iTunes for Windows Soon? [Archive]

suzerain

Jun 11, 2003, 01:07 PM

However, it must be said, the New York Times has a history of factual errors in technology stories. I'm at a loss thinking of any right now, because I don't keep papers around, but I can remember laughing at more than one point in the past while reading tech. stuff in that rag.

weev

Jun 11, 2003, 01:07 PM

I do want to believe this, and suspect such a service has been in the pipeline longer than we know.

SJ's 'before the end of the year' statement may have been a smokescreen to ease the urgency of competitors. But in any case sooner is far, far better than later.

Look!, we have 970, panther and now a service for the lost souls of computing.

When will this creative carousel stop!?

Maclicious

Jun 11, 2003, 01:07 PM

So, the 'at the end of the year' quote from Jobs was provided to give their competition the feeling that they could go a little slower in getting their own version up to speed?

gothamac

Jun 11, 2003, 01:08 PM

What happened to years end?

trebblekicked

Jun 11, 2003, 01:09 PM

good news; a lot of horses in the starting gate, though. but they don't necessarily need to be 1st out of the gate. they just need a good translation to the win platform, and hold with what made the system work on our side.

rogueimage

Jun 11, 2003, 01:10 PM

Please let this be accurate! Apple needs to get this out before the other major players enter the market.

I just hope that "end of the month" isn't a typo. They could have meant "end of the year," simply quoting Steve at the keynote.

tgrundke

Jun 11, 2003, 01:10 PM

I certainly hope this is true. When Steve said "by the end of the year," my heart sank. I thought, "Great, there goes another great Apple innovation that will undoubtedly be undercut by Microsoft or other competitiors before Apple gains critical mass."

I've always thought that in order for Apple to really command this market they'd need to get in by the end of August at the latest.

If this is true, it's good news. HOW it can be true is a different story.

Mr.Hey

Jun 11, 2003, 01:10 PM

Can't believe I'm saying this but good! the sooner the better

Sedulous

Jun 11, 2003, 01:11 PM

How did Apple throw this together so fast? I thought they just posted for the iTMS developer position!

DominicusG

Jun 11, 2003, 01:12 PM

Maybe the writer accidentally typed month instead of year?

laukev7

Jun 11, 2003, 01:13 PM

If this is true, than I guess all is not lost to Microsoft yet. This is good news.

tliptak

Jun 11, 2003, 01:13 PM

I don't think releasing them at the same time would have a good idea. One of my friends liked it so much he started to play with it. Then he started trying all the apple apps. Now hes getting a powerbook, but on the other hand I think a windows version is a good idea. A really really good idea if Microsoft is also jumping into this revolution! Kick some micro$ucks butt! If they put it into windows media player it will really really byte because wmp also stink a lot. A friends has 18 hours of music without any playlists or a search function. If apple released itunes for windows even without the music store I would beat all other players. Well thats just my 2 cents

Postal

Jun 11, 2003, 01:13 PM

I can't wait for iTunes for Windows... so long as it doesn't kill CPU usage, I'd probably find it much more convenient than Winamp or Windows Media Player combined.

Plus, it would offer a nice synergy between my PowerBook and my desktop. :)

Let's just hope that the app is smart enough to look for a "My Music" folder on Windows XP machines. A lot of people have concentrated their music in a particular location, and it wouldn't do to have to copy everything over manually.

tgrundke

Jun 11, 2003, 01:14 PM

You know, reading that NY Post article (It *is* the Post, afterall...), the 'end of the month' comment could merely be a typo or misunderstanding on behalf of the writer.

JohnHummel

Jun 11, 2003, 01:14 PM

Considering that Jobs & Co must have realized how quickly the other companies just jump on this should it proove a success (and I'm sure they knew it would be), they probably had everything in place to do it, just had to work on some final bits.

If it's correct then Apple could be about to completly rule the online music roost. It will be interesting to see how their stock does once the other 95% of the US computer market (sorry, everybody else - I wish they'd get the music store in you're area too :( ).

