iTunes 10

[Bob Stern]

An Apple software engineer responsible for iTunes confirmed today that iTunes 10 still does not fix the well-known sample rate bug.

 

(The bug is that iTunes locks onto the sample rate setting in Audio MIDI Setup at the time iTunes launches. If you subsequently change the sample rate in Audio MIDI Setup, iTunes ignores the change unless you quit and relaunch iTunes.)

 

[Codifus]

...for this issue? I mean, of all digital audio out there, wouldn't it be safe to assume that greater than 90% of it is 16/44?

 

Fact is, if you set Audio midi to the highest sample rate of the DAC that your Macintosh is connected to, iTunes will automatically upsample any lower bit audio to match audio midi. It has been shown that the upsampler within iTunes is of very good quality.

 

CD

 

[Bob Stern]

The Apple engineer characterized it as a bug. He said it's been on their list of bugs to fix for a long time. However, he said it's not a high priority, probably for the reason you stated.

 

[Nyal Mellor]

They should break iTunes up or do a massive redesign. The UI is horrible and it has become bloatware.

 

[barrows]

"The UI is horrible "

 

?, iTunes is The standard which other music database UI aspire to. Neal, I am curious as to what aspect of iTunes' navigation you find difficult?

 

[wgscott]

The main problems with the UI:

 

1. Violates Apple's own UI guidelines.

 

2. It is a Carbon App, legacy pre-OS X. The finder is the only other major Apple application that has this kind of legacy code (now that they updated Quicktime). Also, there is no 64-bit version (which isn't a GUI problem, but it tells you its time is up).

 

3. It is very clunky to use, especially the way the search is implemented.

 

4. Everything is grafted on, leading to a very bloated monolith. I agree, it ought to be broken up according to functionality.

 

[Codifus]

There are way too many iPods out there:)

 

CD

 

[sidssp]

@wgscott, you are looking at it from a developer's point of view. As a user, points #1, 2, 4 are irreverent. Users really don't care how a program is written as long as it works.

 

As far as point #3 goes, I think it depends on personal preference and how you use it. I find it very intuitive and reasonably speedy and I have about 700GB of music in the library.

 

 

[wgscott]

I don't have a huge problem with it. I was just answering the "what is wrong with it" question.

 

All things being equal, I prefer modularity, and iTunes is basically a victim of mission creep. I have to use iTunes, for example, to put my Keynote presentations on my iPad. It works fine. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is kind of goofy if you think about it. Also, it does stuff like putting movies in the music directory, which is a bit of an organizational travesty, especially when OS X creates user accounts by default that have separate Music and Movies directories in the home directory.

 

[wgscott]

I hate the scroll bars.

 

[ted_b]

let's try and call people by their actual names.

 

Also, these issue aren't irreverent at all, but they may be irrelevant.

 

I was hoping for a new Apple Remote App (one that takes advantage of the iPad's larger real estate, etc). Oh well, maybe it's still coming...in the meantime us beta testers will report on the new y-track app features.

 

And yes, I also believe iTunes is overdue for a rewrite. I'm sure they could work it so the billions of ipods would be compatible.

 

[audiomuze]

if iTunes is THE standard that other music database UI's aspire to we all have exceptionally low standards and very little in the way of a need to interact with our music collections in a meaningful manner. iTunes is bloatware crap and from a UI perspective caters to the lowest common denominator. there's really very little to like unless you're only interested in playing the tune of the moment...and any audio player can do that.

 

[barrows]

"interact with our music collections in a meaningful manner"

 

I guess I am confused, how does one interact in a meaningful manner with a music library? I do not doubt that iTunes is bloated in terms of its added functions and footprint, but I find the user interface very easy to navigate to find what I am looking for and to play it, or to use search functions. So far no one has made a specific criticism of the UI, but has just called it names.

Personally I get meaning out of the music I listen to, the things I read, the people I know, and the things I do, not from computer UI.

 

[audiomuze]

Well, last time I checked iTunes you're not able to see artist biographies, album reviews, liner notes, related artists, influenced by, followers, style, mood, or any of that sort of information.

 

iTunes was written for and caters to the iPod generation- predominantly people to whom the concept of an album and audio fidelity has little meaning/ value as they've grown up listening to the song of the hour and spent half their lives listening to mp3 at high volume via in-ear earphones and destroying their hearing in the process.

 

To give you a taste of what is meant by meaningful interaction (and it's not yet quite there either) have a look at Muso: http://klarita.net/muso.html

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

iTunes was written for and caters to the iPod generation- predominantly people to whom the concept of an album and audio fidelity has little meaning/ value as they've grown up listening to the song of the hour and spent half their lives listening to mp3 at high volume via in-ear earphones and destroying their hearing in the process.

 

If I'm allowed to be a smart arse for a moment, iTunes was surely written for the Walkman generation and created the iPod generation :-)

 

Not that I necessarily agree with your thoughts there. Actually some of the interaction you refer to is being added with the Genius facilities of the last few iTunes releases. You're description of "meaningful interaction" was actually created as part of creating the iPod generation - nothing like that was possible (except by personal knowledge and reference books) prior to Winamp / iTunes / Windows Media player and all the media players which have come out of those developments!

