Apple's Special Version of iTunes That Still Has an App Store Currently Incompatible With macOS Mojave

CarlJ

macrumors 68040
Feb 23, 2004
3,044
4,628
San Diego, CA, USA
How about apple make a special version of iTunes which only contains music?
If I had to guess, aside from "inertia" (which I suspect is the major part of it), another answer would be that iTunes is pretty much their one Swiss Army Knife app on Windows, and if they split iTunes out into multiple parts on the Mac, then they'd need to do the same on Windows. It's not a good reason, but it's my guess. I too would like to see a Music.app on the Mac, that focused on music, and a Videos.app for movies and such (ugh, I still don't love TV.app), and maybe a Media Store app for buying music and video. Rather than having iTunes be the "jack of all trades".
[doublepost=1537994426][/doublepost]
Mojave doesn't obviate the needs of those business partners.
Ah, but one could reasonably argue that none of those business partners should be upgrading to Mojave yet. Wait for a .1 or .2 release, and extensive gamma testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmore

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
6,941
12,457
In between a rock and a hard place
[doublepost=1537994426][/doublepost]Ah, but one could reasonably argue that none of those business partners should be upgrading to Mojave yet. Wait for a .1 or .2 release, and extensive gamma testing.
One could argue that. As to reasonableness... considering support for Mojave is not predicated on when or if a business should upgrade, reasonable is not an adjective I'd use for that argument. Seems to me a reasonable argument would be Apple should have it's software updated and ready so when one of those business partners decides to update to Mojave their version of iTunes is compatible. If the software isn't compatible, waiting on a .1 or .2 release is moot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Val-kyrie

redheeler

macrumors 604
Oct 17, 2014
7,411
6,978
Even if macOS Server can install on Mojave (and if it isn't, I am sure the compatible version will be released soon), Apple published an article stating that many of the services is being removed.
Yes, you're right, the Mojave version of MacOS Server (when it's finally released) will be almost useless anyway. Hence why Apple's treatment of MacOS Server this year has been so appalling IMHO.

Glad I can continue to use the High Sierra version on the Mac Pro.
 

RecentlyConverted

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2015
664
475
What does this even mean? iTunes works fine, version 12.9..... downloads with Mojave. I have no idea what all this 12.6 jibber jabber is, seems like out of date version. Maybe someone could just state clearly?
Its stated clearly in the heading.
 

delhifox

macrumors newbie
Apr 4, 2018
27
16
TheSix
Even if macOS Server can install on Mojave (and if it isn't, I am sure the compatible version will be released soon), Apple published an article stating that many of the services is being removed.

And I suspect it will be discontinued altogether next year. At this point, Apple might as well make the Server free or combine it with Apple Remote Desktop (web page looks like it's from Steve Jobs' era).
Another use case of the server app is to remote management of servers. Here we have an issue. Our actual server didn’t upgraded the admin’s desktops/laptop got upgraded. Now we have to fusion another Mac just for this silliness. Apple enterprise support confirmed the f@@kup.
 
Last edited:

JosephAW

macrumors 68020
May 14, 2012
2,397
2,581
What?!? Already having compatibility issues. I was hoping this would be the Snow Leopard of macOS that would work with software for a long time. Guess I'll stay on El Capitan.
 

RMo

macrumors 65816
Aug 7, 2007
1,212
207
Iowa, USA
Not trying to defend their stupid move here.. but just a suggestion(more like a workaround).. you can enable content caching feature of the new MacOS and have all iOS or iCloud data cached. this way it they will download from your lan than internet.
[doublepost=1537988326][/doublepost]
Not the original poster, but...

Cool, but I still have to manually open the App Store on each of my iOS devices and do an "Update All" or choose individual apps. (I will not turn on the feature to update automatically; I like to know what changed, not that most apps provide meaningful changelogs anymore, hold off if necessary, and roll back if needed--something I can actually do with .IPAs on the desktop in the event I'm not careful enough in the first place.) This is is not as convenient as simply syncing my device and the apps to iTunes to my computer over USB (or Wi-Fi), which is all automatic after I connect it.

I wonder if someone can modify iTunes 12.6 in a way similar to the old AirPort Utility (you know, the one before they removed all the features...) to run on Mojave.
 

delhifox

macrumors newbie
Apr 4, 2018
27
16
TheSix
Not the original poster, but...

Cool, but I still have to manually open the App Store on each of my iOS devices and do an "Update All" or choose individual apps. (I will not turn on the feature to update automatically; I like to know what changed, not that most apps provide meaningful changelogs anymore, hold off if necessary, and roll back if needed--something I can actually do with .IPAs on the desktop in the event I'm not careful enough in the first place.) This is is not as convenient as simply syncing my device and the apps to iTunes to my computer over USB (or Wi-Fi), which is all automatic after I connect it.

I wonder if someone can modify iTunes 12.6 in a way similar to the old AirPort Utility (you know, the one before they removed all the features...) to run on Mojave.
Right, there are still multiple use cases for having apps store on iTunes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMo

ignatius345

macrumors 68020
Aug 20, 2015
2,336
3,094
Easy it is still way to bloated. something like a dedicated app as you have on iOS would be nice.