If they make around $1 million a month profit (after the industry cut) with just US Mac users, they could probably bring in $10 - $30 million a month easy with Windows users out there.

RHutch

Jun 11, 2003, 01:14 PM

I know that people will say this isn't likely or even possible because it hasn't been that long since Apple posted the position for working on iTunes for Windows. I've made this point before: that just isn't necessarily true.

The problem is that this assumes that the program couldn't begin until someone was hired for the job. While it may very well be true that the project was very far along and only needed someone to finish things up. Also, it could have been a ruse on Apple's part to make everyone think that they were further behind than they really are. Maybe M$ and others would take a little longer to get their stores ready. Then SURPRISE Apple is ready to go for Windows.

I'm not saying that it's defnitely going to be ready, but I think people have to consider other things that might be going on here.

MorganX

Jun 11, 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by rhunter007
I wonder if Apple got scared (as other comments on the previous rumor suggested) with the prospect of everyone jumping on the ITMS bandwagon. Maybe they shifted iTunes for Windows into high gear only as a result of that?

That would be smart and is probable. Good to see Apple conducting "business."

cgmpowers

Jun 11, 2003, 01:17 PM

That'd be really nice..

I know a couple die-hard PC users who would LOVE iTunes for the PC..

Of course...I'd rather they dump their Windows machines and get Mac's...

Maybe iTunes for the PC will help??

ebow

Jun 11, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by rogueimage
Please let this be accurate! Apple needs to get this out before the other major players enter the market.

I just hope that "end of the month" isn't a typo. They could have meant "end of the year," simply quoting Steve at the keynote.

Seeing as they can't spell / proofread-and-catch "developing," I'm inclined to think it's a typo, and should have been "end of the year." :p

MorganX

Jun 11, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Sedulous
How did Apple throw this together so fast? I thought they just posted for the iTMS developer position!

May be that v1.0 will be an iPod, AAC player, iTMS client only. Maybe CD features and support for other players come later, hopefully.

rogueimage

Jun 11, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ig-88
I hope it's true. I still think Apple shoulda launched both at the same time.
Apple couldn't launch both at the same time, even if they had the software ready, because the record companies only made agreements for a Mac version. They are looking at it as a test market. Getting them to open up to virtually all computer users (in the US, anyway) is the biggest hurdle to a Windoze version.
It would be cool if apple just incorporated I tunes into QuickTime for windows or vice versa... kinda like M$ Media Player.
While a version of Quicktime that enables AAC will certainly be required, I doubt that they would be bundled. That would make the download much larger, and forcing people to download iTunes when all they wanted was Quicktime would be rather impolite.

mactastic

Jun 11, 2003, 01:22 PM

I was thinking exactly that when I heard that they were looking for a developer to lead the windows itunes port. Hmmm, I said to myself, what better way to put up a smokescreen than to announce a long development time for the windows version, and then spring it on us early. I wonder who got hired into that position, and whether there was already work under way before that job announcement was posted... I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't put something like this past SJ.

Mr.Hey

Jun 11, 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by MorganX
May be that v1.0 will be an iPod, AAC player, iTMS client only. Maybe CD features and support for other players come later, hopefully.

the attraction has to be more than just a simple aac/mp3 player. You want the user to use the app as much as possible bettering your chances of them dropping some cash. It should be identical to the Macintosh version.

gothamac

Jun 11, 2003, 01:33 PM

It's obvious that Apple had iTunes for windows ready at the launch of the music store. They just held back hoping to spur Mac sales. But with competition gearing up, they had to change plans.

dongmin

Jun 11, 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by suzerain
However, it must be said, the New York Times has a history of factual errors in technology stories. I'm at a loss thinking of any right now, because I don't keep papers around, but I can remember laughing at more than one point in the past while reading tech. stuff in that rag.

you may be right in saying that the Times gets their facts wrong sometimes (like with the whole J. Blair thing), but there is a HUGE difference between the Times and the Post.

rogueimage

Jun 11, 2003, 01:35 PM

One thing that strikes me as a stumbling block to Windows users using iTunes is that it isn't skinnable. When I was first introduced to mp3s way back in high school, everyone downloaded tons of skins for WinAmp. You were almost scoffed at if you used the original interface. I don't know how true that still is, but it must be to a certain extent, as even WMP comes with different skins.

iTunes, as elegant and functional as it is, is locked into the brushed metal look. I can certainly see some of my power-user friends snubbing it simply because they can't customize it. Even worse, the brushed metal look is not an established look on the PC. I suppose it's possible winTunes will have an interface that blends more with XP, but I think it's unlikely.

rog

Jun 11, 2003, 01:36 PM

This would be a major coup. they have to beat MS to the punch on this or risk being obsolete.

