*
programming and human factors
by Jeff Atwood
*
Ever find yourself clicking on links to music or videos and getting blasted in the face with this delightful little number?
That's right -- links to any sort of music, TV shows, movies, podcasts, audiobooks or anything else available through Apple's iTunes store requires custom software to be installed on your computer before they will display thing one to you.
Is it so unreasonable to expect links in your browser to resolve to, oh, I don't know, web pages containing information about the thing you just clicked on? Is there anything more anti-web than demanding users install custom software to display information that could have just as easily been delivered through the browser?
So here's what we know:
That's all well and good for people who own iPods and iPhones -- and happen to be running Windows or OS X, I suppose.
But what about the rest of the world? Why lock them out with the ultimate login barrier? We might like to browse the iTunes Store, too. At the very least, I might want some basic information about the media I just clicked on. Right here in my browser where I already am. Information like what the heck it is, some artwork, maybe some audio clips, how much it costs -- sweet talk me. Make me want to buy it through the Apple Store. Dazzle me with your simplicity and ease of use. Beguile me with your wares!
Or, you could bludgeon me with the digital equivalent of a giant stop sign.
Hey, "it just works". Except when it doesn't.
I'm certainly able to click through to eminently purchaseable media on dozens of other places on the web using nothing more than my web browser. Let's imagine, for a moment, how utterly ridiculous it would be if I had to install the Amazon application to browse and purchase media from Amazon.
And yet this is exactly how the iTunes Store works. Or doesn't work, depending on your perspective.
I can understand requiring iTunes once you want to sync your media with Apple hardware devices -- although I would argue syncing should really be a fundamental, built in function of the operating system. But I'm not trying to sync anything! All I did was click on a link. It's downright user hostile to demand installation of a special application merely to browse the store, and it is most certainly against everything the web stands for and was built on.
The last "application" I can recall needing to install to get to things online was AOL.
And we all know how great that turned out.
For all the buzz about the Apple "it just works" mystique, the current iTunes Store design surely doesn't -- at least not the same way the rest of the web does. And I, for one, can't get behind that.
omg! apple is stealing the interwebs! oh noes!
lee on July 10, 2008 2:25 AMI own a macbook, I've used iTunes, it's a heavy, non-working, closed down, cpu-hogging behemoth. Worst application ever.
Hmm.. Must have been a long time since you last used iTunes. Right now, iTunes 7.7 is using around 126 MB of memory on my Macbook. That's about half of Firefox. And as for CPU usage playing a full-screen mp4 movie uses around 20% CPU on my 2.2 GHz Intel Macbook.
Maybe an update of iTunes is due on your machine?
erlando on July 10, 2008 2:53 AMI do like this post, one of your best rants yet!
Though it does break down in the if you happen to be running windows or mac os x because well, most people will be. For us freetards as one lovely poster calls me, there's basically little options other than just torrenting stuff anyway, since DRM is so pervasive as to make it impossible to get to the content.
I mostly buy cds and rip them myself, but this being the 21st century and all I wish I didn't have to run to the record store to get a hold of what is basically digital information on a shiny plastic disk. Not to mention having to check carefully if you're not dealing with DRM on the disk as well.
wds on July 10, 2008 2:54 AMI usually like the subject matter posted here, but not this time. Is it really an issue that one must download software to use iTunes? I don't know ... maybe it is a Windows' users thing.
I guess as many people pointed out, iTunes is making apple a good bit of money despite being so anti-web.
ah, this topic is not at all interesting.
What is happening here Jeff?
Ivan on July 10, 2008 3:03 AMWow. Anti-MS rants don't hold a candle to the incoherent ravings of the anti-Apple crowd here. Jeff, please stick to programming issues rather than starting another holy war. Hint: the iTunes store works with iTunes. Always has, (likely) always will. It was never meant to cater to people who don't want iTunes.
Rhywun on July 10, 2008 3:08 AMIf you don't mind being locked in to Apple and/or Windows then drink the kool-aide. Otherwise, be like the rest of us and use Linux and shop in places that support the level of openness you desire.
It is pointless to single out Apple because in one way or another ALL commercial operating systems do what ever they can to lock you in to their product. I've used OS X and Windows, but now I choose Linux (when I'm not at work. Find what works for you and leave everyone else to their own devices (no pun intended).
TraversE on July 10, 2008 3:26 AMAnd what's worse is that once you've installed iTunes, every time it does an update, Safari is ticked by default as a program to update (i.e. install) even if you don't have it installed! Even Microsoft Update isn't that bad!
Daniel O on July 10, 2008 3:32 AMThis is what you're all missing: DRM.
