Questionable Rumor Claims Safari and iTunes to Merge Into Single Application

[DickKnowsBest]

How about this:

iSync for managing everything between iDevices (apps, music, movies, books, etc)
iTunes for managing, playing, and editing music. Get rid of GarageBand.
iMovie for managing, playing, and editing video. Get rid of QuickTime and iDVD.
iPhoto for managing, viewing, and editing photos.
iChat for all person-to-person communication, including text and video. Get rid of Facetime.
iWeb for creating and browsing Web sites. Get rid of Safari.
App Store for downloading and managing apps for both iOS and OS X.
Pages for creating, reading, and editing Word documents and PDFs. Get rid of Preview.
Numbers for creating, reading, and editing Excel documents.
Keynote for creating, viewing, and editing slideshows.
Include Pages, Numbers, and Keynote on every new Mac, just like iLife.

While music, videos, apps, photos, PDFs, Word documents, etc can be used by other apps (such as iSync), everything would be manipulated only through their respective apps.

That could work. I don't care what they do, so long as it's clean and simple and make the apps much snappier. iTunes is bloated and slow, even on a mac. Even 'pages' and 'final cut' takes less time to load than iTunes. iTunes should be for managing and editing SOUND files only. It doesn't deserve the iTunes name now, because it now has apps, movies books, etc... ridiculous.
iTunes should be music, audiobooks, ringtones, and radio only, NOTHING ELSE!!!

here's what I think...

iLife
iTunes: Manage, play, edit all sound files. Merge with garageband.
iMovie: Manage, play, edit all movie files. Merge with quicktime, iDVD and DVD player.
iPhoto: Manage, view, edit all image files.
iWeb: Edit, manage websites.

What about logic, final cut and aperture? Well, have them as separate apps, which are more powerful than the iLife apps, however how to organize it AND the iLife suite's library to be the same? Mirror it. e.g. iMovie and Final Cut library are both the same. When you make a change to the library in final cut, when you later open iMovie, it instantly feeds that info back to the iMovie library so it's in perfect sync (Is this even possible, lol). I personally hate having two libraries for iPhoto and Aperture. ugh.

iWork
Pages: Manage, view, edit all pages/word/pdf files. Includes iBooks.
Numbers: Manage, view, edit all numbers/excel files.
Keynote: Manage, view, edit all keynote/powerpoint files.
iWork is free on all new macs, however there is a $29 upgrade each year.
That way they can remove textedit and preview and not having to worry about not having pages to view these files.

Standard apps
Finder: Well........ finder!
iChat: Text, video communication, blogging and incorporate ping, twitter and facebook features in. Remove the facetime name and incorporate Photo Booth.
Safari: Browse websites and manage feeds.
Mail: Incorporate iCal, address book, mail and stickies. iCal and Address book are configured in their own app, but can be viewed directly in mail without having to open separate apps. Also allows to manage feeds etc... (sends info back/forth to safari) and allows for multiple mail clients on the same system.
Calendar: Rename it from iCal to calendar. Have mail be able to read/view Calendar info, but can only be edited through the calendar app itself.
Address book: Same as above. Mail can read/view address book info, but have to be edited through address book.
Calculator: build calculator into iWork suite, but have separate calculator too.
Preview: Keep preview. It can open ANY file and play it/view it directly. Make small adjustments to films and photos or documents to save resources.
iStore: Manage, purchase and download/downloaded apps, music, movies, books etc... for iOS and OSX.
iSync: Most important in my opinion. Manage/sync any data on your mac with any connected devices (that support them of course). Cameras, phones, sd cards, iPhone, iPod, iPad etc... Merge with image capture and allow for all i-devices to be used as external storage devices.

