WMP, Real, Winamp, as well as MusicMatch or whoever else.

If the point of the music store and iTunes is just to sell more iPods, then I really don't see why Apple feels they need to be the only Windows app that supports it, given that they certainly aren't making any money off of iTunes and very little off of the music store.

Don't get me wrong... I like Apple... but I just keep seeing them making the same mistakes over and over. Stop shutting people out and open up the iPod ecosystem instead.

[hokka]

iPost:

I can give you an example which would shut you right up!

1 word: Sony

Cheers! ;o)

[zync]

Originally posted by iPost
I think you're missing the point. I don't care if it's within Apple's right or not to do this. And, who cares what anyone thinks about MM? That has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue and question here is: why is Apple so adamant about there being only one *official* software program available on the PC that can sync with the iPod?

They should be taking the opposite approach... providing an iPod SDK free of charge to anyone willing to write software for it. There should be iPod plugins for WMP, Real, Winamp, as well as MusicMatch or whoever else.

If the point of the music store and iTunes is just to sell more iPods, then I really don't see why Apple feels they need to be the only Windows app that supports it, given that they certainly aren't making any money off of iTunes and very little off of the music store.

Don't get me wrong... I like Apple... but I just keep seeing them making the same mistakes over and over. Stop shutting people out and open up the iPod ecosystem instead.

No, you missed the point again. If they release an SDK people building programs for iPods will logically end up inadvertently messing a few up. When that happens who do you think they're going to call up to fix their broken iPods? Not only would it be cost-prohibitive for Apple to go doing repairs on iPods that people have screwed up by developing for them but also trying to figure out what people did to them in the first place. Also, it's perfectly within Apple's rights to not release an SDK for their own hardware. Keep in mind I'm Apple-Neutral....I complain about them and I love them. And I was just demonstrating how crappy an app MM is with my rant.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by iPost
I'm one who prefers MusicMatch. While iTunes has a nice, consistent design, it's not a very feature-rich app. iTunes doesn't automatically tag my MP3's like MusicMatch's super-tagging does. I often rip CDs on my laptop when I'm not connected to the Internet. When I get back online, I can just use MusicMatch's super-tagging to automatically go look up the tagging information and fix up everything in my library. iTunes doesn't do that and I miss that feature. Also, iTunes' radio stations are pretty poor in my opinion. MusicMatch's artist-on-demand radio is so much better.

The superior tagging is what I like about MusicMatch, too.

Also, I don't like the idea that I have to create a new playlist every time I want to play some songs while browsing the library.

This isn't a whole lot differnt from MusicMatch. You can't play songs in it unless they're on a playlist, whether saved or not. There's no way to play your entire library in MMJB unless you create a playlist with every track in it. And I can't play just the trcaks from a given artist, or album, or genre without making a playlist of them first.

All I have to do in iTunes is click on the desired genre/artist/album (or combination) and the library narrows down to just those tracks.

In iTunes, if I start playing something in the library and then do a search, the search results can actually affect what gets played next.

Assuming you're not playing an actual playlist...

This is my biggest frustration with iTunes. Why don't they offer a separate playlist window? I realize that you can double-click on a playlist name to fire another window off, but then it looks like you have two versions of iTunes running and it's confusing what's what and it takes up too much screen real estate.

A separate playlist view would be handy when building a new playlist.

My biggest frustration with MMJB is the playlist window gives you squat information! It doesn't tell you how long a track is, or the entire playlist. Oh, wait. I can click on and playlist frame and find out how many tracks there are on playlist. If I want to set up a playlist to burn to CD I have to just pick 17-19 tracks and then send them to BurnerPlus to see if they fit. It's stupid.

In addition, I hate that three-pane Browse view that iTunes uses to display Genre, Artist, and Album. I like seeing the songs under each artist or album like MusicMatch displays them.

That's the best part about iTunes! It's playlist/library view is easier to jump to track you want with, and it's column view is as sortable as a database!

MusicMatch has 18 different sets of metadata to use for column views, but you can only display 7 differnt columns at a time. iTunes has 20 metadata sets and you can display all of them at once. Meaning you can sort songs any way possible in iTunes without changing prefs.

...and you can show/hide a column by simply deselecting it with a right-click command. MMJB only lets you change the column's data type.

The scolling artist/album list (even when collapsed) is just cumbersome for large collections. Plus it means extra mouse clicks to get tracks onto the playlist.

You didn't mention MMJB's cumbersome dialog box, one-file-at-a-time, searching I notice.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by iPost
I think you're missing the point. I don't care if it's within Apple's right or not to do this. And, who cares what anyone thinks about MM? That has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue and question here is: why is Apple so adamant about there being only one *official* software program available on the PC that can sync with the iPod?

It's about controlling the whole experience, the same reason the Mac is a proprietary hardware platform for the OS. Control limits choice, but helps insure quality.

They should be taking the opposite approach... providing an iPod SDK free of charge to anyone willing to write software for it. There should be iPod plugins for WMP, Real, Winamp, as well as MusicMatch or whoever else.