RHutch

Jun 11, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by rogueimage
One thing that strikes me as a stumbling block to Windows users using iTunes is that it isn't skinnable. When I was first introduced to mp3s way back in high school, everyone downloaded tons of skins for WinAmp. You were almost scoffed at if you used the original interface. I don't know how true that still is, but it must be to a certain extent, as even WMP comes with different skins.

iTunes, as elegant and functional as it is, is locked into the brushed metal look. I can certainly see some of my power-user friends snubbing it simply because they can't customize it. Even worse, the brushed metal look is not an established look on the PC. I suppose it's possible winTunes will have an interface that blends more with XP, but I think it's unlikely.

If they want to use the iTMS, then they will use iTunes.

Also, isn't this something that could be hacked? Couldn't someone figure out a way to make the look customizable? I'm sure it would be possible.

Paladin

Jun 11, 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by tgrundke
You know, reading that NY Post article (It *is* the Post, afterall...), the 'end of the month' comment could merely be a typo or misunderstanding on behalf of the writer.

Uhh, I think you're confusing the NY Post with the NY Times.

I'd love to see the rest of America jump on board, but I'm not feeling any sense of urgency. I already have access to iTMS; I'm a Mac user.

greenstork

Jun 11, 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by RHutch
The problem is that this assumes that the program couldn't begin until someone was hired for the job. While it may very well be true that the project was very far along and only needed someone to finish things up. Also, it could have been a ruse on Apple's part to make everyone think that they were further behind than they really are. Maybe M$ and others would take a little longer to get their stores ready. Then SURPRISE Apple is ready to go for Windows.

I think the posting of that ITMS developer postion certainly fits in well with the smokescreen idea. At the time the job listing was posted, I remember everyone on these boards thinking how fishy it was that they were looking for a developer at that stage. Many speculated, and it may prove quite correctly, that they were very far along in the development process. To ease competitors concerns they laid out the long time line (i.e. end of the year) and posted a job ad that could mislead.

That said, I hope that they release a finished product. I know that the mac haters from the Windows world are going to find any flaw in the program and scream and whine about it. It also goes without saying that the biggest competitive advantage Apple has with ITMS is the seamless integration from store to software to hardware (iPod). I would hope that above all else, this ease of functionality is not lost porting ITunes to the Windows platform. This is their niche when the competition arises, and it will.

Abstract

Jun 11, 2003, 01:40 PM

Or they just put more people onto the project once other companies started annoucing their plans.

Sorry I didn't read through the entire MS Music Store thread (its waaaaay too long :o), but doesn't MS have to work through the red tape and other legal issues with the Big 5 music companies like SJ??? Even if MS wanted to release their store before Apple does for Windows, surely it would be different (ie: maybe not a "per-song-download" like Apple). If it was extremely similar to Apple's store, they probably wouldn't even agree to jump on board the MS store unless they were providing something new and different. I think the iTMS will be fine, even if they release iTunes for Windows in December.

Sayer

Jun 11, 2003, 01:46 PM

There is this little company called FileMaker which makes products for Windoze. Apple also allegedly has an AppleWorks for Windoze project. And an OS X for Intel project.

I am sure Apple could have pulled off a few people and stuck them in a cubicle with iTunes 4 code and a PeeCee and said "Make it so." Then Steve came by and said "If you don't finish by WWDC you are *so* fired! And who approved that desktop picture of Avril Levigne! Get it off now!"

