Building a PC is like writing a book guys, while it seems easy and most people should be able to do it, 99% are to intimidated to even try it.
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.
iTunes Music Store Has Sold 20 Million Songs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And then there are the workers out there who turn up each day and log into their WindowsNT work station and do their work, send their emails and call the help desk when they have a problem. ie the average computer user at work who could be listening to iTunes from iTMS and taking it on their iPod when they leave work
Rate of Song Sales
Another way at looking at the sales of the iTunes Music Store is average sales per day over the interval between announcements of sale numbers...
The Windows release boosted declining sales in the Mac community dramatically!
(edit: changed titles on image)
Another way at looking at the sales of the iTunes Music Store is average sales per day over the interval between announcements of sale numbers...
The Windows release boosted declining sales in the Mac community dramatically!
(edit: changed titles on image)
Attachments
Ah, but unlike a book, it's hard to fool yourself into believing it's not crap when you're all done ... it either works, or it doesn't (albeit often intermittently ...)
Oh,hey ... was there a topic to this thread?
iTunes is slower on Windows because of Quicktime
I was told that iTunes is slow because it uses the Quicktime API and not native Windows API.
I was told that iTunes is slow because it uses the Quicktime API and not native Windows API.
Why can't any of you guys understand this. Of the 100 million songs being given away by pepsi the likelyhood is that only around 20-30% will actually be claimed. Think about it, at least 30% of the population don't even own a computer. Then there will be those who aren't interested in music, extremely young children and also those who are just apathetic. The upshot is that pepsi will only be payin apple for those songs that actually get redeemed. Therefore pepsi will be buying roughly 20-30 million songs which all ties in perfectly with SJ's target of 100 million for the first year!
Originally posted by jettredmont
Ah, but unlike a book, it's hard to fool yourself into believing it's not crap when you're all done ... it either works, or it doesn't (albeit often intermittently ...)
Oh,hey ... was there a topic to this thread?
The original tread for this topic was relating to a comment from the CNET article on iTUNES sales with 20 million downloads with a comment about Mac users being more tech savy and educated than PC users
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sayhey
since Apple buyers tend to have higher incomes and greater technological sophistication than the PC audience as a whole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manitoubalck
macrumors 6502
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Them's Fighting words. One may argue that apple customers have a lower technological sophistication than x86 users, hence their computers only come pre constructed, with everything already installed ready to used. No computing knowlege required. Apple could gain significant market share by sell in barebone, headless systems, (2 or 1 procs, 1 case and a motherboard) thus not pricing themselves out of the mass market.
However, Well done to the ITMS, even though when it comes to Australia, I won't touch it with a 40ft pole. (Big fan, of free downloads and Real CD's)
__________________
Unfortunately we cannot legislate against stupidity Honourable Mike Rann Premier of South Australia
Possibly. He may not have been a very smart rep.
But, seriously, what would be the point of stating a goal and then giving away the product just to reach it. YES, I know that Apple will be paid for it but from the consumer's point of view it was given away. A goal of selling 100 million tunes is a good goal. If they sell 40 million and people download another 60 million for free it would be vastly inferior to if 80m are sold and 20m are downloaded for free.
So even if the Pepsi downloads are counted, they really shouldn't be. If Jobs does include them I will have to counter with the SJRDF argument.
edit:
Furthermore, if the goal is to "sell" 100 million then how does "giving away" songs count toward that total? The give-away promotion is obviously designed to get people into the store in the hopes that they will then buy songs. (Yes, Apple is getting paid for the songs but the distinction is clear in the statements because Jobs used the term "giving away" to refer to the Pepsi promotion)
I stand by my original statement (even though I can't find a link to the interview).
Originally posted by jettredmont
Generally, articles talking about the relative "technical sophistication" of Mac vs Windows users are talking about the relative education levels. Mac users tend to have a higher level of education (more college and grad-school graduates) than Windows users. This doesn't mean that they know more about how the IDE channels in their computer work; it means they are able to prioritize and choose the right tool for the right job
That's taking it out on a limb and you only just covered yourself saying "relative education levels." I have had no formal training as far a building and fixing computers is conserned, just had to nut it out when the problem arrose, (has alot to do with my financial standings.) Remember apple Mac only holds around 5-6% of the computing market, so mot people with tertiary educated or not are going to end up with a x86 machine. Since most of the world hasn't had the oppertunity to attend University, let alone grade school, your comment is rather crude and derogatory.
On education levels an accountent may rationalise after 3 years in the books that the limited recycleablity/expandablity/office software base of an apple Mac makes them not worth the inital capital outlay.
Direct X isn't SSE. Direct X is to Windows as Quartz Extreme is to OS X just a more limited version in some technologies. I'm thinking more along the lines of Direct Draw which would aid in the speed of resizing the window. that's only one of the problems with iTunes for Windows but its one of the more obvious one.
LOL, ok but I can throw a mean left hook from 8,000 miles away! Hey, manitoubalck, it wasn't my quote it came straight from the article. I like the kudos to Apple users even if I don't think such generalizations are worth, to use an old political phrase, "a warm bucket of spit."