All in all, I just think we need more choice of what apps we sometimes use to do what things. I sometimes get sick of reading feeds in my tiny mail window. Sometimes, some feeds have large images in them. So I'd rather view/manage those feeds in safari instead. That would be cool, so if I had read a feed for example, it would just send that info back to mail, so I don't read that feed twice. Also, sometimes if I want to send an email to a friend to make plans, but forgot his email and am not sure if I am free today according to my calendar, It would be nice to have an address book and calendar app built in to mail, without having to open up each app just to see that info.
There are lots of other scenarios where this can be incorporated too. Just makes life easier.

Just my 2 cents. Cheers

 

[rlhamil]

A single app that deals both with external data and with a considerable investment in local data sounds to me like a major security problem waiting to happen. Neither the consumer _nor_ the recording industry control freaks would benefit.

Nor does one need the burden on memory or CPU (or possibly power, on a battery powered device) of having both loaded when one only needs the functionality of one or the other.

Mostly I use song or album list format in iTunes; more visual formats like grid or Cover Flow may be pretty, but give me less direct functionality. Maybe that has something to do with it, but even from a user interface standpoint, I don't see much advantage to a combined app.

Safari is a decent browser; good enough that I use it most of the time on OS X. If each tab were always a separate process (like Chrome), at least on OS X, that would help me out some, since memory would then be freed when tabs were closed. I do tend to have anywhere from three to 20 tabs open at once, so getting memory back without restarting Safari would be the biggest single improvement for me. The other problem I have with Safari is that it seems to do the worst job of scaling; if I use cmd-plus to make the content larger, it has more problems with overlapping areas than other browsers seem to. Fix those, and Safari would probably be my first choice on any platform for which it was available.

 

[greygray]

No, not happening. Next rumor please, and a better one.

 

[bergmef]

I say no ... and yes. The two merging I can't see. But, with it looking like apple wants things in the cloud, why not a web version of itunes that accesses your stuff no matter the computer? Safari would be required because of access to the ipod.

edit: make it like apple's version of a sling player. log into itunes from a safari browser and play the stuff from your (home) itunes.

 

[Digitalclips]

If iTunes gained a browser tab (i.e. Safari) but Safari as is didn't gain iTunes I'd be fine with that.

 

[hagjohn]

maybe if Safari wasn't so horrible on Windows, then maybe the usage would pick up but no, not a fan of merging.

 

[0815]

turning iTunes into a 100% HTML5 webapp would be great .... browser and platform independent - no more need to support multiple desktop versions. Win-Win for everyone. This might be an opportunity to show the world how great HTML5 is.

 

[j800r]

terrible idea.

however, I don't agree that iTunes is bloated. Try using Windows (including most Windows software) then tell me iTunes is bloated and/or buggy. It behaves fine for me and always has. even on Windows.

Safari is also FAR from bloated. You want a bloated, sluggish, resource hogging browser then use Firefox. Safari would be my default browser of choice if it weren't for the social features of RockMelt.

I also don't agree with the idea of an app rework that some of you have had. I think they behave just fine as they are.

 

[vixducis]

Now it's a done deal... they're trying to make itunes into an OS.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Nightmare On Infinite Loop
The Madness Continues

 

[Zc456]

Ya' know, it's rumors like this makes me miss the days when iTunes truly was simplistic - let alone an actual music player. Instead of some bloated hub to buy, store and backup applications.

 

[Mal]

Eh, combining iTunes and Safari is kinda like going deer hunting with an accordion. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I can see, as has been mentioned, the iTunes App Store being combined with the Mac App Store, and perhaps the Radio function from iTunes moving into Safari, kinda stripping out some functionality that doesn't really need to be in iTunes, but didn't have a better place when it was introduced. iTunes needs a bit of slimming down, and this is one way they could accomplish that without actually removing functionality completely.

I don't see it happening though.

jW

 

[lifeinhd]

terrible idea.

however, I don't agree that iTunes is bloated. Try using Windows (including most Windows software) then tell me iTunes is bloated and/or buggy. It behaves fine for me and always has. even on Windows.

I've never noticed iTunes to be bloated either. In terms of features, sure, but not in terms of resource usage.

