Apple's Windows iTunes SDK

[SiliconAddict]

Back to topic. The question I have is will this SDK kit allow easier plugins into iTunes. I've noticed a number of VERY useful apps that are only on the Mac for iTunes which kind of sucks.

 

[SeaFox]

Back to topic. The question I have is will this SDK kit allow easier plugins into iTunes. I've noticed a number of VERY useful apps that are only on the Mac for iTunes which kind of sucks.

Agreed! I want an auto tagger/artwork downloader like I have on MusicMatch Jukebox (the only reason I still keep it around). I want to drop it because it keeps me from using audio CD's in iTunes and SonicStage unless I have MMJB running in the background.

Also, I want to be able to use LAME! They have Mac pluggins. Where is the PC versions?

 

[Windowlicker]

ya but think about it. if you're being LEGAL, you can either listen to your song on your cd before importing or lsiten to a preview in iTMS. people dont buy rando crap in the store then throw half of it away.

Don't violate copyright laws.

that's not what I actually meant it for... for example, I get lots of legal mp3s from guys who like to post their songs on this board I visit daily (www.stealthunit.net) and pretty often the case is I listen to them only a couple of times.

 

[JFreak]

32MB of memory? Yeah... that's a lot bigger than WinAmp, but in this day-and-age of ridiculous memory of 1GB or more, you pointing out the 32MB usage seems a bit trite.

It falls into the "who cares" category.

no, it doesn't. it falls into "bloated software" category, or at very least, "unoptimized software" category, and we apple users do care about optimized software which we get, unlike microsoft users who always suffer from this.

it's acceptable though, for now, because this (version four) is the first itunes win release - itunes 5 win should however be more optimized if apple wants to gain respect in windows platform.

who cares? daah... 🙂

 

[JFreak]

Macs are memory hogs, so it is standard to have a mac with 1GB + of memory. This is not the case on the PC however. I happen to have 1GB in my PC (I use both PC and Mac), but I am the only person who does. Most of my friends, even the high tech CS guys, tend to have 512MB in their home machines. 512 is more than enough for most tasks on a PC.

this is only half of the truth; it is very true that current macs have plenty of memory, but that's not because mac software eats it for breakfast, it's because one can benefit from it. because mac is a unix, there can be as much memory as your wallet permits, and it can be all in use if you like.

windows, however, lives still in the stone-age where people was amazed to see a computer with a whopping 16MB of ram. windows handles the memory in such a way that it tries to keep maximum amount of memory avaliable to apps the user may like to run in the future, in other words, it keeps the memory free and the contents that should reside in memory, it flushes down to the virtual memory (hard drive). that's the reason fewer windows users buy a lot of memory, simply, because it cannot be used efficiently.

mac can have as many apps in memory simultaneously, and switching between them is very fast. windows can in real world have one app in physical memory and the others will be stored in the virtual memory, making it very slow to switch between the app you currently use and the app you haven't used in few hours. windows has to load the not-so-recently-used app from the hard drive, which is very stupid if there would be available memory.

so yes, macs can be memory hogs, if you mean that macs keep the open programs in memory whenever it's possible. usually the term is used when some app uses unnecessarily much memory, but that's hardly the case (if we're not talking about the classic subsystem).

--

this comment inspired me to check the memory situation of my work pc that has a total of 512MB ram. according to the task manager, there is 128MB available and 450MB used in virtual memory - and the kernel takes a whopping 120MB of memory, of which only 8MB resides in the ram and the rest in the hard disk. talk about efficient memory handling? what a joke.

 

[JFreak]

2) You can't change how the silly thing names files. Is naming a music file in the format Artist - Song REALLY too much to ask? Is wanting the name of the freaking artist in the filename that uncommon of a desire that Apple shouldn't bother to support it?

you know, apple has implemented these things called "folders". i believe windows has it also. is it so uncommon in windows wonderland to organize files into folders?

if you really really really need that feature, please shut up and go to apple.com/feedback and tell them you want that.

 

[rdowns]

Their partnerships need to be with companies like HP to carry iTues.

iTues? Is that the new iApp where you can guess which Tuesday the next Apple product will be released?

 

[MacQuest]

Hardly any, because people only pay for Windows if the absolutely have to, or if it's bundled with their hardware when it's bought. Apple would die as a purely software company, because even half of their line in hardware is over three times their revenue in software. Combined, they sell some eight times what they do in software in hardware.

For Q2 2004:
Pro Sales (PowerMac and PowerBook) - $685,000,000
Consumer (iBook, iMac) - $475,000,000
iPods - $264,000,000
Software - $213,000,000

Apple made less in software than they did in iPods.



And flooded... There's no reason to believe that OS X would ever gain a foothold in the PC market, because inclusion of the mass of drivers and other nevessary steps would ruin most of the stability and elegance. The OS would be reduced to a prettier and moderately more secure platform that was far more accessible to the writers of exploits, trojans, worms, and virii, and while there is a lot of inherent security in using a *NIX-derived system, it's not perfect.