This could also be a stepping stone to breath live into other apps and make them more useful. Take quick time, that could easily handle tv shows/movies, audiobooks in iBooks and make a standalone podcast portal. This will also make it better for the crossplatform experience as you could have iCloud sync to pick up where you left off on another device
I've got 15+ years of music files in iTunes, and I'll take "bloated" over "having all the useful features stripped away", thanks. Apple has a bad track record of destroying very powerful apps because it wants to simplify. (See also: iWork, Final Cut Pro, the loss of Aperture...)

The fact is, iTunes still has a ton of power-user features relating to music organization and I frankly don't trust Apple to not throw the baby out with the bathwater and give us some minimal app that gets rid of all of it.
 
Last edited:

spacerays

macrumors member
Jul 30, 2012
65
45
At $4.99/month? Yet another subscription based app. Ugh, no thank you.
Snark too quick? You only need to subscribe to play hires music, use some online storage , a lot of radio stations and more. The rest of the app is a great music player and has always been free.
 

H2SO4

macrumors 601
Nov 4, 2008
4,353
3,752
Memory is hazy but this was a deal breaker for me the last time they did it. IIRC they also killed off the ability of iPhone to sync calendars etc?
As an aside, my iPhone doesn't show iOS12 as being available in iTunes? I can see it on the phone itself but not on my Mac, (version 12.6.3.6). Is it just me?
 

ignatius345

macrumors 68020
Aug 20, 2015
2,336
3,094
Snark too quick? You only need to subscribe to play hires music, use some online storage , a lot of radio stations and more. The rest of the app is a great music player and has always been free.
Yeah, having to rent the software to play your music at full resolution is a deal-breaker for me too.

I can only hope that more customers will start putting their foot down and refusing to subsidize this unwarranted software rental nonsense. This sounds like an app that would be worth maybe $50 to me, and paying $180 to use it for three years (and then have it cripple itself again) is just a joke.

One app I've seen do subscriptions right is Agenda. You pay for the pro version and you get unlimited updates for a year. At the end of the year you stop getting updates, which is fair, but you get to keep using it instead of being left with nothing.
 
Last edited:

spacerays

macrumors member
Jul 30, 2012
65
45
Yeah, having to rent the software to play your music at full resolution is a deal-breaker for me too.

I can only hope that more customers will start putting their foot down and refusing to subsidize this unwarranted software rental nonsense. This sounds like an app that would be worth maybe $50 to me, and paying $180 to use it for three years (and then have it cripple itself again) is just a joke.

One app I've seen do subscriptions right is Agenda. You pay for the pro version and you get unlimited updates for a year. At the end of the year you stop getting updates, which is fair, but you get to keep using it instead of being left with nothing.
I would agree with you... but, really, do you have that many FLAC lossless files? There could be alternative players out there. And the sub offers unlimited cloud storage and sync, not bad for storing those huge lossless music files.

Vox is also offering the app on App Store and Mac App Store. Does Agenda offers those kind of subs on these stores? I bet they cant, since Apple doesn't allow such subs.

Maybe Vox could do something like that outside the stores? But did you think that Vox is offering something different in "features"? How could Vox offer something like Agenda with cloud storage?! Or even updates to a lossless player? "Oh you get to keep a year's worth of uploads on the cloud forever" :rolleyes:

Also, as an iOS Developer myself, I find it annoying how some people guess (badly) what a software is worth to them. One might have anything in their mind, but in the end there are certain minimum development costs and there is only so much a developer can hope for by increased customer numbers to make up for reduced per copy cost.

Software has been underpriced for a long time, many developers simply abandon their apps when they no longer acquire sufficient new users to keep revenue coming in.

One thing I would like to experiment with my own apps in the future is fine grain usage costs. Like those in the olden times on per hour etc, but probably on other parameters like using some specific features and number of times or the time you use them. One can bring down entry cost substantially, offer powerful features and only charge for usage not a long access period.

Software has IMHO become mundane, where the best things we think of can be cute notepads and fancy designs. Having fine tuned billing by usage not just access will incentivize developers to think bigger.
 
Last edited:

ignatius345

macrumors 68020
Aug 20, 2015
2,336
3,094
Vox is also offering the app on App Store and Mac App Store. Does Agenda offers those kind of subs on these stores? I bet they cant, since Apple doesn't allow such subs.
Yep. It's on the Mac App Store and iOS App Store.

Also, as an iOS Developer myself, I find it annoying how some people guess (badly) what a software is worth to them.
OK, and yet as consumers that's what we do every day across all kinds of purchases. When I said that that Vox was worth, in my estimation, maybe $50 to me, I meant it. I'm not paying $180 to rent music player software for three years. You can argue all you want that it's "worth" that much, but that's irrelevant to me because I'm making an economic decision based on my needs, not the developers'.

