Why no iTunes for Android?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Mstyle88, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. Mstyle88 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #1
    I've always been curious why Apple doesnt launch an iTunes app on Android to buy music and sync with your iTunes at home?

    I know they are competitors but very early on in iTunes history the PC got iTunes. (With Jobs poking fun at Microsoft saying its the best software on the PC platform)
     
  2. BlackViper macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    #2
    Hardware sales

    The point of the iTunes store has always been to drive Apple's hardware sales. iTunes on PC meant that PC users could buy iPods, increasing the target market beyond those that use Macs. iTunes on Android would only lead to fewer iPhone sales, less money for Apple as they don't make any significant profit from the iTunes store on it's own.
     
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    Good job, you hit the bullseye!:D
     
  4. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #4
    If you want something comparable to iTunes for android then DoubleTwist is an option.

    http://www.doubletwist.com/
     
  5. saving107 macrumors 603

    saving107

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca
    #5
    The OP is talking about iTunes the service (Music/Movies/TV Shows), not the iTunes Application for syncing.
     
  6. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #6
    Amazon Music. Same deal. Can use it through DoubleTwist or natively on Android.
     
  7. saving107 macrumors 603

    saving107

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca
    #7
    from the OP
     
  8. JASApplications macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Location:
    Scarborough, United Kingdom
    #8
    Perfect explanation!
     
  9. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Last thing I heard was that Apple were "looking into" the idea of bringing iTunes to Android. But, knowing Apple's attitude to Linux, I think Windows Phone 7 will have more chance.
     
  10. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #10
    DoubleTwist syncs. Amazon Music allows you to buy the music either from your computer OR on your Android Device.

    It's the same crap.

    Amazon MP3 for Android

    DoubleTwist

    Syncs music, video and photos from your computer to your devices. It even has a new feature called AirSync that allows you to sync wirelessly over your home network.

    Some of you need to learn to read links before you reply. iTunes being what it is, you aren't going to find much in the way of syncing TO iTunes. Someone else already gave an explanation for why that's the case. I'm not going to rewrite it or quote it.
     
  11. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #11
    Learn this really quickly. Apple is full of crap and is an example of a hypocritical company. They do not practice what they preach time and time again.

    I can site multiple examples of this BS.
     
  12. SAD*FACED*CLOWN macrumors 65816

    SAD*FACED*CLOWN

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    I think it's reasonable for any company that creates software to decide how it's used and by who...otherwise no one is buying iPods and iPhones to use iTunes which is free
     
  13. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #13
    while that is true. Just apple preachs how everything is Open standard and how great everything is. Yet when you look closer you see that stuff the push either only Apple can use it or Apple is getting money off of it.

    h.264 - Apple gets money off of it.
    The Video streaming they use safari and there live streaming they say is open only works in Safari and OSX or on iOS device.

    Facetime they claim is open yet again ONLY APPLE.

    It is the BS claims parts that get me and why I call them hypocrats.
     
  14. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #14
    Yet...

    Safari's rendering engine and javascript engine are open source and available to anyone that wants to use it. Just ask Google about that.

    Bonjour is open and available

    iCal uses the iCalendar format which is open

    Airplay devices are becoming available on the market. I'm sure this one is probably licensed but meh. whatever.

    Oh, and Apple does not make money on h.264. They pay money to use it. Unless they contribute any patents to the pool (which I don't think is the case) then they make zero off h.264.

    Facetime will probably be open soon as well. The Mac app is still in beta, I assume things will change once that gets out of beta.

    Oh and also, the OS X kernel is open source. You can download and use that if you wanted. Check out OpenDarwin.
     
  15. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #16
    I think apple stopped updating Darwin years ago. As Rodimus stated, you look a little closer at apple and you see a very closed and proprietary company. Heck just look at the app store for a definition of closed. They denied the Sony ereader and stated that unless they can have it on iBooks then theyll deny any other ereader

    True apple has provided some components to open source but only when it benefits them
     
  16. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #17
    The kernel is available here

    http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.26/
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #18
    just because the kerel is available does not mean apple does anything with it. They stop updating darwin a long time ago and only used part of it for their own uses.

    Apple is a hypocritical company plain and simple. They are very closed and controlling.
    I would recommend you read the post you quoted a little more closely.

    I would be willing to bet good money Microsoft has done more with help Open source than Apple. Just unlike Apple they do not brag about it or even say much about it.
    Lastly the kernal really does not mean much by itself. You need a lot of the closed source stuff to go with it.
     
  18. Mstyle88 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #19
    I posed the question as a form of syncing with iTunes and having iTunes on the Android to be able to purchase music through. Amazon mp3 is way cheaper too, usually half the price of iTunes music. Yes I use Double Twist but it does have its disadvantages. I guess Ive become so accustomed to iTunes.

    I bring this up today because Engadget is reporting that Google Music could come out tomorrow. If not, I would assume Google launches something similar within months. Some are speculating Google will offer a subscription service with this.
     
  19. gks, Feb 1, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2011

    gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #20
    The kernel is used in OS X. Of course it's updated. There are separate releases of the kernel for each version of OS X.

    http://www.opensource.apple.com/

    Click a version of OS X. Then do a find on the page for "xnu"

    The source is needed to make extensions (drivers) and is important for developers that do things that require certain access to the kernel. For example. Transmit, the popular file transfer client, has a feature that lets you mount an sftp server as a "virtual" drive. This uses something called MacFUSE which is a kernel extension "kext"

    http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/

    I wouldn't expect normal users to know this, but now you do.