Jerry Spoon

Jun 11, 2003, 01:48 PM

Anyone have ideas on how Apple might advertise to pc users once this comes out? Do you think they'll stick to the magazine ads and a few commercials here and there, or will they do more? I really question how affective those ads are. I notice them, but my head always inadvertantly turns towards the apples (especially the macintosh's) when I'm passing through the produce section in my grocery store:)

Sayer

Jun 11, 2003, 01:49 PM

Apple also has some ShareWare called QuickTime ported to Windoze, which happens to also include large parts of the Mac OS to make it work.

You can (or used to be able to) use it to make Mac software run on Windoze with a little fudging.

iTunes uses QuickTime and its codecs and DRM to make all the magic happen. iTunes is largely a file manager with WebKit embedded inside to run the Music Store.

neutrino23

Jun 11, 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
I was thinking exactly that when I heard that they were looking for a developer to lead the windows itunes port. Hmmm, I said to myself, what better way to put up a smokescreen than to announce a long development time for the windows version, and then spring it on us early. I wonder who got hired into that position, and whether there was already work under way before that job announcement was posted... I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't put something like this past SJ.

I was thinking this too when I saw the story. It could have been a neat little bit of marketing ju-jitsu. Let the competition think they have nine months when in fact they had about nine weeks.:cool:

retaks

Jun 11, 2003, 01:53 PM

If windows gets iTunes would that make pc's albe to use an ipod for mac and an ipod for windows? and maybe the next ipod update require iTunes and not have mac/pc versions. iTunes for windows sounds like a good idea just for the ipod thing. I mean, an ipod without itunes is kinda sucky. It would be cool if there werent mac/pc versions because you could probably get an ipod cheaper and it wouldnt matter what OS you wanted to connect the ipod too. I think anyone who buys an ipod deserves the update songs on ipod command.

rogueimage

Jun 11, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by RHutch
If they want to use the iTMS, then they will use iTunes.

Also, isn't this something that could be hacked? Couldn't someone figure out a way to make the look customizable? I'm sure it would be possible.

Hopefully they will use iTunes. ;) And I'm sure people will love it once they do. The problem is getting them to try it in the first place, and I'm just envisioning message boards full of, "d00d, don't ev3n try it, it doesn't have sk1nsorz!"

And yes, I'm sure it could be hacked. I'm pretty sure there are already hacks for the Mac version. But that's extra work, and people don't like work. ;) Hopefully the uber-users who care about skins will take the time to hack the interface, and the casual users will be fine with the built-in interface. And soon everyone will be using iTunes, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, 'til death shall you part.

BTW, I have no problems with the interface myself. I really love iTunes. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

bignumbers

Jun 11, 2003, 01:57 PM

When I heard Steve say it would be the end of the year before iTunes for Windows, I knew that was silly, for two reasons.

1) They were surely thinking about it beforehand. It had to have come up in conversations with record exec's. It wasn't like the night before the ITMS announcement Steve suddenly got the idea for a Windows version.

2) Building a music player isn't rocket science. They've got all the inner-guts code for Mac, they've written WinQuicktime which has support for MP3 (just needs AAC), and the internet connectivity is a breeze (they could even use the built-in IE API's). They know what the UI will look like. Etc.

And I just looked - Apple still has the iTunes programmer open (http://jobs.apple.com/, search for "itunes") . You don't think they've taken two months to fill it do you?

RHutch

Jun 11, 2003, 02:03 PM

I just sent an e-mail to the Business editor at the NY Post, asking him to verify that the "end of the month" part is correct or to fix it if it is a typo.

I don't know if he'll write back or not, but I will continue checking the story for an update.

If I hear either way, I will post it here.

DGFan

Jun 11, 2003, 02:03 PM

Something to consider is that the software is only half of the puzzle. The licenses are the other half. Last we heard they were still in negotiations with the majors (had only signed two as I recall?).

