Am I the only one who hates iTunes 11?

les24preludes · Dec 11, 2012

I'm also having a lot of trouble with iTunes 11. Big classical and jazz playlist.

I was totally lost until I restored the sidebar, awash in unwanted "Album" icons and stuff. I don't listen to albums, I listen to tracks. That's why I have playlists. And I miss the shuttle for individual playlists.

And why is there a delay when you click on another track? There wasn't in the previous version - it was instant. There's more delays everywhere - so how is it faster?

It also crashed with Audirvana+ which is a whole other story, and plenty of complaints on Computer Audiophile.

Bottom line - I don't think like a teenager in terms of albums and songs. I'm a musician and I think in terms of music and tracks, and I want to organise my library without "intelligent systems" telling me how. I have an "intelligent" entryphone and that's bad enough already. My intelligence is INSIDE my head, not outside it in some kind of "trusted system" or cloud......

How is it that intelligent systems are dumb and trusted computing can't be trusted?

It gets worse and worse. Now Audirvana+ won't play TV stations after playing iTunes. This is appalling. I had to reboot my computer to get Audirvana+ to play iTunes, and now it won't switch out of it. Unbelievable. Trying to sort this out as I write.....

OGmaC · Dec 11, 2012

les24preludes said:
I'm also having a lot of trouble with iTunes 11. Big classical and jazz playlist.

I was totally lost until I restored the sidebar, awash in unwanted "Album" icons and stuff. I don't listen to albums, I listen to tracks. That's why I have playlists. And I miss the shuttle for individual playlists.

And why is there a delay when you click on another track? There wasn't in the previous version - it was instant. There's more delays everywhere - so how is it faster?

It also crashed with Audirvana+ which is a whole other story, and plenty of complaints on Computer Audiophile.

Bottom line - I don't think like a teenager in terms of albums and songs. I'm a musician and I think in terms of music and tracks, and I want to organise my library without "intelligent systems" telling me how. I have an "intelligent" entryphone and that's bad enough already. My intelligence is INSIDE my head, not outside it in some kind of "trusted system" or cloud......

How is it that intelligent systems are dumb and trusted computing can't be trusted?

It gets worse and worse. Now Audirvana+ won't play TV stations after playing iTunes. This is appalling. I had to reboot my computer to get Audirvana+ to play iTunes, and now it won't switch out of it. Unbelievable. Trying to sort this out as I write.....

Thank you for posting this critique. I am in total agreement with your above points. Maybe intuitive for brain-dead users, but dumbed down and not intuitive for intelligent users.

Also, a HUGE ISSUE is that when I leave my Songs view and return the window opens on the alphabetized BEGINNING of my 43k songs, AND NOT ON THE LAST SONG I AM LISTENING TO. So I was listening to The XX and you can imagine how i have to CLICK on the first artist and then type letters "xx" to get back to the general area I was in = FAIL!!!!!!

Apple is sinking. Fast.

AimeeMMM · Dec 11, 2012

Hating iTUNES 11 Apple removed: sort:song, album, artist and completed lost GENRE.

New look ?? You've got to be kidding me. Performance of the iTUNES store is so much more important than the superficial, shiny new look. The whole right hand side is a waste of space in the iTUnes store. You can't even see the title of the entire song - not even when you hover over it. Three finger swipe doesn't work any longer either, you are forced to go up to the arrow and click on a button. ?? You can't sort the song, time, artist or album and genre is completely gone!!! Amazing that they can survive at all. What they really are up to is manipulating those of us who literally (and emotionally) bought in, so that we click on the album and buy the whole damn thing is their hope. Or we can click on the artist and that also keeps the range really narrow. If you're a DJ and search for cool and often unusual songs - you're screwed. Looking for a new option for exploring the world of music. Spotify is next in line, though I don't believe they offer Genre - as iTunes once did. Too bad, that one option of Genre gave Apple an edge, a niche that other music companies didn't offer. Oh but the colors and the album covers are so nice in 11.

AimeeMMM · Dec 11, 2012

tanager said:
I am trying to make the best of iTunes 11.

Can anyone tell me if there is a way to change how the time displays for a playlist? I can only see "1.8 hrs" but I want it to say, "1 hr 47 min" ... I'm not anal; it's just that I host a radio show from these playlists and the minutes and seconds matter!

Even when I break it down into smaller playlists, it still only says "17 min" rather than "16 min 46 sec" ...

Ugh.

Yes, I am finding that this new version might be great for folks with smaller libraries, but not nearly as helpful for large libraries and more technical organizing.

thanks for any input!

I too have a radio show and DJ where time does matter. I don't know why options are REMOVED. I can't imagine who sits around deciding this stuff - where is the voice of reason?

sahni130 · Dec 11, 2012

I have a question.