EDIT: Just checked Activity Monitor, and it's using .1% of my CPU just idling, but it's using 117.6MB of RAM. Which is interesting, because it certainly doesn't feel like it.

Safari is also FAR from bloated. You want a bloated, sluggish, resource hogging browser then use Firefox. Safari would be my default browser of choice if it weren't for the social features of RockMelt.

I also don't agree with the idea of an app rework that some of you have had. I think they behave just fine as they are.

Whenever I start Safari, I always get a SBBOD. FireFox, I rarely get that-- and while I admit FF is a bit of a resource hog (I only have 33 tabs open right now, yet it's using 76.7% of my CPU and 642.9MB RAM), it has this robust, solid feel about it that Safari simply doesn't have. No matter what I throw at it, FireFox will just keep chugging along as it's supposed to, whereas Safari throws up as soon as I try to play a YouTube video. And Chrome ruined all the menu placements, so I refuse to use it for that reason alone. I used to use Opera, but the last time I used it, I found it wasn't any better than FF in terms of resource usage (though it actually felt more sluggish), so I stopped.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Makes sense to me. itunes is already on the web.

 

[Tyler23]

I don't see that happening.

I'd rather see a merging of iTunes and the Mac App Store.

 

[Vulpinemac]

Three Guys and a Podcast claims that Apple is working to merge its iTunes application into its Safari browser later this year, creating a single application for browsing web and media content.According to the report, one reason for the push is to boost Safari's market share among Internet browsers, where Apple has yet to crack the 5% mark. Tying iTunes into Safari, it is argued, would likely bring a significant boost to the company's share of the browser market as consumers turn to the integrated environment.We are highly skeptical of the claim for a number of reasons, including significant reservations due to the rumor's source, which has in the past appeared to base its claims on significant amounts of speculation.

Article Link: Rumor Claims Safari and iTunes to Merge Into Single Application

I, too, am highly skeptical of the claims. Such an effort would almost guarantee an intense investigation by multiple national governments for 'Abuse of Monopoly Power.'

 

[charlituna]

How is that a legal problem? It's nothing like tying the browser into the OS.

That isn't the legal issue.

The issue is using clout in one area to force another unrelated item on folks.

Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to use Window's huge market share to force IE on folks. Two different software programs for two different things. They tried to claim some kind of necessary integration but no one bought it (mainly cause they couldn't prove it). So their attempts to make OEMs install IE and only IE failed.

In this case Apple would be forcing Safari on folks that want iTunes if the rumor is true as written. And I don't see Apple as being that stupid as to risk a law suit on the same grounds as the Microsoft one.

Now putting the store on the web straight up, as a continuation of the preview they already, sure that makes sense. And then you use whatever browser you want.

 

[Carniphage]

That isn't the legal issue.

The issue is using clout in one area to force another unrelated item on folks.

Adding additional functionality to an app does force people to use it.

The issue everyone seems to miss is that iTunes ALREADY contains a web browser. The iTunes store is just a walled-off website.

This iTunes embedded browser is tied to a single function and useless for anything else. Is that a good thing?

C.

 

[mcmlxix]

I’m not going to get my skivvies in a knot over this far-fetched rumor, but if Apple does this, they should just call the combined application Beachball.

I’ve often thought that iTunes (app & store) should be rebranded. I know it won’t happen because the brand has become too big. But really, when iTunes came out it was about playing and organizing, well, tunes. But at this point it’s trying to do too many things. All media and iOS app content management. Media player for some media. Portal to the iTunes Store. Integrated with social networking. Syncing with iOS devices. What else am I missing? Yikes!

iTunes should be broken up and not merged with another app, but how? It makes sense to have media management in the same app as the media player, yet it makes a certain amount of sense to have the syncing handled by Finder…or Finder’s successor. This would also make giving iOS devices a file manager too a next logical step. But what about Windows users without Finder?