When the original "end of the year" announcement was made it may have been obvious that the software would be done in a few months but there was still the issue of the licenses to deal with. It would be better to make a vague statement like "the end of the year" than a more specific one like "in a few months" with the spectre of the record label discussions still hanging there.

rogueimage

Jun 11, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by retaks
It would be cool if there werent mac/pc versions because you could probably get an ipod cheaper and it wouldnt matter what OS you wanted to connect the ipod too. I think anyone who buys an ipod deserves the update songs on ipod command.

The new iPods work with both Macs and PCs out of the box. There are no longer separate boxes for PC iPods. And yes, I'm sure iTunes for Windows will have the same great syncing functionality and simplicity as the Mac version. Good news all around! :D

joker2

Jun 11, 2003, 02:05 PM

I don't know about Apple's policies, but in some places I've worked, it was policy to publicly announce a job vacancy even if you've already selected someone internally to fill it. I suspect this may have been the case here.

I'll echo the sentiments of others on thread that they had to already be in development on iTMS before the Keynote announcement.

RHutch

Jun 11, 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by bignumbers

And I just looked - Apple still has the iTunes programmer open (http://jobs.apple.com/, search for "itunes") . You don't think they've taken two months to fill it do you?

There are actually still 2 positions "open" for the iTunes for Windows project. 1 is for a software engineer; the other is for Quality Assurance. I just can't see any way that these positions have not been filled yet. This has to tell you that something's going on.

DGFan

Jun 11, 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by rogueimage
One thing that strikes me as a stumbling block to Windows users using iTunes is that it isn't skinnable. When I was first introduced to mp3s way back in high school, everyone downloaded tons of skins for WinAmp. You were almost scoffed at if you used the original interface. I don't know how true that still is, but it must be to a certain extent, as even WMP comes with different skins.

iTunes, as elegant and functional as it is, is locked into the brushed metal look. I can certainly see some of my power-user friends snubbing it simply because they can't customize it. Even worse, the brushed metal look is not an established look on the PC. I suppose it's possible winTunes will have an interface that blends more with XP, but I think it's unlikely.

I know it's not a help for the windows version of iTunes but on the Mac it's basically skinnable if you connect to it from other programs that are skinnable (like Konfabulator) using Applescript.

bertagert

Jun 11, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by greenstork
It also goes without saying that the biggest competitive advantage Apple has with ITMS is the seamless integration from store to software to hardware (iPod).

This is exactly why Apple doesn't have competition right now or in the near future. Do you really think MTV, Yahoo, Amazon or AOL can pull that off? Heck, two of them don't even make software and the other two haven't made any good software so far anyway.

Some of you guys are worried about compeition way too much. The competition isn't these other companies, its Microsoft and Microsoft only.

Even if itunes for windows doesn't come till the end of the year, Apple will do well. The only time they will do bad is if all the other portable mp3 players and software support Microsoft's DRM and not AAC. Thats the real battle.

Once people on PC's try itunes (hopefully Apple will advertise the heck out of itunes for windows so people download it) then Apple will win the game because of ease of use. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

AppleMatt

Jun 11, 2003, 02:13 PM

Interesting...Didn't Steve say that there would be an iPod software update at the end of June to allow USB2?

Perhaps he was having a personal joke there.

Originally posted by tliptak
A friends has 18 hours of music without any playlists or a search function. If apple released itunes for windows even without the music store I would beat all other players.

Even more interesting, as an MP3 player/organiser perhaps people will download it because they hear/read it's good, then click on Music Store, impulse buy and tell all their friends. That would be nice.

AppleMatt

Mudbug

Jun 11, 2003, 02:14 PM

the financial shot in the arm this could provide apple with could go towards quicker implementation of 970's in the lineup.

noel4r

Jun 11, 2003, 02:30 PM

yup, Apple got a kick in the ass with all the rumors of other companies copying their service...

ScottCFrancis

Jun 11, 2003, 02:31 PM

I'm inclined to think this is a misprint for a couple reasons:

* They say "end of this month" matter-of-factly, as opposed to saying something about Apple moving up the timetable. If Apple was moving up the timetable, I think they would have emphasized that point and used it to drive their point about segment competitiveness home.

* There's a typo on the page, which shows some editorial sloppiness within the same story.