Hello friends,
I don't mean to steal the thread but I thought this might be the right place to ask this question.

In iTunes 11, how do you play random songs from your library? FOr example, if you are in "library" and want to shuffle and play a song.....how do you do that?

Sincerely,
Jay

SprSynJn · Dec 11, 2012

OGmaC said:
Don't be confused. Just go back to Facebook and then peruse all the complaints here and everything will become crystal clear: iTunes11 is beta at best.

It has become quite clear actually. People complain like kids over just about anything.

mackandproud · Dec 11, 2012

tanager said:
I am trying to make the best of iTunes 11.

Can anyone tell me if there is a way to change how the time displays for a playlist? I can only see "1.8 hrs" but I want it to say, "1 hr 47 min" ... I'm not anal; it's just that I host a radio show from these playlists and the minutes and seconds matter!

Even when I break it down into smaller playlists, it still only says "17 min" rather than "16 min 46 sec" ...

Ugh.

Yes, I am finding that this new version might be great for folks with smaller libraries, but not nearly as helpful for large libraries and more technical organizing.

thanks for any input!

Perhaps not what you want to hear, but perhaps consider reverting to IT10. If you have/use time machine, it may not be as time consuming as it was for me.

I was dismayed with the lack of song info displayed in the mini window. Completely unacceptable.

The search 'function' is a bad joke, too. Again, it doesn't display the song info I want and need.

The separate buttons to max/min the window is dumb.

Lack of display duplicates is another step backwards.

IT11 is bad news.

Patrick Weisser · Dec 12, 2012

Bring back Cover Flow

For me personally, Cover Flow was iTunes. It's what set it apart from other music players. It looked cool and classy in true Apple spirit. Now iTunes is flat and boring and a mere shell of its former self. I'm going back to iTunes 10.7 until Apple comes to their collective senses and restores key core features to iTunes. Surely they see the huge number of negative comments on their support forums about iTunes 11. Dealing with success is easy. But a true test of character is how one deals with failure. Let's hope Apple passes the test of character and does the right thing by admitting they made a huge mistake in iTunes 11, and then making it right.

mackandproud · Dec 12, 2012

I installed it11 on a backup drive.

Question: does it11 play back songs at a higher default volume? It definitely sounds brighter and louder than it10.

I still cannot use 11, literally. It will not allow me drag and drop copy songs into itunes.

More f bombs directed at cook and apple. This company sucks. There doesn't seem to be any viable alternative to itunes however. Suffer, minion, suffer!

RSL · Dec 13, 2012

Oh yeah. Sucks big time. Made sure to back up my music library so I could go back to 10.7. Sort of what's been happening to a lot of Apple software recently: shiny new look, functionality and stability down (mail, ical, iphoto, etc.). It's also ugly as heck, the silver reminds me windows.

brightjc@me.com · Dec 13, 2012

iTunes 11

I really like it especially the fact that the store is faster. The problem I have is that the iOS wifi sync is unreliable and so I always end up having to plug my iPhone & iPad in via USB! Saying that I usually had to do that in the last version anyway.

zhenya · Dec 13, 2012

OGmaC said:
Thank you for posting this critique. I am in total agreement with your above points. Maybe intuitive for brain-dead users, but dumbed down and not intuitive for intelligent users.

Also, a HUGE ISSUE is that when I leave my Songs view and return the window opens on the alphabetized BEGINNING of my 43k songs, AND NOT ON THE LAST SONG I AM LISTENING TO. So I was listening to The XX and you can imagine how i have to CLICK on the first artist and then type letters "xx" to get back to the general area I was in = FAIL!!!!!!

Apple is sinking. Fast.

Turn off the option 'Search Entire Library' and that behavior goes away.

Yujenisis · Dec 13, 2012

mackandproud said:
No offense but it sounds like you have been brainwashed by applespeak.

Ouch. Why not take on my argument directly?

I think you'll find we probably agree on a number of points:

Apple's prior success is no assurance of future success
The company is still soul-searching, struggling, and defining itself without Steve Jobs at the helm. How much this is "hurting" the company is a matter for debate, I suppose. But it is definitely there.

The crux of your article reads like link bait, attempting to make a tenuous connection to Apple's stock price to the declining value of their products. Stock price will never, ever be the complete picture of the health of a company. The most important sign of a company's well-being is the profits it is posting and in this regard Apple is very healthy and still growing:

Although, perhaps in favor of your theory, we can clearly see that chart is flattening...and one wonders if Apple can keep growing at its previous unprecedented rates. That I do not know the answer to, despite my apparent status as a Kool-Aid drinker.

mackandproud · Dec 13, 2012

Yujenisis said:
Ouch. Why not take on my argument directly?