Nevermind how Apple would be forced to adopt copy protection to ensure they were paid for the use of the OS... 🙄



It's also more stable, less prone to breakdown, and generally more efficiently bountiful in overall features for the price. Believe me, I've done the comparisons, and the only way to consistently beat Apple is to either build your own system (which most home users won't know how to do) or to go with a company that subsidizes their computers off of an electronics market (Sony, HP, Toshiba).



Nope. Intel is learning what Apple and AMD discovered years ago, and that's a hard lesson in efficiency over raw numbers. The partners are aligning against Intel and Microsoft both. Look how many are currently on the RISC and Wintel-alternative bandwagon: AMD, IBM, FreeScale, Cisco, Agilent, ATI, NEC, nVidia, PMC, Transmeta, Via, Texas Instruments, Sony, Toshiba, Sun, and Apple.




You obviously don't remember what happened when the clones were allowed. Apple very nearly died.

Give member "thatwendigo" a prize! 🙂

You saved me a lot of time in typing by writing what I tell people everyday. Let's keep spreading the truth.

Good job "thatwendigo". 🙂

 

[MacQuest]

...But this is a bad move, because it makes winamp a better player...

ROTFLMAO.

This is such a joke. "LoseAmp" is as appealing as my arse on a bad day. It looks and stinks even worse. 😀

 

[MacQuest]

...Too bad Apple will probably continue releasing bloated iTunes for PC...

At least iTunes is a good multifunctional app, as opposed to companies that release junk bloatware.

*cough* Micrapsoft *cough*

 

[MacQuest]

I was merely pointing out the fact that there are many power PC users running 512 RAM - a power mac user wouldn't be caught dead with less than a gig.

First of all, welcome to the Mac community with your recent purchase of your G5. 🙂

But you need to stop posting that Macs are memory hogs because in the 14 years I've worked in ram/processor intensive career fields, I've never had more ram than I do know, 512MB.

And yes, I play all of the most demanding games available for Mac.

 

[whooleytoo]

if you really really really need that feature, please shut up and go to apple.com/feedback and tell them you want that.

Wow.. you've got to love the Mac "community".. 😉

 

[whooleytoo]

What I prefer to do is to preview a track in Finder if I know I don't want it added to the Library.

Open a new Finder window in column view and browse to the track, making sure you've got the preview turned on. It's easy.

That's fair enough, but then you're missing out on many iTunes features (such as the visualiser and the graphic equalizer). I must admit, this is an option I'd really like to see too.

 

[ThomasW]

Back to topic. The question I have is will this SDK kit allow easier plugins into iTunes. I've noticed a number of VERY useful apps that are only on the Mac for iTunes which kind of sucks.

Yes, that's exactly what this SDK is supposed to do. The article on Macrumors says that this SDK is for playing music with other applications - but that's totally wrong. I don't know why noone has yet updated the article. Playing music is done using Quicktime, just like on the Mac. This SDK, however, lets you "remote control" iTunes - it's mostly a replacement for AppleScript/AppleEvents which aren't available on Windows.

 

[elo]

Yes, that's exactly what this SDK is supposed to do. The article on Macrumors says that this SDK is for playing music with other applications - but that's totally wrong. I don't know why noone has yet updated the article. Playing music is done using Quicktime, just like on the Mac. This SDK, however, lets you "remote control" iTunes - it's mostly a replacement for AppleScript/AppleEvents which aren't available on Windows.

ThomasW, you're exactly right and the article (and most of this thread) are entirely wrong. Nothing prevented anyone from adopting AAC before. Today's release opens up part of iTunes itself for add-ons, etc.

If Windows developers create some popular add-ons (as opposed to writing stand-alone apps) then that increases the popularity of iTunes itself.

elo

 

[phasornc]

why iTunes sucks

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.

I'll explain this in baby terms for all the brainwashed mac-heads who think this can be done. Here is the situation, I have a Mac at home and my wife has a PC. I also have a Mac file/print server so both of us can have a common "jukebox". Both of us have set our music folders to the same folder on the server. However when my wife rips a CD to the music folder it is not automatically added to my Library. With MusicMatch any .mp3 would be automatically added to my library whenever it is placed in the music folder. With iTune you must delete everything in your library and then re-add it. That sucks.

No smart playlists are not the same thing that I'm talking about

So at least my wife will be able to use MusicMatch now, assuming they support the AAC sdk.

 

[Rower_CPU]

You don't have to delete your library and re-add, just go to File>Add to Library... and point it at the folder - it will add the new files and ignore the ones already in its database.

 

[Snowy_River]

Real wanted to use FairPlay but Apple said no. If it was so simple to liscense it why didn't Real just do it? I think Apple created FairPlay, or have exclusive rights to it...otherwise real would have jumped on the bandwagon.

Apple's implementation of FairPlay is proprietary. If Real wanted to use their own implementation of FairPlay, there's nothing stopping them from doing so, but they would face the problem of needing to have players that support this. If they want to be supported by the iPod, then they have to use Apple's implementation, and, therefore, license it from Apple.