Because then tech support would have to play the finger pointing game with anyone who has iPod problems with a third party syncer.

If the point of the music store and iTunes is just to sell more iPods, then I really don't see why Apple feels they need to be the only Windows app that supports it, given that they certainly aren't making any money off of iTunes and very little off of the music store.

Because music store songs are in AAC and MMJB doesn't support it perhaps?

The music store is less a money making venture than a brand identity enhancer. It's also about exposing people to the Mac way of doing things.

Since the job of the iPod syncing software is to match the iPod's contents to the library's, if I sync an iPod in MMJB that has AAC songs on it the AAC songs would get deleted. Plus it's also an issue of support for Apple, why spend development money to stay current with MMJB's changes when you have you own in-house soultion you'd rather have people use.

MusicMatch could write their own iPod plugin if they wished, ya know. iTunes isn't the only Mac MP3 player that can interface with an iPod, Audion (www.panic.com/audion) can too.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by iPost
I often rip CDs on my laptop when I'm not connected to the Internet. When I get back online, I can just use MusicMatch's super-tagging to automatically go look up the tagging information and fix up everything in my library.

Insert CD. Go to Advanced, Get CD Track Names. Click Import. Be happy.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Insert CD. Go to Advanced, Get CD Track Names. Click Import. Be happy.

No, you're not getting it.

First of all he means the Deferred CD Lookup feature, not SuperTagging.

But anyway, what he does is rip all of his CD's, with no tracknames on them, to his library. So they all say "track 1", "track 2", ect.

The next time he launches MMJB while connected to the net MMJB goes and retrieves the song information for all the CD's at once, using the traits gracenote uses for identifying discs (MMJB saved them while he was ripping the discs). So he can rip all his tracks, connect to the net ONCE, and label everything.

To retrieve the tracknames in iTunes he'd have to be connected to the net on each disc insertion before he started ripping.



As a side note, I notice the same guy wrote both posts I replied to. He hates iTunes, and then complains about Apple wanting to control iPod interfacing. That given the fact he's new spells TROLL to me. Otherwise, why doesn't he just delete iTunes and restore the MMJB syncing with the instructions at the start of this. No need to complain if you want nothing to do with iTunes anyway after all.

[iPost]

Originally posted by SeaFox


This isn't a whole lot differnt from MusicMatch. You can't play songs in it unless they're on a playlist, whether saved or not. There's no way to play your entire library in MMJB unless you create a playlist with every track in it. And I can't play just the trcaks from a given artist, or album, or genre without making a playlist of them first.

All I have to do in iTunes is click on the desired genre/artist/album (or combination) and the library narrows down to just those tracks.



You can play your entire library in MusicMatch by right-clicking in the library, and selecting "Play My Library." It will randomly play tracks from your library. I won't argue with you on that point though... MusicMatch should have a way to easily play selected tracks from the library without having to add them to the playlist window.

As far as the other point, perhaps I didn't explain the problem well enough. The problem I have with iTunes is that if you play from the library, the current context of what you're playing in your library is easily lost.

Yes... all you do is click on the desired genre/artist/album to narrow the selection down. But if you start playing those search results (without first copying them into a playlist), you will most likely screw up that list if you do any other browsing or searching in the library.

I just wish there was a way that iTunes automatically persisted that list without me having to physically create a playlist (READ: hit the "+" button, type in a name, select the tracks in the library -- which by the way sometimes hangs the iTunes UI if you select more than just a few tracks, and then move everything over to that playlist node), and then having to delete it when I'm done.

And while I'm nitpicking ;-) I hate how iTunes uses that single tiny little speaker graphic to denote the song that's playing (i.e., there is no special highlight on the song that's playing). It's so hard to pick up that little speaker on a big screen when you're looking for the song that's playing in the library.

Maybe it's just me... but with iTunes, I often wonder what song is playing in the library and what song will play next. Notice that if you're playing a song in a playlist, and you happen to browse to that song in the library, it doesn't show you that that song is playing.

I can see what Apple is trying to do... to allow you to treat your library as a playlist. But a library is also for browsing, searching, and filtering, and things get confusing when you try to play from your library (or from your search or filter results in the library) and then do somehthing else in the library. If I'm doing anything in my library while playing from the library, most often I find that the music just stops and it's frustrating to get back to the song that had just ended and play the next one.

And, if we're going to talk about missing features in the library column headers, how come Apple didn't use a standard Windows list view control for their library? If you place the mouse cursor between the column headings (so you get the little resize cursor), clicking the mouse should cause the column widths to autosize to the widest entry in that column. iTunes doesn't do this. Also, the keyboard interface for multiple selection isn't implemented properly. So, iTunes isn't perfect either.

And yes, MusicMatch definitely needs a better search.

[hokka]

Originally posted by SeaFox
To retrieve the tracknames in iTunes he'd have to be connected to the net on each disc insertion before he started ripping.


What I do is insert all the disk I want to rip while I'm online and eject them stright after I get the track names online - iTune remembers the disk.

Then at a later date - when I'm not online, I can just re-insert the disks and rip away.