I think you'll find we probably agree on a number of points:

Apple's prior success is no assurance of future success

The company is still soul-searching, struggling, and defining itself without Steve Jobs at the helm. How much this is "hurting" the company is a matter for debate, I suppose. But it is definitely there.

The crux of your article reads like link bait, attempting to make a tenuous connection to Apple's stock price to the declining value of their products. Stock price will never, ever be the complete picture of the health of a company. The most important sign of a company's well-being is the profits it is posting and in this regard Apple is very healthy and still growing:

[url=http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/img?i=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427ev28a5iecai&f=HBQTQYZYGY4TMM3BGY3DKNBVGYYDCM3CHE2TCNLGMNSTSNZSMJSQaaaa]Image[/URL]

Although, perhaps in favor of your theory, we can clearly see that chart is flattening...and one wonders if Apple can keep growing at its previous unprecedented rates. That I do not know the answer to, despite my apparent status as a Kool-Aid drinker.

I really could care less about apple's profits and I don't have a theory about it.

I simply want products that work and don't cause me to want to punch someone in the face.

Apple failed to meet that very minimal standard with IT11, and apparently so with quite a few other products in 11/12.

I used to defend apple but after meeting so many of their fat, arrogant employees, I now detest their delusional god-like pretense (genius bar my you know what).

I don't want to see them fail, but it would not surprise me if they did, given their arrogance.

----------

zhenya said:
Turn off the option 'Search Entire Library' and that behavior goes away.

Try finding another cult to defend. There must be another 'genius' out there you can brown nose.

zhenya · Dec 13, 2012

mackandproud said:
Try finding another cult to defend. There must be another 'genius' out there you can brown nose.

Dude, WTF is your problem? It's obvious that you have a specific bone to pick with this software, but your schtick is really getting tiresome. I'm the one here answering people's questions with specific, relevant information. This board would be better off if you got the ban you deserve.

Yujenisis · Dec 14, 2012

mackandproud said:
I simply want products that work and don't cause me to want to punch someone in the face.

I can certainly respect that opinion, even though I only partially agree with it, and your frustration is clear for all to see for a company that you formerly held in high esteem.

I'm sure everyone, fan of Apple or not, can see that Apple is in a period of difficult transition. I think that 2013 is going to be a pivotal year to see how Apple does or doesn't adjust based on some of their failures in 2012.

I am hopeful that the Apple we used to know and love, will return, but there's always a chance the "too big for its britches" (to say the least) Apple will continue unabated.

mackandproud said:
Try finding another cult to defend. There must be another 'genius' out there you can brown nose.

Yeesh, I think it might be best if you factored the intentions of others into the vitriol you choose to direct at them. That person was attempting to help address your frustrations.

netdog · Dec 14, 2012

This stuff really isn't worth fighting about, though I'd sure like the ear of an engineer on the iTunes team. The more I explore, the less impressed I am with the direction that the app is taking. I wonder how many music lovers there are on the iTunes app team, and how many of them have large collections and care about sound. Maybe we need an iTunes and an iTunes Prosumer?

zhenya · Dec 14, 2012

netdog said:
I wonder how many music lovers there are on the iTunes app team, and how many of them have large collections and care about sound. Maybe we need an iTunes and an iTunes Prosumer?

Not likely to happen given how Apple likes to do things.

What problems do you have with the 'sound' of iTunes?

netdog · Dec 14, 2012

zhenya said:
Not likely to happen given how Apple likes to do things.

What problems do you have with the 'sound' of iTunes?

The decision to issue 256k files via the Apple store, ignoring CD quality, which is already pretty compressed, never mind offering 24bit downloads and/or up to 192K sample rates.

Many people I know are keeping optical drives just for their music, and the ability to rip CDs rather than buying iTunes files which, if they were higher quality, would mark the long overdue end of optical drives and CDs. And like I said, if Apple and the iTunes team cares about music, I'd like to see them aiming considerably higher than CD quality, though just that would be an improvement.

Neil Young is on the right track. People worrying about bandwidth and storage space are missing how quickly both are expanding. What Neil doesn't have is the clout with record labels that Apple has, to say nothing of the zillions of credit cards already on file and married or at least dating the iTunes environment.

zhenya · Dec 14, 2012

netdog said:
The decision to issue 256k files via the Apple store, ignoring CD quality, which is already pretty compressed, never mind offering 24bit downloads and/or up to 192k sample rates.

Many people I know are keeping optical drives just for their music, and the ability to rip CDs rather than buying iTunes files which, if they were higher quality, would mark the long overdue end of optical drives and CDs. And like I said, if Apple and the iTunes team cares about music, I'd like to see them aiming considerably higher than CD quality, though just that would be an improvement.