 

Generally I do agree with those who say that iTunes needs to be re-written and broken up. 1 app for playing/managing your media; 1 app for accessing the music store; 1 app for syncing you your iDevice. And written in 64bit - though then G5 owners would be complaining as I suspect it would no longer support Tiger / PPC.

 

Muso does look interesting on the otherhand.

 

[audiomuze]

"meaningful interaction" was actually created as part of creating the iPod generation - nothing like that was possible (except by personal knowledge and reference books) prior to Winamp / iTunes / Windows Media player and all the media players which have come out of those developments!

 

Unless my memory betrays me Winamp and other PC based players were around for some time before the iPod saw the light of day. Just about the only innovation to come out of iTunes thus far is coverflow. Everything else that's not related to the iTunes store has been copied from other software.

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

But my recollection of Winamp (and most other players) around the time that iTunes came out (initially on the Mac only) was that they were purely players with no management facilities.

 

You're right ... iTunes is not an innovation in terms of facilities - like most Apple products the same has been done before - however the usability was much improved over previous products. Like an iPhone does exactly what a Windows Mobile did before - but the usability is vastly different.

 

My point wasn't about if iTunes was first anyway - you commented on it being for the "iPod Generation" but if it wasn't for programmes such as iTunes, there would be no iPod Generation and NO interaction with your music EXCEPT browsing along your records and CDs on a shelf (or in a folder, etc). Therefore to moan that iTunes provides no meaningful interaction BECAUSE it's for the iPod generation is rather missing the point (IMO).

 

Eloise

 

P.S. even Coverflow isn't an Apple invention IIRC.

 

[audiomuze]

My point wasn't about if iTunes was first anyway - you commented on it being for the "iPod Generation" but if it wasn't for programmes such as iTunes, there would be no iPod Generation and NO interaction with your music EXCEPT browsing along your records and CDs on a shelf (or in a folder, etc). Therefore to moan that iTunes provides no meaningful interaction BECAUSE it's for the iPod generation is rather missing the point (IMO). iTunes gets no credit for the ability to interact with one's digital audio. Digital audio existed before the advent of the mp3 and I'm certainly not bemoaning the fact that iTunes provides no meaningful interaction, just pointing it out and saying that it should not be seen as a benchmark that other players aspire to.

 

Personally iTunes serves no purpose other than to synchronise my contacts on my iPhone, install iPhone updates and annoy me as I play the waiting game every time it's launched.

 

[Audio_ELF]

"iTunes gets no credit for the ability to interact with one's digital audio. Digital audio existed before the advent of the mp3 and I'm certainly not bemoaning the fact that iTunes provides no meaningful interaction, just pointing it out and saying that it should not be seen as a benchmark that other players aspire to.

 

Personally iTunes serves no purpose other than to synchronise my contacts on my iPhone, install iPhone updates and annoy me as I play the waiting game every time it's launched."

 

That is your choice, but it doesn't make some of the things you say correct.

 

Like everything in life, the choice to use iTunes (or not) is about choices and compromises.

 

Eloise

 

[Erwin S]

Eloise,

 

I used Genius a lot, but I now returned to just playing Albums like in ye olde CD-days. Genius, in my experience, only plays songs that it knows (ie, are in the iTunes Store) so it never picks The Beatles. Just a well known example, but I have a lot of less famous stuff that I want to be treated as equal. I believe Sooloos or Bang & Olufsen do this better. At a price!

 

For the rest I have no problems with iTunes as an interface using Album Covers since I am a visual type of person. I forget names, but never faces.

 

[audiomuze]

That is your choice, but it doesn't make some of the things you say correct. Rather than point out subjective differences of opinion, point out where I'm categorically incorrect. You like iTunes, I don't...as you say life is about choices and compromises...

 

[Audio_ELF]

Actually you're right about that (only picking iTunes Store music) Erwin. I'd never noticed that until you mentioned it.

 

It does work well when you just want to put some background music on (IMO). I actually often use a Genius playlist as a basis for iTunes DJ, then can add other tracks as I feel like it.

 

Eloise

 

[audiomuze]

Both of the abovementioned utilise allmusic/ Rovi's acoustic fingerprinting and Tapestry technologies and metadata, which is why they're a much richer experience.

 

If you're after a free but very good Genius type capability you'd do well to look at using Spicefly's Sugarcube plugin along with Squeezeboxserver and MusicIP. Whilst MusicIP's now defunct as an ongoing software development it's headless player works very well. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=49226&highlight=sugarcube. You can use Squeezeboxserver without having to utilise a Squeezebox.

 

[Audio_ELF]

Rather than point out subjective differences of opinion, point out where I'm categorically incorrect. You like iTunes, I don't...as you say life is about choices and compromises...

 

Well I'm thinking of the whole interaction thing - yes there are specific programmes which provide interaction like the one you mentioned. But generally I see apps trying to look and work like iTunes...

 

Eloise

 

[Audio_ELF]

Minimum cost for a Sooloos system (Control 15) - £4750

Cost for Qsonix Q105 - £5000

 

Cost for iTunes with a MacMini - £649

 

I think you see the difference here...

 

Eloise