I don't know much about the status of the project -- my feedback is based entirely on the nature of this particular story combined with the fact that the end of this month is a lot sooner than the end of this year.

nagromme

Jun 11, 2003, 02:31 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030429203935.shtml

Here's the job posted less than a month and a half ago:

Apple Computer is looking for a Senior Software Engineer to design and build one of our newest Consumer Applications, iTunes for Windows. Must be possess strong skills in the areas of application design, solid API design principles, user interface engineering, and have a strong understanding of customer and workflow issues. Experience with Windows logo certification preferred. Candidate should have a history of successful large volume consumer product shipment.

Sounds like the project can't be far along. (And others have posted here that there are TWO iTunes for Windows jobs posted at jobs.apple.com, both listed as not yet filled. That does sound unlikely. Way to waste people's time sending in resumes!)

I always go with the simplest explanation: article error, or massive Apple subterfuge? Article error is the simplest explanation. So no iTunes for Windows yet I don't think.

The licensing alone sounds unlikely to be resolved yet.

snahabed

Jun 11, 2003, 02:33 PM

Ugh, just pull EVERYONE off of EVERYTHING to get this Windows version done! It is ESSENTIAL to be first to the market with this, or else, differences/inferiorities notwithstanding, the MS imitation will dominate. The only point of learning history is to LEARN from history.

I still say the 970 and Panther can bloody WAIT. G4's and 10.2.6 are PERFECTLY fantastic as they are. They are oldies but goodies :) I just don't get why the 970 is such a big deal for consumers since nothing is 64-bit optimized, and the big advantage seems to be potential for using lots of memory. I think that can wait a month or two longer so that

iTunes for Windows can get released!

bertagert

Jun 11, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by snahabed

I still say the 970 and Panther can bloody WAIT. G4's and 10.2.6 are PERFECTLY fantastic as they are. They are oldies but goodies :) I just don't get why the 970 is such a big deal for consumers since nothing is 64-bit optimized, and the big advantage seems to be potential for using lots of memory. I think that can wait a month or two longer so that.

The 970 is a big deal because it suppose to much much faster than the G4. Apple needs a serious speed bump to compete against the wintel world.

itunes is not as important as these speed increases. Without machines that bet or even come close to the intel speed, Apple will croak.

welborn

Jun 11, 2003, 02:43 PM

I always thought that if the iApps were written in Cocoa, it would be extremely easy to port to Windows. At the same time, they could release Cocoa for Windows (like the old NeXT objects for Win and Solaris) so people could write cross-platform Apps!

That would be a HUGE announcement at WWDC -- allow developers to write for OS X and Win at the same time, using Cocoa. iTunes could be the flagship proof-of-concept app for it.

Kid Red

Jun 11, 2003, 02:44 PM

So is it a foregone conclusion that iPods will now only with iTunes on the PC? No more musicmatch or whatever they used? That would rock, get them used to using only mac stuff. Apple iPod only works with Apple iTunes. That would really get us in their market even if it's just a free app, it's an 'Apple' app.

smaffei

Jun 11, 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by iJon
Any programmers out there care to comment on how easy or hard the process of getting iTunes to windows?

Well, that depends...

Apple knew about the demand for a Windows version of iTunes ever since the second gen iPods were released (they had to punt and use MusicMatch instead). So, Apple could have been working on it since then (and probably has).

Porting time really depends on how much of the code is based on the QuickTime Media Layer. The more the better since it is high portable code.

My guess, Apple will have Win iTunes soon (in about a month or two) just to get a foot in the door. It won't be feature complete in it's first version. But you will be able to use the iTunes Music Store right away! :-)

Kid Red

Jun 11, 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by ScottCFrancis
I'm inclined to think this is a misprint for a couple reasons:

* They say "end of this month" matter-of-factly, as opposed to saying something about Apple moving up the timetable. If Apple was moving up the timetable, I think they would have emphasized that point and used it to drive their point about segment competitiveness home.