Eh, while I would like to have the option to purchase lossless music from iTunes, I can certainly understand why they don't do it. There is no business case there for a company like iTunes. It would cost an incredible amount of money for the very small minority of users who care. I imagine they'll get there eventually, but for now there are alternatives for those of us who care. In any case, I thought you were complaining about the sound quality of the app, not the bitrate the store uses. The app does not require you to use the store.

netdog · Dec 14, 2012

zhenya said:
Eh, while I would like to have the option to purchase lossless music from iTunes, I can certainly understand why they don't do it. There is no business case there for a company like iTunes. It would cost an incredible amount of money for the very small minority of users who care. I imagine they'll get there eventually, but for now there are alternatives for those of us who care.

And let's be clear. Lossless isn't lossless, meaning uncompressed. Lossless only maintains the compression already present in 44.1 CDs.

zhenya · Dec 14, 2012

netdog said:
And let's be clear. Lossless isn't lossless, meaning uncompressed. Lossless only maintains the compression already present in 44.1 CDs.

You've lost me there. This isn't really the forum for it, but having done a lot of listening comparisons in the head-fi Sound Science forum, and read a great deal on the subject, I'm not convinced that higher bitrates offer anything of substance. 16bit Redbook standard has ample dynamic range with plenty of headroom for playback, and 44.1khz is adequately above 20khz to fully satisfy the Nyquist theorem.

netdog · Dec 14, 2012

zhenya said:
Eh, while I would like to have the option to purchase lossless music from iTunes, I can certainly understand why they don't do it. There is no business case there for a company like iTunes. It would cost an incredible amount of money for the very small minority of users who care. I imagine they'll get there eventually, but for now there are alternatives for those of us who care. In any case, I thought you were complaining about the sound quality of the app, not the bitrate the store uses. The app does not require you to use the store.

The business case is that it eliminates the number one differentiating advantage offered by the primary competition, the CD.

Amazon has long offered 320kb MP3s. They seem to have plenty of demand.

Lossless ALACs or FLACs of 16-bit 44.1 masters would be a knockout punch for the CD. Very few people would remain interested in discs.

And when you up the sample rate to the standards that the music is usually mastered in, or anything closer to it than CD quality, then CDs are left as the inferior choice.

And what's the cost to doing so? Producers are already allegedly delivering 24-bit recordings to iTunes. So why don't they see the light of day?

zhenya · Dec 14, 2012

netdog said:
The business case is that it eliminates the number one differentiating advantage offered by the primary competition, the CD.

Amazon has long offered 320kb MP3s. They seem to have plenty of demand.

Lossless ALACs or FLACs of 16-bit 44.1 masters would be a knockout punch for the CD. Very few people would remain interested in discs.

And when you up the sample rate to the standards that the music is usually mastered in, or anything closer to it than CD quality, then CDs are left as the inferior choice.

And what's the cost to doing so? Producers are already allegedly delivering 24-bit recordings to iTunes. So why don't they see the light of day?

I would say that the vast majority of the demand for Amazon's music stems more from their price and being 'not iTunes' than their quality. 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time cannot tell the difference between 256k AAC and 320k mp3.

The cost of doing so is remastering their entire digital collection of millions of tracks, the additional storage space needed, and the additional transfer costs for downloads. When this matters to less than 1% of your user base, and there are costs to making those changes, you aren't going to see a rapid evolution.

again, 24 bit for playback is a buzz-word. It makes no difference as the vast majority of recorded music has only 30-50dB of dynamic range, well within the capabilities of 16bit. In fact, almost all new popular music is heavily compressed by the mastering engineer such that many new releases have only 10-20dB dynamic range. Adding additional headroom offers NO benefit for playback.

IzzyJG99 · Dec 14, 2012

zhenya said:
I would say that the vast majority of the demand for Amazon's music stems more from their price and being 'not iTunes' than their quality. 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time cannot tell the difference between 256k AAC and 320k mp3.

Unless you've gone to sound engineering school I doubt anyone would notice the difference unless someone told them "Oh, this one song was encoded better than that other one." Like you said for that 1% of consumers who are pro level there's no reason to go higher in quality. It'd be cool and neat, but at what cost? Maybe a price increase (1.29 and .99 is a big difference) and no doubt bigger files. A 3.5 MB song might become 10MB. 10 times my 1570 songs? That's 15.7GB's. Right now it's only around 8.98 and that's with primarily High Quality 256k AAC imports and various iTunes Store formats.

Besides I always figure 320K MP3 was about = to 256K AAC.

Granted storage space and speed of access of storage is increasing, but still.

Am I the only one who hates iTunes 11?

macrumors regular

macrumors newbie

macrumors newbie

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

Guest

macrumors 6502

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors 604

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 604

macrumors 6502

macrumors 603

macrumors 604

macrumors 603

macrumors 604

macrumors 603

macrumors 604

macrumors 603

macrumors 604

macrumors 6502

Our Staff