As to the expansion of iTMS to markets other than the US, I'm betting we see some major announcements at the MacWorld - San Francisco. Hold on until then and we will see if Apple is going to be able to jump through all the legal hurdles to make iTMS an international success.
iTunes GUI responsiveness
iTunes takes advantage of OpenGL instead of DirectX, plus all the widgets seem to have been customized to match closely with the Mac version of the product for better or worse. (I think it was a business decision that if the behavior wasn't identical, Apple would have suffered fallout from anti-Apple people claiming that Apple had compromised build quality and given the PC world a cheaper version of iTunes.)
This creates a load on the CPU and graphics card any time the GUI is manipulated. The best way to see this is to move the window about really fast or scroll around. This is mitigated somewhat with a couple of behavioral changes: use the minimized player/windows toolbar and the find-as-you-type search box.
On graphics cards with horrible OpenGL support (Matrox, for example), the GUI responsiveness is to the point of unsuitability.
iTunes for Windows already requires an advanced version of Windows (2000 and XP only) so therefore I don't think the CPU is much an issue. Most systems that run 2000/XP date to a little after the G4 was released so that would put them at around 800Mhz "Coppermine" style computers.
My guess is the Windows requirement is more restrictive than the GUI responsiveness. I'm very impressed with how accurately the mimic'd the behavior of the Mac version, even though I think they should have taken more risk by keeping with the spirit of the product instead of the detail.
This is unrelated to ripping speed and CPU load during playback (those are related to quicktime).
Back on topic. I got the impression that Apple was deliberately vague on whether or not the giveway songs would be counted as part of the 100 million. I seemed to take it as being that Apple optimistically would like to reach 100 million based on the AOL and iPod/iTunes popularity alone, but if they fall short they'll count the claimed Pepsi (and McDonald's) songs.
I can't wait until some vendor reports Nielsen SoundScan numbers. Right now the only one doing it is Apple which points to me that the other services are disappointing. Else they would be crowing about how much market share they took from iTunes (#1).
Take care,
iTunes takes advantage of OpenGL instead of DirectX, plus all the widgets seem to have been customized to match closely with the Mac version of the product for better or worse. (I think it was a business decision that if the behavior wasn't identical, Apple would have suffered fallout from anti-Apple people claiming that Apple had compromised build quality and given the PC world a cheaper version of iTunes.)
This creates a load on the CPU and graphics card any time the GUI is manipulated. The best way to see this is to move the window about really fast or scroll around. This is mitigated somewhat with a couple of behavioral changes: use the minimized player/windows toolbar and the find-as-you-type search box.
On graphics cards with horrible OpenGL support (Matrox, for example), the GUI responsiveness is to the point of unsuitability.
iTunes for Windows already requires an advanced version of Windows (2000 and XP only) so therefore I don't think the CPU is much an issue. Most systems that run 2000/XP date to a little after the G4 was released so that would put them at around 800Mhz "Coppermine" style computers.
My guess is the Windows requirement is more restrictive than the GUI responsiveness. I'm very impressed with how accurately the mimic'd the behavior of the Mac version, even though I think they should have taken more risk by keeping with the spirit of the product instead of the detail.
This is unrelated to ripping speed and CPU load during playback (those are related to quicktime).
Back on topic. I got the impression that Apple was deliberately vague on whether or not the giveway songs would be counted as part of the 100 million. I seemed to take it as being that Apple optimistically would like to reach 100 million based on the AOL and iPod/iTunes popularity alone, but if they fall short they'll count the claimed Pepsi (and McDonald's) songs.
I can't wait until some vendor reports Nielsen SoundScan numbers. Right now the only one doing it is Apple which points to me that the other services are disappointing. Else they would be crowing about how much market share they took from iTunes (#1).
Take care,
Wow, some comments seem to have gotten a little off topic.
20 mil is great to hear. I hope Apple can make the 100 mil goal by April. That is a lot of ground to cover. Of course, this could only inspire other to join in - whoever ISN'T planning one right now. I think Santa Claus is going to introduce his online music store Dec 24 - so watch out Apple!
20 mil is great to hear. I hope Apple can make the 100 mil goal by April. That is a lot of ground to cover. Of course, this could only inspire other to join in - whoever ISN'T planning one right now. I think Santa Claus is going to introduce his online music store Dec 24 - so watch out Apple!
Tychay has made some great points, and what they imply is that - by adhering to a co-operative cross-platform 'open' standard (OpenGL) as opposed to pandering to a truly proprietary standard (DirectX) - Apple is paying a price in terms of performance.
Maybe what's needed is a pragmatic approach, namely a switch in Preferences that asks the user "Use OpenGL extensions"; leave it on and you get the full Apple-like application and decent speed so long as you have a graphics subsystem with good OpenGL performance, turn it off and you revert to a more traditional looking Windows app that exploits DirectX.
We should not forget that a few iterations of software optimisation will also be required - the development process for the Windows version only started in April if you use the job adverts as a guide so the fact that there was a version in October that works as well it seems is a bit of a miracle if you ask me.
Maybe what's needed is a pragmatic approach, namely a switch in Preferences that asks the user "Use OpenGL extensions"; leave it on and you get the full Apple-like application and decent speed so long as you have a graphics subsystem with good OpenGL performance, turn it off and you revert to a more traditional looking Windows app that exploits DirectX.
We should not forget that a few iterations of software optimisation will also be required - the development process for the Windows version only started in April if you use the job adverts as a guide so the fact that there was a version in October that works as well it seems is a bit of a miracle if you ask me.
I agree, I'd rather have a slightly slower iTunes that is more like the Mac version than a cheap version that's faster.