I find the above method works great if you are on a dial-up and you can't be online while iTunes rip your music

[hokka]

Originally posted by iPost

And while I'm nitpicking ;-) I hate how iTunes uses that single tiny little speaker graphic to denote the song that's playing (i.e., there is no special highlight on the song that's playing). It's so hard to pick up that little speaker on a big screen when you're looking for the song that's playing in the library.

Yes you are, but I'll give you pointers

ever tried Ctrl+L (or Apple+L) ?? it gets to the song that's playing staright away

Haha, welcome to the Mac short-cut-instant-gratification method

[Bengt77]

Originally posted by Dippo
Can someone please find just ONE person who installed iTunes but decided to use MusicMatch instead???

If not, then this whole discussion is over nothing!

I persuaded two of my friends just yesterday to download and install iTunes on their PC's alongside MusicMatch just to compare them. I didn't know iTunes screwed the connectivity between the iPod and MM, though. I guess I'll hear about it today, so I'll report about their thoughts tomorrow. And yes, both these PC-using friends have iPods, while I don't have one; darn!

:rolleyes:

[iPost]

Originally posted by SeaFox


As a side note, I notice the same guy wrote both posts I replied to. He hates iTunes, and then complains about Apple wanting to control iPod interfacing. That given the fact he's new spells TROLL to me. Otherwise, why doesn't he just delete iTunes and restore the MMJB syncing with the instructions at the start of this. No need to complain if you want nothing to do with iTunes anyway after all.

Okay... I don't *HATE* iTunes. I've just been using other jukeboxes/players (MusicMatch, Winamp, and Siren Jukebox) for years and I guess I'm used to those interfaces. Like I said, I can see that some people really like iTunes. And that's a "good thing." It's all about choice and personal preference. iTunes just doesn't work the way I'm used to. (Nothing personal!)

Getting back to the original point... I really like my iPod and I'm a bit upset in that it seems that Apple wants me to use iTunes instead of the player of my choice. If Apple made an SDK available to whoever wanted to program for it, we'd probably see a lot of innovative software appear that supported the iPod (and maybe my favorite program would get even better at supporting it).

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by zync
Except, the provided service of Music Match is Music Match itself not the iPod plugin which is provided by apple. Music Match still works, other than it's other flaws.



Music Match like iTunes encompasses a number of services including audio playback, music downloads, and external audio device support. Attached is the license agreement for the pd_AppleiPod_1s.mmz plug-in. I read over the Apple agreement. Unless I'm blind, in the case of legal mumbo-jumbo I could be, I'm not seeing any rights for apple to change, alter, or manipulate the software after then fact.
The closest thing you see is You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. And arguing that even that gives apple the right to tweak the plug-in is stretching it.
Actually we really don’t have any clues as to how far this integrates with MM, what internal agreements Apple and MM have. So all of this is speculation. But on the surface its smells like something Microsoft would pull.

PS- I love half way down the lic agreement

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES
LOL I’m not sure what scares me most. That they HAD to include that or that someone actually thought up such a phrase to be included. :eek:

[chomsky]

Originally posted by stoid
Is it legal for them to say that, I didn't think that MusicMatch was the world's most popular jukebox software?

I don't know, is it legal for apple to claim that OS X.3 is the world's "most advanced operating system"?

I love and use OSX and its GUI, but it is still outclassed at the OS level by linux. Here's hoping it catches up.

As far as advertising claims go, I think that as long as consumers can't prove harm because of it, they can spout whatever nonsense they want.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by Dippo
Can someone please find just ONE person who installed iTunes but decided to use MusicMatch instead???

If not, then this whole discussion is over nothing! I'll add my two cents in then. First, I'm not a big playlist person - I generally have my music play just high-bitrate, random. Same with the iPod - so just about anything can sync files.

On a Windows PC, I actually prefer WMP as my "playing" jukebox software. Minimizes nicely to a control pod in the taskbar, doesn't look too bad (after adding window borders, etc), and works very well for my purposes. CD ripping is crap, though - for that I tend to use MM.

When I rip CDs with MM, it tags the files the same way that pretty much every piece of audio software I've seen likes to see them. Album art is consistent, etc. When I'm playing these files in WMP (or anything else), it finds the artist, albums, etc very consistently.

I installed iTunes and ripped a few CDs. Nice enough interface, a little annoying that it (by default) puts the music into its own directory, but that got fixed pretty quickly. Still mucks up the "My Music" folder rather than storing its own files into "Application Settings", but hey, there are many reasons why its not a well behaved Windows app. When tagged, these tracks have a high failure rate in other apps. They can read the tags alright, but the album information, etc, is often not retrivable from other databases. Kind of annoying. So, back to ripping in MM.

Add to this the fact that the interface continues to bug me on Windows (as a software designer, I tend to abhore programs that don't follow well-defined standards, just as the Mac crowd used to). Sadly, most MP3 players don't follow existing GUI standards, but iTunes is one of the worst (even changing window resizing). Its as annoying on an XP box as it would be if MSFT had written Office X to use the Windows standards on a Mac.