    You also do not need the closed source stuff. You realize that a lot of the command line stuff is actually GNU software right? Open up terminal and type "bash --version" notice the "GNU bash" there? Oh yea.... not closed source.

    You could technically use a linux distribution, and with a fair amount of alteration use the kernel from OS X with it. This again, isn't something that you will see people do. But that is exactly what OpenDarwin and PureDarwin are. They compile the kernel and match it with a distribution of software such as GNU and it's basically an operating system. On top of that you could run X11 and have Enlightenment or Gnome or KDE running.

    As for reading the links i put up. I know what they are, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

    Read the readme file

    ...

    It is the kernel. Do you know what a kernel is? I'm guessing you have some vague idea but you really don't know what it is, which makes you sound like you're talking out your ass.

    And just for proof of updating...

    OS X 10.6.6 has a version of xnu-1504.9.26

    While OS X 10.6.5 has a version of xnu-1504.9.17

    and OS X 10.5.8 has a version of xnu-1228.15.4

    Not sure about you... but major releases get major updates... 1228 to 1504 (as from 10.5.8 to 10.6.6) is a pretty big number difference, those are likely build numbers which would indicate major changes. Meanwhile, 1504.9.17 to 1504.9.26 (as from 10.6.5 to 10.6.6) would be a small number, thus indicating minor changes.

    Meanwhile...

    Webkit is open source and it's source is also readily available via subversion.

    Funny thing is Android uses webkit, and Blackberry is using Webkit... Oh... and so does Chrome... from Google...

    I'd say Apple just contributed more to the world of open source with Webkit than Microsoft has ever contributed or thought of contributing.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #21
    Still would not be surprised if they are only updating what they have to that complies with what ever opensource licensing is used with Darwin. Apple has not done much with Darwin since they first started using it only updating what they needed to make sure it worked with what ever new features they added to OSX.
    Believe me none of it is done out of the goodness of their hearts. Apple does nothing for free. Apple clearly does not have any really donations or any system but its own greed.

    Like I said Apple is pretty much full of BS when ever they say "open standard" and "open source" it is very tightly controlled. Other wise you would see face time (based on open standards) linking into apple system. Or the video streaming Apple is using working by now on something other than Apple only produces.
     
  21. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #22
    Then don't use Apple products. Why are you here if you're so dissatisfied?

    Darwin is a project that was open sourced because they were using it for Rhapsody or something like that way back before OS X was released. It's released under Apple's own license. I'm sure they have the right to revoke the open source nature of future releases if they want. However, they aren't, and there's no reason to do so.

    As for the closed nature of the app store? Well, Microsoft is now doing the same thing. Amazon is doing something similar with their own Android store. Obviously there's something to this whole idea of closed vs open or others wouldn't be following now would they?

    But once again, I think you've been schooled here, maybe it's time for you to stop responding because you're looking like an Apple hating chump on an Apple forum. Maybe you'd be better off hitting up an Android forum.

    Meanwhile, the open source efforts from Apple will be used by Palm (HP), Google, and tons of others. So next time you use Chrome or Android's stock web browser, be sure to thank Apple for all the hard work they did.
     
  22. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23

    It is not the closed source vs open source that is an issue here. It is the fact that Apple is full of BS when it comes to their claims. Also I do not believe Apple can change the agreement on the existing Darwin code out there. It already released on that said agreement so anything done to the code they are required to follow it. My guess is it is one of the common Opensource agreements on it.

    Like I said it is the BS Apple preaches. They claim Open standard/Open source but clearly do not practice it or the "Open Standard" is "Open" only on Apple equipment which means it is really closed.

    As for buying Apple produce in how they are acting now they make MS look like a the son of God in how good they are when you compare them. I more than likely am going to put my money were my mouth is when it comes to buy future products because Apple has shown to me and many others that they can not be trusted.
     
  23. Applejuiced macrumors Westmere

    Applejuiced

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    At the iPhone hacks section.
    #24
    That's what I don't get with some people here.
    They can't stand Apple, their products, the iPhone etc
    But they're here 24/7?:confused:
     
  24. gks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    #25
    Alright, let's continue the schooling... clearly you don't learn...

    Apple can most certainly revoke the open source license in future versions.

    APSL

    Apple never claimed "open source" they claim "open standards." Where standards are those that may or may not be "Free" standards.

    Examples:

    They follow the W3 for web standards. HTML and CSS being the major ones here. These are free. As in anyone can implement them and have no fees associated with it.

    h.264 is an open standard but not free. It is free for you and i to view those files. But encoding those files costs money. So Apple pays money for the ability to encode files. I believe they also pay some fee for their software to decode it. So, for you to watch h.264 movies Apple pays for that. It's all in the licensing. However, it is still an open standard.

    Same goes for AAC. It's an open standard but has licensing fees associated with it.

    There are actually really good reasons for this. One, the companies that hold patents on various technologies in the standard agree to license it and as such you can't be sued for proper usage of the standards. WebM is open source, and an open "standard" in the sense that I think it's been submitted as a standard (i could be wrong) but no one can promise that no patents are being broken in using WebM. Google also isn't offering indemnification in case some company gets sued for using WebM. Meaning if you use WebM you risk patent lawyers possibly suing you. Those patent lawyers will likely be from the group of people that license h.264... hence Apple's willingness to pay for h.264. To save their bacon. Otherwise, WebM would probably be just fine with them.

    PDF is an open standard as well.

    Flash is not an open standard. Hence the reason that Apple is not a fan.

    Open standards allow Apple to modify or contribute to those standards. No one entity completely controls the "idea." Things are voted on and approved.
     

Share This Page