However, my point was that there's nothing stopping any other music store from adopting AAC as their music format. They'd have little problem implementing a DRM scheme (FairPlay or otherwise). The only issue would be having players that support it.

 

[Snowy_River]

...But this is a bad move, because it makes winamp a better player, and winamp is the competition.

When dealing with competing free products, I think the question of competition is a little more complicated than that. While it's been pointed out that the SDK has nothing to do with this topic, if WinAmp were to support iTMS songs (i.e. pAAC), then people would continue to buy songs from iTMS even if they wanted to use WinAmp. Plus, they'd still be able to enjoy their music on their iPods. Thus, the money makers are still boosted, even if the (free) music player isn't.

 

[Snowy_River]

Uhh, my laptop plays UT2 with 384megs and a shared memory video card perfectly. No need for any more. What do you mean nobody in their right mind? My minds fine 😀 .

You must be in your left mind... 😛

 

[Snowy_River]

*I call it bloated b/c they force Quicktime down PC users throats. I find that unacceptable, but alas, since I use iTunes its not really a choice.

QT is the engine that powers iTunes on both the Mac and the PC. Saying that iTunes forces it down PC users throats is like saying that automobile manufacturers force the ICE down buyers throats...

 

[Snowy_River]

...Macs are memory hogs...

Personally, I've found PCs and Macs to require very similar amounts of ram for the same job. You guys get worked up over nothing!

...I was merely pointing out the fact that there are many power PC users running 512 RAM - a power mac user wouldn't be caught dead with less than a gig.

Hmm... I have to agree with Highland here. I am a 'power user' and I have a mere 640MB in my machine. While I know that my tasks might be sped up by more memory, it doesn't seem worthwhile to do that with this machine. Probably, when I buy a new machine in 6 months to a year, I'll get a gig or more of RAM, but, then, I'd do the same if that machine was a PC.

I think that you're statement about there being 'many power PC users' (the first time I read that I read 'PowerPC', not what you intended) should be properly contrasted with the fact that there are many power Mac users who work with 512MB of RAM. As machines are upgraded, so is RAM.

For the record: Me😛ower User = 3D design and modeling, web design, graphic design, animation, etc.

 

[ThomasW]

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.

I'll explain this in baby terms for all the brainwashed mac-heads who think this can be done. Here is the situation, I have a Mac at home and my wife has a PC. I also have a Mac file/print server so both of us can have a common "jukebox". Both of us have set our music folders to the same folder on the server. However when my wife rips a CD to the music folder it is not automatically added to my Library. With MusicMatch any .mp3 would be automatically added to my library whenever it is placed in the music folder. With iTune you must delete everything in your library and then re-add it. That sucks.

You're right, this feature is unfortunately missing in iTunes. However, you really don't need to delete everything in your library and re-add it. Just Re-adding it is enough. iTunes will only import the new songs.

EDIT: oops, Safari somehow didn't reload this page and I thought noone had said that yet. 😉

 

[rdowns]

iTunes has a fatal flaw . . . it cannot "watch" folders as MusicMatch can.

I'll explain this in baby terms for all the brainwashed mac-heads who think this can be done. Here is the situation, I have a Mac at home and my wife has a PC. I also have a Mac file/print server so both of us can have a common "jukebox". Both of us have set our music folders to the same folder on the server. However when my wife rips a CD to the music folder it is not automatically added to my Library. With MusicMatch any .mp3 would be automatically added to my library whenever it is placed in the music folder. With iTune you must delete everything in your library and then re-add it. That sucks.

No smart playlists are not the same thing that I'm talking about

So at least my wife will be able to use MusicMatch now, assuming they support the AAC sdk.

Let me reply in baby terms for you; you're wrong. You can easily add any tunes to your library by merely pointing to the folder the files are located in. I prefer this and like to control what ends up in my library.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I'm an Apple shareholder and what is in the best interest for us shareholders is to have Apple garner hardware relationships that bundle an iPod branded for whatever the hardware vendor be:HP for instance: and through the distribution of this within the HP branded systems people will be exposed to the AAC format and through exposure people become comfortable and less interested in using a variety of formats.

This is how Microsoft does it but via their Operating System being on all 3rd party hardware platforms.

Apple's forbidden fruit is the combination of iPod + iTunes/iTMS.

Is this clear enough? Now that Apple is gearing up vendors in China, and shortly having Europe opened up, the comment about needing WMA support will soon disappear due to its irrelevance.

Are you an Apple Shareholder?

It was one thing back in the late 90s when all of us were rooting for Apple not to bite the dust, for us all to support what ever was in the best interests of the company.

But now that Apple is doing well, the allegiance I see to apple as a company, rather than just there products, is kind of disturbing.

I want apple to do what ever is best for me, as a consumer. So, I want them to open up the iPod, and iTunes. I don't care what Apple's shareholders think