As for syncing, what would be ideal (for me) on a Windows box is a little daemon that just synced the "My Music" directory. Silently. After all, that is a well-followed Windows standard place for your music (unless ripping through iTunes defaults) that every other piece of software respects. And it fits the "data-centric" Windows approach better - use whatever program you wish to create or access the files, and you should be fine, as long as the file structure itself is respected. This is the opposite of the way that the Mac is moving to - and there are good and bad parts about both approaches, they're just different.

Just my two cents.

-Richard

[scdazed]

Duhhh.... Although Apple may want to post a warning that iTunes will be the default iPod sync (to avoid being accused of a Microsoftism), if there is not a single sync to your iPod, isn't the sync function pointless? MusicMatch still functions, just not as the sync.

If MusicMatch wants to regain their edge: write better software. Unlike Microsoft, Apple's (usual) credo is to "build a better mousetrap" (yes, they've done a couple of corporate stongarm tactics before too, but less).

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by scdazed
Duhhh.... Although Apple may want to post a warning that iTunes will be the default iPod sync (to avoid being accused of a Microsoftism), if there is not a single sync to your iPod, isn't the sync function pointless? MusicMatch still functions, just not as the sync.Work with me on this one. Assume, for a minute, that there are people who aren't big fans of iTunes and who don't use something other than MM to sync. See if you can follow this flow:[list=1]
User buys iPod, installs MM, likes his Apple experience so far.
User sees iTunes ad, and downloads it to try it out.
User doesn't like it, and closes it.
A day goes by.
User fires up MM, just like he always has, and trys to sync his iPod.
User gets annoyed at the fact that his "iPod has broken"
User finds out that Apple removed bits of a previously working solution, and he has to jump through hoops to get back to where he was before.
[/list=1]How do you thing that Mr. User feels about Apple now? More to the point, how likely is he to trust Apple software in the future? Is he going to check out "iPhoto for Windows" if it might remove part of the (lesser, but simple and fast) integrated software that came with his copy of XP? How does he know that it wouldn't?

And its not like Windows (at least XP) doesn't already have a mechanism for multiple programs to share devices - for example, when you plug in a digital camera for the first time, you get a list of programs that have registered that they're interested in digital cameras (including native XP programs). You pick which one, if any, you want to autolaunch on that piece of hardware and you can change it whenever you want to. That sort of user-level choice is expected these days, at least for well-behaved software (but apparently the best Windows program written doesn't have to follow the rules if it doesn't want to, or has a hard time competing without breaking them).

-Richard

[pgwalsh]

Hehe I think it's funny.

A good friend of mine that's an avid PC user just tried iTunes per my recommendation. He's was a huge musicmatch fan, but he and his friends really like iTunes..

I've used musicmatch. Can't imagine why someone would choose it over iTunes, but we all have are preferences.

[arn]

Originally posted by LegionCSUF
You don't quite get it.

1) Something in one software product that worked a certain way before is now altered and taken over by a completely different product. This is breaking something.


I get it, and I agree it's aggressive.

But I think this is a unique situation... and not quite the same as "taken over by a completely different product".

Apple is taking over software that they provided to the end user.

If you have an iPod + MusicMatch... Apple gave both of those to you. Is Apple in their rights to upgrade MusicMatch to iTunes? I personally think so - but barely.

If someone goes out and buys an iPod from the store, they get iTunes. MusicMatch is not an option. Just like if I go buy a Palm, Palm Desktop 2.0 is no longer an option.

iPod + MusicMatch is simply no longer an officially supporting config by Apple.

arn

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by arn
If you have an iPod + MusicMatch... Apple gave both of those to you. Is Apple in their rights to upgrade MusicMatch to iTunes? I personally think so - but barely. 'scuse me? If someone bought an iPod, and it came with MusicMatch, then I don't see that software as being "given" by Apple - that person bought a license to that software and has every right to expect it to continue to function, no matter what "competitive" software gets installed after the fact. The fact that Apple was involved both times is irrelevant.

-Richard

[whooleytoo]

Blech! This is ugly.

Just imagine the potential headline:

"Apple cripples MusicMatch opposition, enforces monopoly on iPod interoperability".

- Just swap Apple with Microsoft, MusicMatch with Netscape (Lotus etc..), iPod with Windows.

Add it to the other recent story:

"Apple puts squeeze on retail competition, attempts to steal customers".

As if the QuickTime/iTunes combined installer didn't have enough points for PC critics already!

Annoying popup "Buy now" dialog.. Check!
DRM... Check!
Disable software on user's PC WITHOUT ASKING... Check!
Hijack file associations... Check!
Rearrange MP3 collections... Check!

Even admitting the last two can be avoided, it's still an ugly list of issues for critics to latch on to!

Mike.

[Wash!!]

Originally posted by iPost
Okay... I don't *HATE* iTunes. I've just been using other jukeboxes/players (MusicMatch, Winamp, and Siren Jukebox) for years and I guess I'm used to those interfaces. Like I said, I can see that some people really like iTunes. And that's a "good thing." It's all about choice and personal preference. iTunes just doesn't work the way I'm used to. (Nothing personal!)

