iTunes revamp with sep. syncing?

Discussion in 'OS X Yosemite (10.10)' started by 3282868, Jul 15, 2014.

  1. 3282868 macrumors 603

    Jan 8, 2009
    Aperture/iPhoto are being replaced by Photo's, seemingly a combo of consumer and pro level photography features with plugin's, effect's, editing, etc. iBooks and iPhoto are already separate w/ iBooks having it's own store. Why not an iMovie store? iTunes can handle music and music sales. The app's come free with new Mac's. Revamp an "iSync" service that can handle USB and wireless device syncing. Done.

    Some say it'll be messier, but the only difference would be separating the movie store into iMovie and cleaning iTunes out. Doubtful, but Windows versions (for sale) would be perfect, instead of syncing via Outlook and folders, offer the Mac experience.

  2. Planey28 macrumors 6502

    Jul 10, 2010
    Manchester, UK
    I don't think iMovie would make a good place for watching Hollywood films, iMovie is for creating your own home movies and sharing them. I don't really like the idea of iTunes being split into different apps to be honest although I do think it could definitely benefit from a major re-write.
  3. Icaras macrumors 603


    Mar 18, 2008
    California, United States
    I absolutely agree with you on a separate movie and TV shows store, which has nothing to do with the term "tunes". Apple did the smart thing with iBooks to separate that from iTunes and I hope Apple does the same with movies and TV shows. In fact I've sent Apple plenty of feedback through their site about this subject because I'd really like to see this happen.

    An iSync app also makes sense if Apple does decide to go this route with more defined and separate apps and stores. I really just want iTunes to be trimmed down to just the music player and music store.


    I agree that the name "iMovie" wouldn't be appropriate for a separate Movies/TV Shows store because of the conflict with the iLife app, but I definitely disagree with keeping a unified bloated app and store. I think separate apps are the way to go. Apple has already done it with iBooks, so why stop there? Anyway, I've suggest to Apple possibly something like "iFlix" (or something comparable but as long as it carries the "I" prefix for consistency) for a dedicated movies and TV shows app.
  4. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Jun 19, 2007
    Plymouth, MN
    The main reason is that iTunes doesnt have a wy to view books that were purchased. iBooks was written for that which is why it makes sense.

    The bg reason that Apple doesn't split off the stores like that is Windows. Apple doesnt want to write other Apps to Windows doesktop viewers (note there is no iBooks for windows). iBooks is a new market though compared to Movies which hs been around for longer.

    iTunes has no problems playing movies on both Mac and Windows. Unless you think iMovie is comming to Windows anytime soon, things won't change (and iTunes isn't going to remove video playback either).

    Futhermore, iMovie isn't a library manager on the same level as iTunes is. I'ts not comparable.
  5. 3282868 thread starter macrumors 603

    Jan 8, 2009
    Rewriting windows versions wouldn't be difficult, in fact Apple would be remiss not to offer them - music, movies, books, etc. and with their move to iCloud based iWork app's, Apple has their eye on offering a better experience for non-Apple users to try the "other side" for years.

    iBooks wasn't offered on OS X due to publishing rights and DRM, and I know that Apple has been working on an iBooks for Windows app for a while.

    iPhoto and iBooks are already separate app's. iPhoto allows users to create and order their own calendars, books, etc., would it be so difficult for iMovie (or one dedicated app) to purchase movies/television programs, thus leaving iTunes to handle music?

    Let's recap:

    1. iPhoto and soon Photo's is separate
    2. iBooks is separate
    3. iTunes was built to handle music, keep it that way
    4. Keep iOS App management in iTunes (simple)


    5. Add a "Film" store to iMovie or simply produce an app for film

    Revamp "iSync" to manage the media, just as iTunes. Easy to remove such code and produce one simple app based on iTunes management and iSync, develop it until ripe.

    Done. Apple has been slowly adding more iTunes functionality as media increases, now they are separating app's based on media. Heck, they don't even need to create an iSync app, just have iTunes remain the conduit but remove the added media into dedicated applications for Mac AND Windows. Windows users can purchase those app's (or make em free, they'll still have higher sales volumes), at best enticing them to try a Mac. Win/win.
  6. PsykX macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2006
    Lol separate syncing, I wish... iTunes is one monster of an application.