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

I’m not going to get my skivvies in a knot over this far-fetched rumor, but if Apple does this, they should just call the combined application Beachball.

If Apple put iTunes 'inside' Safari they would probably do so in the form of an HTML5 (*ahem*, HTML, CSS, JavaScript) with code to handle more complicated things. They could probably get it running in a way which is less processor intensive than iTunes. It would have the benefit of being much more appropriate for cross-platform delivery. Aside from this being a huge (perhaps unrealistically so) project, though, a drawback would undoubtedly a loss of functionality.

Still think this one is nonsense.

 

[charlituna]

Adding additional functionality to an app does force people to use it.

The issue everyone seems to miss is that iTunes ALREADY contains a web browser. The iTunes store is just a walled-off website.

This iTunes embedded browser is tied to a single function and useless for anything else. Is that a good thing?

C.

You are correct about iTunes, but that's not the issue within the rumor.

think the other way.

Imagine if Apple removed that walled off website from the iTunes app and put it in Safari. Again basically walled off. So you must use Safari to get to the iTunes Store. It won't work with any other browser.

That is what the rumor is claiming and that is the potential legal issue. THey would be charged (and possibly found guilty) of using their clout in the digital media market to force use of their web browser and increase that applications share unfairly. The laws don't care that it is two free programs (at the moment). Just that everyone plays nicely.

And that possible legal issue is why I think the rumor is skewed. I don't think it is Safari but the web. They already have their online preview pages. All they need is to change 'open in itunes' to actual buy/rent buttons and they are golden. THey could even keep the 'store' in the itunes app and make this just an alternative way for those that just really really hate iTunes and want to use double twist etc.

So no forcing anyone to use anything they don't want, no losing sales to those that hate iTunes cause they feel it is bloated etc. Win and Win

I

iTunes should be broken up and not merged with another app, but how? It makes sense to have media management in the same app as the media player, yet it makes a certain amount of sense to have the syncing handled by Finder…or Finder’s successor. This would also make giving iOS devices a file manager too a next logical step. But what about Windows users without Finder?

I think for Windows users they might have to leave it as is, for now. THey would need buy in by Microsoft to get too outside of the app and into the OS.

But for Mac users I could see them making a desktop link into the iTunes store, iOS app store, maybe even iBooks. Perhaps one icon and then you select the store you want and pop straight to it. Media management and playback could be handled by a stripped down version of ITunes that might even also link into the whole iLife media browser to make it easier to put that home movie on your ipad to take to grandma's house. Perhaps push CD playback into the DVD player app so when you pop in a CD you get a choice of playing or importing to your collection. If you say import it just does it 'in the background' and when done you get a choice of eject or 'view collection' and then the media program actually opens. They could do some kind of system where if you plug in an iDevice it has a finder like window with the syncing screens rather than 20 steps to get there. and so on.

 

[Carniphage]

You are correct about iTunes, but that's not the issue within the rumor.

think the other way.

Imagine if Apple removed that walled off website from the iTunes app and put it in Safari. Again basically walled off. So you must use Safari to get to the iTunes Store. It won't work with any other browser.

Apple is not the only content store which is accessed using an embedded browser. Steam also has a built-in web browser to view the store content.

A more benign interpretation of the rumour would be that the copy of Safari already inside iTunes could become available to Windows users as a general purpose browser. It's something installed with iTunes installation just like Quicktime.

C.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I was thinking about this the other day when I figured it out:

The reality is that iTunes will actually become smaller and Safari will remain roughly the same size.

The online iTunes store will become fully functional with Safari gaining some features to make it quick and easy to access the website. Ping will also be moved over to Safari.

iTunes will end up losing the entire "Store" portion of its sidebar, thus leaving it with only the media you already own. Honestly, it always pissed me off that the store was integrated into iTunes... two of the biggest issues I always had with it:

1.) The links all over iTunes that link you to the iTunes store.
2.) You cannot do anything else in iTunes while you preview songs/albums.