Getting back to the original point... I really like my iPod and I'm a bit upset in that it seems that Apple wants me to use iTunes instead of the player of my choice. If Apple made an SDK available to whoever wanted to program for it, we'd probably see a lot of innovative software appear that supported the iPod (and maybe my favorite program would get even better at supporting it).

Use musicmatch to play your tracks on your pc and use itunes for synching and move on if you don't like it i'll take your ipod from your hands.. and go buy that crappy dell "I want to be an ipod so bad" dj thing...

[arn]

Originally posted by rjstanford
'scuse me? If someone bought an iPod, and it came with MusicMatch, then I don't see that software as being "given" by Apple - that person bought a license to that software and has every right to expect it to continue to function, no matter what "competitive" software gets installed after the fact.

Do you expect Palm Desktop 2.0 to sync to your palm after you install Palm Desktop 3.0?

Look, i'm not being difficult... just pointing out that this is a unique situation in that Apple did not (happen to) control the first version of the ipod syncing software.

That being said... yes, Apple should offer an either/or or at least a downgrade option.

arn

[the_dalex]

If Apple provided the plugin, and they needed to make changes to that plugin to work with iTunes, and the new plugin couldn't be made to reliably work with both... then I don't see a problem with it.

Somebody posted that there was a warning when iTunes was installed, but people are not reading it. Can we get a confirmation on that? If so, this whole discussion is about how people get fired up over things that are their own fault for not paying attention...

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I believe iPod syncing in Windows is not necessarily built in to MusicMatch, but is a seperate program built by Apple that allows interaction with MusicMatch. The iPod is listed seperately under add/remove programs from MM and iTunes. Apple updates their own iPod program and makes it sync to iTunes. My guess is MM has no code or anything dealing with the iPod, just like Belkin wasn't able to see the iPod when designing products for it. So, basically, as syncing improves, MM's software they are licensed to use will become more and more out of date, making iTunes the only logical solution for syncing with the iPod in all platforms. Makes it a lot easier, if you ask me. How confusing could it get if two programs were both trying to sync with the iPod?

Doesn't seem like MM is complaining much anyways. They also haven't posted a program that does the job of re-enabling MM for you with the iPod because, I believe, they're not allowed to under agreements with Apple. They wanted to be able to work with iPod and realized Apple would eventually have its own software for their product. I just think the free iTunes signals a great diminishment in the popularity of MM.

[pankau]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
So, basically, as syncing improves, MM's software they are licensed to use will become more and more out of date, making iTunes the only logical solution for syncing with the iPod in all platforms. Makes it a lot easier, if you ask me. How confusing could it get if two programs were both trying to sync with the iPod?

First, I don't personally believe Apple has the right to forcibly dictate which syncing application/solution is "the only logical" one to use.

Second, it is not at all confusing when two or more programs both try to sync with an external device. Do you have a digital camera? If you're like me, you most likely have some sort of utility software that came with your camera as well as an album-like application that organizes your photos. When I connect my camera to my computer, a little dialog pops up asking me to choose which application I would like to use to connect to the camera (and I can set this as the default for the future if I want). Same thing goes for when you insert a CD into your cd-rom drive. Multple applications want to read/play/burn that CD, but YOU get to choose which one gets to do so, not Apple or some other company. This is my problem with Apple hijacking MMJB's access to the iPod. Functionality already widely exists for multiple applications to attempt to connect to a newly connected device.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by arn
Do you expect Palm Desktop 2.0 to sync to your palm after you install Palm Desktop 3.0? Not if I "upgraded" it, no. Although if I installed it in a separate directory, especially if it came bundled as part of another application suite, then yes, I would.

I certainly wouldn't expect that if I installed something like Microsoft Outlook which contained palm syncing capabilities that it would disable Palm Desktop 2.0, even if Outlook's capabilities were more up-to-date.

That's what Apple's done here.

-Richard

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I believe iPod syncing in Windows is not necessarily built in to MusicMatch, but is a seperate program built by Apple that allows interaction with MusicMatch. The iPod is listed seperately under add/remove programs from MM and iTunes. Not from the user's point of view. There's MusicMatch, and then the iPod-enabled version of MusicMatch. If you, for example, try to install a later version of MM by downloading it (instead of doing the "Upgrade" link inside your existing MM/iPod), you're even told, "This version doesn't contain iPod functionality that your current one does. If you want to keep it, cancel this installation and upgrade your current one."

How its specifically implemented by the developers is irrelevant to the vast majority of users.

-Richard

[Sabenth]

the who and the what now.. you can still use your iPod.. you can still use MM For playing music why in gods name is beyond me i used MM for a little while and i reverted back to WMP9 Till iTunes came out.. havent looked back yet ive got a whole 2 computers worth of music sharing on 2 computers great!!

bit sneaky i know with the ipod sync thing but iPod +iTunes = Entertament ..

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by rjstanford
I certainly wouldn't expect that if I installed something like Microsoft Outlook which contained palm syncing capabilities that it would disable Palm Desktop 2.0, even if Outlook's capabilities were more up-to-date.

That's what Apple's done here.

What if your Palm had come with Microsoft Outlook, and you download Palm Desktop, which disables Outlook's ability to sync with your Palm?

[Rumbach]

At a certain point, it seems that the popularity of the ipod requires a certain amount of "fair play" from Apple.

If I am correct, the ipod is "by far" the most popular mp3 player right now.

To only allow your own software to work with your own player, in order to promote your company, could get really dirty.

Why? Because Msoft did the exact same thing with Windows/Explorer - take a very very popular product, then make it bundle/work well with your own software, even if others are out there competing.


I don't like it too much.

[zync]

Originally posted by iPost

As far as the other point, perhaps I didn't explain the problem well enough. The problem I have with iTunes is that if you play from the library, the current context of what you're playing in your library is easily lost.

Did you consider how confusing it would be if it didn't get modified in a search? You always know what's playing next because it goes down the list but if it just remembered the order (taking up a lot of system resources while your at it) how would you have any idea what's coming next you've modified the view with a search. The search isn't meant to go find other music while you're listening to music. It's meant to taylor the library into a pseudo-playlist so you don't have to create one. Besides, if you were using a mac you could probably just write an AppleScript to fix all your iTunes woes. That's something MM will never be able to do!

[BillyShears]

So what if Macromedia releases a web browser? Would it be fine with all of you if it disabled the Flash plugins in Safari/IE/Camino?

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by BillyShears
So what if Macromedia releases a web browser? Would it be fine with all of you if it disabled the Flash plugins in Safari/IE/Camino?

This situation is a little different from that -- The iPod can't effectively try to sync with two different programs. Trying to accomplish this would just make the iPod more difficult to use. Apple changed which software it used for the iPod, only if you installed it, and warned you that it was changing it's function. The fact of the matter is that they had to pick one or the other to keep the two programs from alternately claiming control of the iPod (which could cause iPod problems).

ALSO, MusicMatch no longer functions fully with the iPod. By including WMA-p downloads that don't work on the iPods, MUSICMATCH BROKE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE IPOD. Apple has a choice between users complaining that MusicMatch doesn't work with their iPods anymore, or users complaining that the iPod doesn't work with their MusicMatch music. Which should they choose? Which would you choose?

[Phil Of Mac]

It should be noted that Apple is breaking compatibility only with the version of MusicMatch *that shipped with the iPod in the first place*.

If Apple wants to replace my bundled copy of GraphicConverter with Photoshop Elements, I'm happy.

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by zync
Did you consider how confusing it would be if it didn't get modified in a search? You always know what's playing next because it goes down the list but if it just remembered the order (taking up a lot of system resources while your at it) how would you have any idea what's coming next you've modified the view with a search.

This could be changed with a "Now Playing..." item in the source list. However, I find it useful to be able to do a search to dictate what will play next. If you prefer to use playlists, by all means use them. Playlists do not work any differently because you are able to play from the library. :rolleyes:

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
This situation is a little different from that -- The iPod can't effectively try to sync with two different programs. Trying to accomplish this would just make the iPod more difficult to use. ... Which should they choose? Which would you choose? I like your second question. Why not let the user choose? Windows already has well established standards (ignored by Apple like so many other standards are) that address this issue. When you plug in your iPod, Windows can pop up a little dialog that says:

What would you like to use with your Apple iPod?
o Nothing
o MusicMatch
o iTunes
o something else...
[X] Make this choice the default from now on.

This is built in to Windows (at least starting with XP, possibly before). Its how the system deals with this situation with scanners, cameras, and all sorts of other devices. It only fires up a single app, so you don't have multiple-sync problems. And it keeps choice in the hands of the user. A couple of clicks and they never see it again if they don't want to, anyway. Not following well established standards like this just makes iTunes look like they can't compete on a level playing field.

-Richard

[DarkPhoenixCA]

Originally posted by iPost
I'm one who prefers MusicMatch. While iTunes has a nice, consistent design, it's not a very feature-rich app. iTunes doesn't automatically tag my MP3's like MusicMatch's super-tagging does. I often rip CDs on my laptop when I'm not connected to the Internet. When I get back online, I can just use MusicMatch's super-tagging to automatically go look up the tagging information and fix up everything in my library. iTunes doesn't do that and I miss that feature. Also, iTunes' radio stations are pretty poor in my opinion. MusicMatch's artist-on-demand radio is so much better.

Also, I don't like the idea that I have to create a new playlist every time I want to play some songs while browsing the library. In iTunes, if I start playing something in the library and then do a search, the search results can actually affect what gets played next. This is my biggest frustration with iTunes. Why don't they offer a separate playlist window? I realize that you can double-click on a playlist name to fire another window off, but then it looks like you have two versions of iTunes running and it's confusing what's what and it takes up too much screen real estate.

In addition, I hate that three-pane Browse view that iTunes uses to display Genre, Artist, and Album. I like seeing the songs under each artist or album like MusicMatch displays them.

I realize that some people seem to like iTunes, but I'm not a big fan. The PC is all about choice (well, if the DOJ can keep MS in line), and it would be great if the PC offered a number of different programs to interact with the iPod. If Apple wants this to be the most popular player out there, it's a mistake to offer only one app to support it. In software, one size does not fit all. I wish Apple would learn that lesson.

Please. MMJB has one of the worst UI's I've seen on Windows. I've been using it since Apple started shipping it with 2G iPods, then would look longingly at those shiny new PowerBooks and iTunes.

First: In MM, you can only display one playlist at a time (as of 7.5, when I finally ditched Windows for the Mac). This was a major hassle to have to open and re-open different playlist windows.

Second: Whenever you changed a skin, MM would re-size the windows. I typically would have the little player window, the playlist window, and the library windows open and "maximixed" (MM doesn't have true maximize buttons like most Windows apps). Switching skins would re-size the windows to their small size, and I'd have to re-size and re-arrange everything again. (MM also uses separate, "floating" windows for the player controls, the current playlist, and the entire library.)

Third: Each time I would make a change to the tag of an MP3 then sync, MM would make a COPY of the file on the iPod. I didn't realize this until I synced and found 4 copies of the same song on my iPod.

And finally...MM's support is HORRIBLE. There is no phone support - only email - and their answers are generally pre-canned responses you get 24-48 hours after sending it in.

I know some of these gripes are just that - gripes - but iTunes is such a vastly superior jukebox I don't know why any PC user would continue to use MM. I kept hoping RealPlayer would have an iPod plug-in, since I was just so sick of MM's behavior. (No need to worry about it now...)

[solvs]

Man it's so funny reading through these posts. I didn't really notice, but did any of you who are kinda overreacting have this happen to you? You have an iPod, installed iTunes, now want to use MM to sync you iPod? You know, MM still works just fine. Re-read the first post, it just broke iPod syncing. Once again, it still works, and so does iPod syncing if you don't install iTunes. If you do install iTunes, it now includes updated iPod syncing software. MM will still work with music files. There's even an option when you install iTunes that asks you if you want it to be the default player, or not.

Funny, didn't someone already say this? :p Ah well, I guess we all better start making Apple out to be evil because they've updated their own products to work with each other.

<sarcasm>Just like M$. :mad:<sarcasm>

[zync]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
This could be changed with a "Now Playing..." item in the source list. However, I find it useful to be able to do a search to dictate what will play next. If you prefer to use playlists, by all means use them. Playlists do not work any differently because you are able to play from the library. :rolleyes:

Yes, but it would be useless to have a now playing item, which would be in effect a playlist, of your entire library (that's what he said he wanted which also seems useless) just so you'd hear it the way it was originally. Besides that's boring most of the time. I actually dislike playlists for the most part, i.e. I avoid them if I can. I have rleatively few ones and they're really only for specific tone or whatever. When I create a CD or playlist I try to make a logical flow within it or with something that connects each song....it's my DJ complex I guess. Everyone seems to like my mixes, too bad I'm so busy that I rarely see anyone to hear them :) Also, I like the way search works, I wasn't the one complaining about that :D

[jonapete2001]

I think this is a non issue. Everyone who has an ipod knew what they were downloading the new apple software to sync with the ipod. There was no mystery in what apple did, they replaced the buggy, broke, music match.
Who in their right mind kept music match installed after itunes came out anyway. If you have an ipod with itunes why would anyone want to use a sucky program like MM.

[coolsoldier]

I see a parallel here to AOL's acquisition of CompuServe. Before AOL bought Compuserve, windows users used CompuServe's WinCim client to connect to the CS network. When AOL took over, they released the new cs2000 client, which replaced the winsock so that WinCim wouldn't work after installing cs2000. Several of the Compuserve users I spoke to prefered the "cleaner" interface of the old client, and of course, for those who didn't install AOL's new client, WinCim kept working in the short term, but since the network was evolving and WinCim wasn't, any new features that were added or changed on the network stopped working with WinCim, and eventually WinCim stopped working altogether.

This is potentially a similar issue. Consider:
•MusicMatch for the iPod was originally commissioned and distributed by apple as the official iPod software.
•The iPod version of MM isn't being updated anymore, as Apple and MM no longer have a business relationship.
•Any existing bugs in MM's iPod connectivity, problems caused by system upgrades, or problems with updates to iPod firmware will cause problems with MM that, because Apple and MM are no longer working together, will likely never be resolved.
•MusicMatch and the iPod are diverging. MM is using their software to promote a format that the iPod doesn't play, and the iPod is promoting a format that MM doesn't play. This adds another usability barrier to iPod <=> MusicMatch connectivity.
•Apple has to support any software that they endorse for iPod use. It would be a plain and simple waste of resources for them to try and support the use of older software that, at least for the purposes of iPod use, is no longer being updated.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
•Apple has to support any software that they endorse for iPod use.You mean, like, the MusicMatch product that they sold along with the iPod to many, many Windows users?

-Richard

[zync]

Originally posted by rjstanford
You mean, like, the MusicMatch product that they sold along with the iPod to many, many Windows users?