    Syncing has always be my biggest gripe about it. It's too long, it syncs music that I already have on my iPhone already, it's happening too many times even when I don't ask for it, and it always prevents my Mac from shutting down.

    Also the fact that I have to use a Dashboard widget to download lyrics for my songs. You'd think with the biggest music service in history we'd have them all by default like we have album artwork by default. Since Dashboard isn't supported anymore, this widget has ended up dying and now all I can use is Get Lyrical, which is painfully slow on my brand new Late-2013 iMac.

    Finally, it should be one of the first apps to be rewritten entirely in Swift, for easy maintenance and faster development. I'm sure that with all Apple apps being completely rewritten from scratch lately, it's the app that's using the most deprecated APIs on the OS X platform. Then, they should have a team that is ALWAYS doing continuous improvement on the iTunes app, not just the ecosystem. Apple is clearly doing the mistake of taking these guys and assigning them to other projects when they feel like it.
  7. haravikk macrumors 65816

    May 1, 2005
    I definitely think there's a big need for separation from iTunes, which has become severely bloated.

    While I can't say for sure whether Photos is an improvement (since we don't have it yet), I do think it would make sense to eventually do the same thing with a Movies app, a Books app and so-on.

    Initially I thought the same thing about rolling iMovie and Quicktime Player together for movies, but I'm unsure about iMove now; Photos is all about editing images, rather than creating them, so rolling iMovie in may not make much sense. However, replacing Quicktime Player with an app that can manage a movie library, as well as handle some basic non-destructive edits to tweak colour, sound etc., plus advanced options for trimming and clipping, it could be a good thing to do.

    Currently Quicktime Player feels a bit vestigial, as it does nothing to help you organise your movies, which means locating them in Spotlight or the Finder. So all it really does is play things, meanwhile iTunes can both manage and play movies, but it's not really very good at it IMO (it needs specialisation). Especially since iTunes doesn't actually store them under ~/Movies (except with the help from a symlink or two), it's all wrong.

    Syncing is the other thing that really should be separated out a system service, maybe with a convenient interface for all-in-one syncing stuff, plus the ability for other apps to hook into it as needed (so you can manage your synced movies from both the Movies app, or from a resurrected iSync or something). While I'm not sure if I'd hold out hope of Apple opening this back up to other phone platforms (though they really should), decoupling sync is important as it's not just iOS devices that we want to sync with anymore, but also other Macs on the same network, or via iCloud (or both), and really it makes more sense to handle all of this in the same way.
  8. Icaras, Jul 16, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2014

    Icaras macrumors 603


    Mar 18, 2008
    California, United States
    Sorry to slightly shift the discussion a bit away from a Movies/TV Shows app, but just to be precise about it, I certainly think that it should be completely separate to that of the iMovie app. And ultimately, I think Apple should actually follow the same path it did with it's transformation from iPhoto to iCloud Photos: transform iMovie to "iCloud Videos", send iMovie to the grave (like they did with iPhoto), and retain all of iMovie's inherent editing abilites and then some in the new app. I guess you could even merge Quicktime Player into that new app as well.

    Because one of my biggest critiques in the way iOS and iPhoto for Mac handled your photos was that it just bunched your all your videos together in your photo library, and I have always found it a hassle to sift through waves of photos just to find a couple of videos. I think they need to address this and complement iCloud Photos with a sister app with iCloud Videos. Just makes sense to me that they should do this.
  9. haravikk macrumors 65816

    May 1, 2005
    My point is that iMovie isn't really the same thing as iPhoto; iPhoto is fundamentally a picture management app that manages your library of photos as events, albums etc., and lets you do some light editing. iMovie however doesn't really do movie management, but rather it's more about movie creation from various clips, effects etc.

    What we need is a Movies app that is focused on managing a library of movie files (so probably TV shows as well, maybe music videos though that's less certain) and which maybe has a few editing capabilities to (non-destructively) adjust colour and sound if necessary. Really though it would be a lot closer to Quicktime Player (which is mostly about playing movie files) than it is to iMovie, so a Movies app would be a replacement for Quicktime Player so users can manage and play movie files. iMovie meanwhile would need to remain separate, as it's all about creation. Same reason we wouldn't want to roll Garageband into iTunes.

    It's kind of an example of where Apple's naming conventions have resulted in a confusing set of standards; as iTunes and iPhoto are very different from iMovie in practice. With iPhoto becoming simply "Photos", replacing Quicktime Player with "Movies" (and moving functionality out of iTunes) we could also see iTunes rebrand as simply "Music", maybe get some consistency and clarity back. After all, most new customers don't know anything about iTunes' origins, and even fewer actually know what Quicktime is.
  10. 3282868 thread starter macrumors 603

    Jan 8, 2009
    Some excellent points, all. I wish I had the time to quote everyone.

    The new Photo's app has been confirmed by Apple to introduce more "pro" level editing via plugin's, more effects, advanced editing, etc. alongside already existent iPhoto editing. In addition to creating books, calendars, etc via iPhoto, Photo's may be a rather powerful app. iMovie could be revamped, separating movies from iPhoto, becoming a movie database and editor, just like Photo's. Incorporating a film store, Quicktime is already the OS X media foundation, playback wouldn't be an issue, simply move DRM related code with the store into iMovie. Watch your personal movies, shows, industry films in one app. DRM would keep consumers from editing purchased movies. Done. iBooks is already separate with its own store, and Apple is working on integrating iBook authoring/creation into the app.

    This would leave iTunes. Keep it music oriented, perhaps for now leave the iOS App store integrated. Now what about syncing? Keep iTunes as the conduit or create a new version of iSync which would pull syncing integration out of iTunes and communicate with all the OS X app's for seamless custom syncing?
  11. haravikk macrumors 65816

    May 1, 2005
    I know I'd definitely prefer the latter, the question is whether Apple would ever do it. A service makes a lot more sense, as apps like Photos, Movies, whatever, would then be able to leverage it to still provide specialised syncing of just photos, just movies etc., but we could also see a separate app that can handle all things sync-related from a single location.

    The other advantage of a properly structured service would be support for things other than iOS devices, as iCloud could easily be rolled into it and it's a very similar thing, only that it's a remote server rather than a directly connected device. Even better would be a plugin structure, so third parties could add support for other devices.

    On that last point I'd expect Apple to drag their feet, but there's really no reason for them not to; as long as features like Continuity etc. are still iOS only then you're still getting a better experience with them. There's also the fact that just because a user prefers a Mac for their desktop, doesn't mean they'll automatically prefer an iPhone or iPad for a phone or tablet; in fact I myself have an Android phone as my phone needs are pretty modest, and I didn't want a contract (don't need it), but I'm still very much a Mac user (though Apple's dragging of heals with the Mac Mini is threatening that at the moment). I don't see a lot of people suddenly shunning iOS for Android, as anyone for whom an iOS device is a potential fit will still consider them alongside iOS specific features. Those features simply shouldn't be "nothing else works properly with OS X". Sorry, mini-rant there, but yeah, a service would be so much more preferable to stuffing all these features into iTunes ;)

    The fact that we're only seeing Photos right now could pave the way for a gradual change. If we do see a Movies app then there'll likely be some overlap with iTunes for a while before iTunes drops (or hides) movie and TV show handling, same with apps and so-on.

    I'd hope that in future we'll see each specialised app handling its own specialised store implementation, but again using a central service to do so, with a "Store" app allowing access to everything from one place if desired, with a view to combining both the Mac and iTunes stores together in one place. It makes sense for Apple not to have to maintain separate stores when they do pretty much the same thing after all, plus they could then do further iOS and Mac integration, such as multi-platform purchases (e.g - buy the same app for Mac and iOS in one purchase).
  12. 3282868 thread starter macrumors 603

    Jan 8, 2009
    Great points haravikk.

    I could definitely understand Apple locking out access for other devices, which is essentially why iSync slowly retired around 2007 with the iPhone introduction. I remember using iSync with my RAZR back in the day (god I miss flip phones, they were so much easier, and people actually talked to each other lol). Yet you have an excellent point, Apple has unique services between their devices, differentiation would give Apple the upper hand while allowing other devices to sync. The issue would be app's and platform based media, at least this would allow music, movies and photo's to sync along with USB and/or iCloud syncing/settings.

    The other idea, create a media store, perhaps "iMedia", pulling out the individual stores from their associated app's and acting as the syncing conduit. Purchased media would go into their respective app's (or in Windows their respective folders as photograph's currently do), while handling syncing. In essence, iTunes with just the stores and the app's for management. It's very much akin to how iOS handles media purchased via the iOS iTunes Store and App Store.

Share This Page