Well, WWDC is at the 'end of the month'.

stephny

Jun 11, 2003, 02:46 PM

re: ny post and tech facts/accuracy:
they had a big article a few weeks after the new iPod release about how NYC is so into them--"you either have one or you are dying to have one". the photos were all of the scroll-wheel models as were the prices and Gb sizes they quoted. All this after the huge how-can-you-miss-it new iPod release. Guess they were too busy with sports...

Postal

Jun 11, 2003, 02:47 PM

As has been said by others in the past: Apple is a hardware company.

That means that they thrive when people buy their hardware, so it's in their best interests to make the hardware as juicy as possible, as soon as possible. I'm sure that Apple would like to milk the Mac exclusivity of the iTMS a little more by having a much more desirable computer to run it on. Once that's done, they can release the Windows version of iTunes and start drawing in the people that are left.

nagromme

Jun 11, 2003, 02:51 PM

iPods will always work with other music software I'm sure. And i bet iTunes will work with other players--after all, many people already have MP3 players. But protected AAC-playback may have to be iPod-only, as it is for Mac. Unless the record companies agree to open that up, and Apple decides it is worth sharing that ability with others.

coolfactor

Jun 11, 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Sedulous
How did Apple throw this together so fast? I thought they just posted for the iTMS developer position!

Apple did recently post an iTMS for Windows developer position, BUT that doesn't mean the project had just been started. Your assumption suggests they only have one person working on project, and that is so not the case. Common sense?

copperpipe

Jun 11, 2003, 02:59 PM

that is the real question. In the windows world, if the Apple mechanism is better, then most will gravitate towards that. My money is on Apple here. Look what they did for iTMS! Nearly perfect right form the start! Amazing, really. So Microsoft is doing what they always do, but this time they aren't gonna be able to touch Apples service. I don't care if Apple comes out next month or the one after, they have to make it as good for windows as it is for the Mac, and they will have the majority n that arena.

*as far as the skinnable mp3 player it's a good point, BUT even though I just absolutely LOVE Audion, I still use itunes because it is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO functional. Once you use it, you're hooked, trapped, by it's logical ease of use.

P-Worm

Jun 11, 2003, 03:02 PM

Ok, the header is now saying that this is a misprint. How do we know?

P-Worm

rogueimage

Jun 11, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by P-Worm
Ok, the header is now saying that this is a misprint. How do we know?

Perhaps Arn emailed them, or maybe RHutch got a response to his email. I would like to know for sure, though. It's still possible that it could be out that soon. I do expect it will be significantly before the end of the year. Surely Apple has learned that they must beat M$ to market if they want people to even notice their product.

OTOH, if the record labels are all that's holding it up, then no one else will be able to get anything similar out, either.

billyb

Jun 11, 2003, 03:20 PM

first, iTMS has to beat the MS store. otherwise, everyone in Windows will use the MS version and when iTMS starts up, no one will use it. that's for the VAST majority of consumers.

some WILL try it, though--i'm not saying it won't be successful. it will be way MORE successful if it's first, though. it will be successful if it can solve the following problem (I use a PC at home and a Mac at work--but the PC for only a little longer...):

on the Windows machine, I use one program to play songs, one to burn CDs, one to rip CDs into MP3s, etc etc. Yes, there are programs that do all these. No, none do them all well. iTunes does them all well (except the ripping part :(, and has a store to boot.

i think many windows users would use iTunes if they gave it a chance. but if MS beats Apple to the store, most Win users won't ever try iTMS.

rhunter007

Jun 11, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by rogueimage
Perhaps Arn emailed them, or maybe RHutch got a response to his email. I would like to know for sure, though. It's still possible that it could be out that soon. I do expect it will be significantly before the end of the year. Surely Apple has learned that they must beat M$ to market if they want people to even notice their product.

OTOH, if the record labels are all that's holding it up, then no one else will be able to get anything similar out, either.

I emailed the author of the article. She emailed me back and said it was a "major" typo.

jpolk

Jun 11, 2003, 03:26 PM

i can't say i'm surprised about the mistake...

i wouldn't wrap fish in the new york post.

what was the headlline: "apple peeling off"? sheesh...

sorry for the negative post (no pun intended). i'm afraid i'm a bit of a newspaper snob and i sound off here because i am TOO polite to the poor souls who call me at least twice a month to try to get me to subscribe.