-Richard

Yeah and things DO change, and Apple no longer endorses that product. It's not like they screwed you and you're at a loss either because iTunes is free and so was MM techinically because you didn't buy it. If you did newer iPods would cost slightly less. In fact Apple and Music Match probably had an agreement that MM would bundle the software nearly for free because it was a market that they could get recognition in and hopefully sell their upgraded programs to. Think about it. How many iPod users do you know that would use MM if they didn't have to? Why do you think EphPod developed? How many windows users do you think would ever use it? It's all about marketing and by riding the iPod bandwagon, MM bought into the product recognition of iPod along with getting it's own product on your computer and that's powerful because you're forced to use it unless you find an alternative, which was especially difficult around the initial release of the windows iPod. Also alternatives weren't backed by Apple which, I'm sure, made a lot of people decide against them in favor of Music Match. Anyway I've talked far too long now. Time to go to sleep...

[posixstudent]

I was going to post this earlier, but I had to set up my external source for the screenshot.

There is no relevant issue with this story. If you wanted to use MMJB then you should have pushed the “Cancel” button.

{Screenshot follows:}
http://cyberboy.freeshell.org/ipod.jpg

I believe the relevant question is, should people read or be capable of reading information under the heading of “Information Please read the following text. Press PAGE DOWN to read the full text.”?

In support of assisted technology, I will state the notice from Apple Computer in text so that text to speech software (which 90+% of you all apparently use) can read it for you.

“Important: After installing iTunes 4.1 for Windows, you’ll only be able to transfer music to your iPod using iTunes. To transfer music from MusicMatch Jukebox or Audible Manager to your iPod, you’ll need to first import the music into iTunes.”

As for those that debate ethics, there is NO problem to what Apple did. Apple used a legal principle referred to as “Reasonable Persons.” That is, Apple assumed that a reasonable person using iTunes for Windows is able to read the 2nd paragraph of a clearly marked information dialog box.

For those that reply that nobody reads these dialog boxes, you deserve what you get. These are the type of people that would cry “Bloody Murder” when there computer gets messed up by a virus that was installed with an installation process that states “Program Installation, this is a virus do not install. Do you wish to continue? OK, Cancel.”

Sorry for the trolling, but I felt you all deserved it.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by zync
Yeah and things DO change, and Apple no longer endorses that product. It's not like they screwed you and you're at a loss either because iTunes is free and so was MM techinically because you didn't buy it.

Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if (hypothethically) Apple was to start charging for iTunes? And with MusicMatch syncing now broken, you wouldn't then have any other option other than to pay for it.

[Wash!!]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if (hypothethically) Apple was to start charging for iTunes? And with MusicMatch syncing now broken, you wouldn't then have any other option other than to pay for it.

MM sucks either way I would gladly pay for itunes...and yes Apple has its right to choose what can sync to its products...just live with or move on and buy the portable player that works with your beloved mm.. dell crap o player, or the samsung or just wait until uncle bill comes out with their own innovated player..please please get over it use itunes and be happy

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if (hypothethically) Apple was to start charging for iTunes? And with MusicMatch syncing now broken, you wouldn't then have any other option other than to pay for it.

Since installing MusicMatch again or continuing to use an old version of iTunes is obviously impossible :rolleyes:

[zync]

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Out of curiosity, what would your opinion be if (hypothethically) Apple was to start charging for iTunes? And with MusicMatch syncing now broken, you wouldn't then have any other option other than to pay for it.

That would be wrong, but you're still able to revert your changes...plus you'd have to buy it to break MMJB :) in the first place so I think it would be ok, especially since we now have proof that they warned us...if however they broke it in such a way that even an uninstall/reinstall wouldn't correct the problem and somehow you had a trial or something that did that and then you'd have to pay, that would be wrong but it's nearly an impossible situation...

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by zync
That would be wrong, but you're still able to revert your changes...plus you'd have to buy it to break MMJB :)

Ah, this would be Apple's famed ease of use! :D

1) Install MM for iPod, since iTunes wasn't available.
2) Install iTunes for Windows (clicking through the intro dialogs as 90%+ of users do!) to take a look at the music store.
3) Realise MM syncing is now broken, so reinstall to get MM iPod syncing back.
4) There's no step 4! Woohoo!

Admittedly, the fact that Apple does state in the intro dialog that MM no longer works does mitigate quite a bit, but still they should have made it a little more obvious.

I'd love to know how many PC users have read the headlines and been turned off by iTunes:

"iTunes reorganises and moves your music collection"
"iTunes hijacks your file associations"
"iTunes removes functionality from a competitor's app"

It doesn't matter that there are ways of avoiding these pitfalls, the PR damage has been done..

Mike.

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by whooley


I'd love to know how many PC users have read the headlines and been turned off by iTunes:

"iTunes reorganises and moves your music collection"
"iTunes hijacks your file associations"
"iTunes removes functionality from a competitor's app"

It doesn't matter that there are ways of avoiding these pitfalls, the PR damage has been done..

Mike.

Maybe, but not necessarily. The media has been pretty friendly to Apple on this one:

http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-5101569.html?tag=st_pop