Software has been underpriced for a long time, many developers simply abandon their apps when they no longer acquire sufficient new users to keep revenue coming in.
Can no longer acquire new users? Here's a radical idea: write another piece of software. Seriously. Go develop something else, and if it fulfills people's needs, they'll buy it.

Case in point, Ulysses was a very feature-mature app and probably had as many buyers as it was going to get. Instead of using their awesome design skills to make something new, they went to a software rental model, and are trying to market their piece of software as a service somehow. Thing is, the only "service" they're offering is letting the user keep using their software, and offering minor and constant tweaks to it to justify the whole thing.

When something is a real service I'm cool with subscribing: iCloud storage, Spotify music streaming, Netflix, Dropbox -- even 1Password with its sync and constant security updates.

One thing I would like to experiment with my own apps in the future is fine grain usage costs. Like those in the olden times on per hour etc, but probably on other parameters like using some specific features and number of times or the time you use them. One can bring down entry cost substantially, offer powerful features and only charge for usage not a long access period.
That's what Omnifocus is doing, and I think it's great. I paid a lot more to buy the Pro version because I use it a lot, but I could've paid about half as much for the regular version if I was a more casual user. I'd be fine with buying incremental upgrades, and in fact a lot of iOS apps are like that now: you download, say, a photo editing app for free but you pay for packs of filters, or export options or sync services or whatever. Fine with me, as long as the price is right and I get to keep what I bought.

I just think software rental has become a lazy go-to and I'm sick of it in most cases.
 

Be3G

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2007
58
2
Quick question:

The news post says that 12.6.5 won't install in Mojave, and 12.6.3/4 don't work in the new OS. But has anyone who installed 12.6.5 before upgrading to Mojave tested to see if it works? (I updated iTunes when 12.6.5 came out at about the time of the iPhone event, but haven't yet made the leap to Mojave.)
 

chineseguy38

macrumors regular
Sep 14, 2012
119
48
Melbourne
Quick question:

The news post says that 12.6.5 won't install in Mojave, and 12.6.3/4 don't work in the new OS. But has anyone who installed 12.6.5 before upgrading to Mojave tested to see if it works? (I updated iTunes when 12.6.5 came out at about the time of the iPhone event, but haven't yet made the leap to Mojave.)
Apple just removed the special iTunes version for Mac. I guess they're forcing people to use the iTunes without app support from now on. I won't be updating macOS Mojave for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PlayUltimate

spacerays

macrumors member
Jul 30, 2012
65
45
Yep. It's on the Mac App Store and iOS App Store.
The apps are, I am saying about those kind of subs, are they? I checked, and they arent. The way the App Store works, we cant offer a version which has been updated only till you paid for it. We either offer an update or we dont.

I'm not paying $180 to rent music player software for three years.
Again, you missed the bigger picture? You dont seem to be an audience for Vox. The premium sub is more than a player, it has an unlimited music cloud storage service. The player itself is free. You CAN play lossless files for free, just cant store it on their cloud storage.

You clearly haven't even seen what Vox actually offers for free and sub. Please stop embarrassing yourself? Here is the website for goodness' sakes:

https://vox.rocks
[doublepost=1538125622][/doublepost]
Can no longer acquire new users? Here's a radical idea: write another piece of software. Seriously. Go develop something else, and if it fulfills people's needs, they'll buy it.

Case in point, Ulysses was a very feature-mature app and probably had as many buyers as it was going to get. Instead of using their awesome design skills to make something new, they went to a software rental model, and are trying to market their piece of software as a service somehow. Thing is, the only "service" they're offering is letting the user keep using their software, and offering minor and constant tweaks to it to justify the whole thing.

When something is a real service I'm cool with subscribing: iCloud storage, Spotify music streaming, Netflix, Dropbox -- even 1Password with its sync and constant security updates.
Let me clear myself better. If software is given as a buy once updates forever, it may eventually run out of a steady stream of new users buying it. Software isnt just make once and it works forever. When iOS or macOS or whatever platform changes, we developers need to update the software even to keep it functional. Case in point, 32 bit apps, a lot of them stopped functioning not because they broke but Apple disallows 32 bit apps from working now on iOS. A developers has to go through the entire app and update it even if it means zero new features for the end user. Got it?

I personally like keeping software work for a long time. Am against the 'dump the thing if it no longer works' mentality. If we can recycle and repair why not? Same mentality makes people dump things even if they are functional but just a bit worn out and could have worked with minor repairs.

I get your point where you would like to be able to own software that you paid for. Well, because of platform updates they will stop working sooner or later. Good luck keeping them and complaining in the void then. (There are people who want free updates for old software, aplenty)

So as developers we try to reach some middle ground, best for everyone cases. Unfortunately we cant keep everyone happy.

So it's either paid updates, updates while you pay, or just pure subs. Neither of which will make everyone happy.

So next is keeping people addicted so they pay for stupid things like extra filters.

Frankly, just look at Vox again? They are offering unlimited music cloud storage (and other things) for just $4.99 a month. Now you will start thinking of it like a real service like Dropbox or iCloud? You probably pay more for them to get less storage. :rolleyes: