Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Services Teams to Start Working Together to Improve Siri, Maps, iCloud, and iTunes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's said to be a privacy issue that they're working on. I'm not sure I understand that angle. Since photos are already synced, how much difference does assigning a name - a name which is probably in your address book and also synced - to a subset of those really make? Still, it should land at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Considering the vast majority of iPhone, iPad and iPod owners are still Windows users (look at market share versus numbers of iOS devices sold and do the math) Windows is still very much a consideration and iTunes for Windows still very much necessary. It's been a long, long time since Apple could get away with just tossing in a copy of MusicMatch and calling it a day when it comes to PC users.
Except the dynamic of the devices has completely changed. The iPod without a computer was nothing more than a paperweight. You buy an iPhone or an iPad today and you can open it up and never attach it to a computer and fill it with content.
Calling it a necessary to me seems a stretch. This is not 2003 and things are very different. Besides I said they could keep an iTunes legacy version around on Windows. Which means for Windows users it would be just as it is today. Meanwhile Apple gave it's base a better experience.
Intersting to note that iSync was the main conduit for syncing mobile devices with iTunes before the iPhone. It's still in macOS, which makes me wonder why as it could have been dropped years ago unless.....
[doublepost=1475776310][/doublepost]
iTunes would still be used for everyone, but only for music, podcasts, etc. Windows has always used a MobileMe or iCloud Control Panel with MS Office necessary for syncing Contacts, Mail, Calendar, Notes, etc. Essentially, they use a Windows version of iSync acting as the main conduit. I'm simply suggesting streamlining the iTunes app as it does more than music, is bloated and cumbersome, and shouldn't act as the macOS syncing conduit. It's not for Windows, so why is it for macOS?
Could explain why everything feels so piecemeal at this point. I would have expected that the various departments were already collaborating to provide interoperability.
Interesting to find out that Apple has been essentially relying on their competitors to provide the backend support for their web services.
Reminds me of a company I once stepped in to reorganize. My assignment was to bring the company back from being near bankrupt, and restore them to a profitable position while also making them competitive against the other local companies.
After 2 days on the job, I made some calls around town to find out what I hadn't been told. I discovered that we owed our primary competition over $500,000. So, I dug deeper. And discovered that corporate had been using our competitor as our primary supplier.
The problem I explained to upper management, is that our competition was setting our purchase price. Meaning that we can never compete with them, because we have to markup beyond their sale price. It automatically means we are more expensive than our competition.
Additionally, we can't compete and put our competition out of business, because every sale we make generates revenue for our competition as well.
Naturally, those 2 issues rose to the top of my list in the restructuring of the business.
I'm surprised Apple wouldn't have already established independence from their competition in the services area.
As for consolidating their network support for services, they need to remember the importance of redundancy for networks providing services. Redundancy is key. They shouldn't consolidate their network to one location. It should be spread out all over the world in a redundant arrangement. Essentially several networks all mirroring each other, and interconnected with each other. This way you provide faster access to each region, and if one network goes down, then the other one automatically absorbs the customers transparently. The public would never see a server problem, because the other network would automatically handle their requests when one network went down.
Additionally, having data stored at several different locations, and mirrored, would prevent potential data loss if something happened at one location.
Bringing all network services to one location sounds like a huge mistake. Hopefully this isn't what Apple is planning.
Interesting to find out that Apple has been essentially relying on their competitors to provide the backend support for their web services.
Reminds me of a company I once stepped in to reorganize. My assignment was to bring the company back from being near bankrupt, and restore them to a profitable position while also making them competitive against the other local companies.
After 2 days on the job, I made some calls around town to find out what I hadn't been told. I discovered that we owed our primary competition over $500,000. So, I dug deeper. And discovered that corporate had been using our competitor as our primary supplier.
The problem I explained to upper management, is that our competition was setting our purchase price. Meaning that we can never compete with them, because we have to markup beyond their sale price. It automatically means we are more expensive than our competition.
Additionally, we can't compete and put our competition out of business, because every sale we make generates revenue for our competition as well.
Naturally, those 2 issues rose to the top of my list in the restructuring of the business.
I'm surprised Apple wouldn't have already established independence from their competition in the services area.
As for consolidating their network support for services, they need to remember the importance of redundancy for networks providing services. Redundancy is key. They shouldn't consolidate their network to one location. It should be spread out all over the world in a redundant arrangement. Essentially several networks all mirroring each other, and interconnected with each other. This way you provide faster access to each region, and if one network goes down, then the other one automatically absorbs the customers transparently. The public would never see a server problem, because the other network would automatically handle their requests when one network went down.
Additionally, having data stored at several different locations, and mirrored, would prevent potential data loss if something happened at one location.
Bringing all network services to one location sounds like a huge mistake. Hopefully this isn't what Apple is planning.
In my opinion Podcasts should be moved out of iTunes into its own app. iTunes should then be rebranded Apple Music and a lot of work should go into it. The iTunes Music Store (where you buy songs) should be folded in. When you have an Apple Music subscription you search for music and can add and play anything. When you do not have a subscription and search for music instead of being able to add the music you get options to buy.
The iTunes brand should then be retired.
Yes, me too. ICloud drive, iPhoto, Apple Music all remain in sync across three devices exactly the way they are designed to and I honestly cannot remember the last time I worried about them. Two things, however. They were historically terrible and it takes a long time for that stink to disappear. Even though I have a near (see next point) universally positive experience something still triggers in my head when I think Apple and Cloud. Also, the reason I say "near" is, as someone mentioned, iCloud Tabs - why is this simple, small (I rarely keep more than 4 tabs open on any device) data set so very slow and sometimes downright wrong, no matter how long I wait?
Why? Cue is not the only to put the spotlight on. It's obviously going to be a team effort, with collaborators from all sides. Cue may not necessarily be the one man right for the position on his own, but the article indicates it's a multiple team Effort.
Actually it makes perfect sense. Sorry.
Why would they drop Windows? Why would they keep a legacy app when they can perfectly make a new version. iTunes for Windows is not the reason iTunes as a whole is bloated. Just alienate a good part of your customers doesn't sound like a good idea, at all. Apple Music for Android is not necessary as well, yet they made a version for Android.
Even if Apple wanted to drop Windows support (which they won't), content creators wouldn't like that, at all. More potential customers, more money. Why drop a good portion just because?
First I never said that Apple should drop support for Windows. What I meant to convey is that it is ridiculous to use iTunes for Windows as an excuse for holding back Apple from making drastic changes to iTunes for Mac.
When iTunes for Windows was introduced Apple sold a music player that had no internet connection. The only way to get something on the device was through a computer with iTunes. Windows for iTunes was a necessity. That is simply no longer the case. The portable devices Apple sells today are all connected to the internet either by cellular or wifi. You do not need to ever connect them to a computer to use all of their features. Not a Mac and not a PC. The cord has been cut.
So iTunes for Windows is not in any way as relevant as it was back in 2006. Things have changed. That is all I wanted to convey. If Apple put resources to splitting up iTunes on the Mac, they could just leave a legacy version of iTunes for Windows as is. It would not hurt them one bit.
Except last time, you know... The whole botched upgrade to iOS10? Where you needed to CONNECT to a PC? Besides, people (some) still sync to their PCs. Plus that is not even the point. The point is why just leave a legacy version when they don't have to? When they can just update it as well... Of course it would hurt them... Again... Why would they not give Windows the latest version? I could understand prioritizing Mac users, sure, but just leave a legacy version won't cut it, specially if Apple wants PC users to keep using their store and buying stuff. Remember, that's what it is for. PC users get a little taste of Apple software, so they might want to switch, if they just leave a legacy version, that won't do Apple any favors. You are creating a problem just for the sake of it.
Expect you buy stuff directly from your iOS device.
I do not see what the problem is. Windows users would have the same iTunes they have today. Mac users would see the app split. There is no problem.
The world doesn't turn around you. That's the problem with most people here. Just because YOU do not do certain things doesn't mean the rest follows your exact method of thinking... What about Apple Music? What about watching movies? And yes again, you fail to explain why couldn't Apple just split iTunes for Windows as well. I understand you might be an Apple fanboy, but this is a business, they want to make money, just alienating Windows users is not smart, when they can easily split iTunes for Windows users as well. Again... Why would Apple release a legacy version when they can just keep updating iTunes for Windows normally?
When did I say the world revolved around me you pompous internet troll? Sure they could split iTunes for Windows too. Does that make you happy.
Why call me a troll just for stating my opinion? It is not about making me happy, it is about Apple giving the best possible experience they can. Sure, they could also let Apple Music for Android there, as a legacy app, but that wouldn't be smart, because that app represents Apple to Android users. Same as iTunes for Windows. Either drop support completely (like Safari for Windows) or give the best solution you possibly can. Lots of people have a Mac and a Windows machine. Why treat Windows iTunes users as second class users? Specially when THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
That's all I am saying.
many large web/mobile applications/services use their services for their web server/database infrastructure; they tend to scale very well.
Yes Indeed
Perhaps Apple will eventually catch up to Google and provide reliable cohesive service.