Freg3000

Jun 11, 2003, 03:27 PM

That sucks. I wish it were due at the end of the month..... :(

Shame on you NY Post for getting the hopes of us crazed Apple addicts up. :rolleyes:

GeeYouEye

Jun 11, 2003, 03:50 PM

1. When it comes to technology, the NY Post is not a good source at all.

2. I still wouldn't be surprised if we saw an iTunes for Windows at WWDC. Perhaps not yet released, or without the iTMS (I tend to think the issue is the record labels), but some version nonetheless.

3. iTunes and iMovie are still Carbon, not Cocoa.

skunk

Jun 11, 2003, 04:05 PM

As far as I can see, it doesn't really matter that much if there's an MS version out before Apple's. If Apple only grab 10% of the Windows market, they will be quadrupling their share of the total market at the very least. Remember that they are only tapping into the OSX part of their own market as it is. If they suddenly found themselves with 50% market share, they'd collapse under the strain.

gopher

Jun 11, 2003, 04:07 PM

And the source that found the truth was none other that:

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/06/11.9.shtml

IndyGopher

Jun 11, 2003, 04:10 PM

I can't imagine it would be a HUGE undertaking to port iTunes to Windows, and I do expect to see if before the end of the year.. but with all of the other programs out there, I think Apple would do well to do it well, as opposed to fast. Granted, one has to be IN the race in order to win it, but doing it poorly would cause more damage than being late to join the fray.

now, my rant:

There must have been a dozen posts wondering if the "month" part was a typo, misunderstanding, etc. AFTER Arn's post saying that it was, in fact, an error. I now know why my post count is so much lower than most of the people who have been here as long as I have.. I read all the way through before posting!

arn

Jun 11, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by gopher
And the source that found the truth was none other that:

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/06/11.9.shtml

Actually... the author of the piece provided the correction.

arn

kylos

Jun 11, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by IndyGopher

There must have been a dozen posts wondering if the "month" part was a typo, misunderstanding, etc. AFTER Arn's post saying that it was, in fact, an error. I now know why my post count is so much lower than most of the people who have been here as long as I have.. I read all the way through before posting!

Actually, Arn edited that post later on. Those people posted before the edit. I think.

Mudbug

Jun 11, 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
Actually, Arn edited that post later on. Those people posted before the edit. I think. or didn't notice the change before they posted...

RHutch

Jun 12, 2003, 01:07 PM

I know that this has already been corrected, but I wanted to add that the editor from the Post never replied to me about my inquiry. I'm glad that someone else was able to get the information to provide the correction.

I want to add just one more little thing. The clarification said that Apple's official position is still that iTunes for Windows will be ready by the end of the year. This still isn't saying much and it doesn't REALLY deny that it could be ready by WWDC (I'm not saying that it will be) or next month or August. I'm not expecting iTunes for Windows at WWDC; I'm just saying that Apple's statement doesn't rule anything out.

ColoJohnBoy

Jun 14, 2003, 05:21 PM

Damn. I wish it was being released sooner. I hate using my parent's Comcrap Presario and getting headaches over MusicMatch Jukebox. It's obnoxious, and compared to iTunes, extremely difficult. I think iTunes for Windows will give people a look into the beauty and simplicity of Apple software, and provide Apple with some nice ad space ;)

Visit Blue Pudding!
http://bluepudding.1hwy.com

jethroted

Jun 16, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Damn. I wish it was being released sooner. I hate using my parent's Comcrap Presario and getting headaches over MusicMatch Jukebox. It's obnoxious, and compared to iTunes, extremely difficult. I think iTunes for Windows will give people a look into the beauty and simplicity of Apple software, and provide Apple with some nice ad space ;)

Visit Blue Pudding!
http://bluepudding.1hwy.com

Music match jukebox is a joke. When itunes comes out for windows, it should show the entire pc market just how well apple does things, and open alot of eyes for the stupid mac haters. Then they will come over to the x side.