I believe this may have been the Apple team's thinking:
1) Browse songs
2) Purchase from web
3) Force download of itunes to listen
= SUPPORT NIGHTMARE + ANGRY CUSTOMERS when it doesn't work
Downloading iTunes first means that tech issues are sorted out well before someone buys something.
Anyone who's ever worked in customer service knows that anger comes only AFTER money has been spent.
Just a thought.
Alex A on July 10, 2008 3:38 AMI honestly understand why Apple wants you to have iTunes. They want you to by an iPod and preferably an Apple computer. Apple wants to appear selling luxury and discrimination is one way to do that.
What I can't understand is why iTunes Music Store functions almost like a web site, but SUCKS IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY. It's like a 90's web site in Nescape's first beta browser used with 1200 baud dial-up connection. Only slower and harder to use.
Why, Apple? Why? Why do you hate your music buying customers so much?
Bloodboiler on July 10, 2008 3:38 AMI thought this was relevant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxQS_3A7_Fc
brian on July 10, 2008 3:42 AMI honestly understand why Apple wants you to have iTunes. They want you to by an iPod and preferably an Apple computer. Apple wants to appear selling luxury and discrimination is one way to do that.
It saddens me that most 'normal' computer users think Apple macs are the coolest thing. The reason they 'just work' is because the apple hardware doesn't vary as much as a PC. This makes them better than a PC but so much worse.
Andrew on July 10, 2008 4:15 AMThe integrated-store idea may have seemed great at the time (both from a marketing and from an ease of use point of view), but as far as I am concerned, they'd have a more usable and successful store (think of all the search engine referrals Amazon must be getting) had they set up a normal web store (downloads could still have been handled in iTunes).
Eric Jain on July 10, 2008 4:38 AMJeff,
You're absolutely correct, of course.
OTOH another way to look at this is: Apple is treating the rest of the world the way Apple users have been treated since the dawn of the User-Agent string. If I had a nickel for every bank that wanted me to switch to Windows just so I could use their online banking ... well, I'd have 15 or 20 cents anyway.
http://axoplasm.blogspot.com/2007/11/and-now-brief-message-from-netflix.html
FWIW, and I'm speaking here as a pretty big Apple fan, I've switched to Amazon mp3 for pretty much all my online music purchases, but I still listen to them in iTunes.
Using iTunes I can find something online, buy it and have it on my ipod in about three clicks..
My Zune does it in just two clicks..
MyZune on July 10, 2008 5:02 AM@Non sequitur
The Market will sort this out
mod+1
Use what you like let capitalism pick the winner. The gummint's not forcing me to use my OS, and Apple's not forcing me to buy from iTMS. (They do, however, make it very very easy.)
Paul Souders on July 10, 2008 5:03 AMSure, it would be nice from Apple to create content that just works for the rest of the world too. But I don't see too much trouble for downloading and installing their software iTunes. After all, you are going to need it if you purchase music from Apple, I think. Its good if it works by installing the software. Many sites are so bad, that they have bad layout and things don't even work.
But can't Apple just use plain MP3s? Well, I wish that they had normal music that is not bound to a certain platform. They offer some kind of enhanced DRM free music too, I remember.
Silvercode on July 10, 2008 5:11 AMIs there anything more anti-web than demanding users install custom software to display information that could have just as easily been delivered through the browser?
Beautiful quote... and my exact argument against Flash or Silverlight. Sure it has uses, but most of the time it is not necessary for what it is used for.
Dave on July 10, 2008 5:15 AMThe problem I have with the One Moment Please. dialog, is that it doesn't give an option to not install iTunes; either you already have it or want to download it.
Of course, you can cancel by clicking back on the browser, but not making it an explicit option seems coercive.
SJW on July 10, 2008 5:24 AMWOW. That AOL screenshot really brings me back.
Aah.. nostalgia :)
the problem with the whole having to install itunes thing, as stupid as it is, is that i have it installed on a computer, and still get blasted with that garbage because it cant find itunes.
if you are going to force users to your will, at least make sure it works first
John on July 10, 2008 5:29 AMOne of the reasons why I don't buy anything Apple is because of this dependency on its other products...
I also don't understand all the hype around the iPhone (here in Belgium it's going to be the most expensive, and it's coming out later than anywhere else and the press are over it like flies on a pile of cow ****) Perhaps I'm just practical, but I use my cell for calling and texting people and that's it. I certainly wouldn't pay €525 for all that extra functionality that would bind me with chains to all other Apple products as well!
Aicho on July 10, 2008 5:30 AMDon't get me started... why Apple couldn't design iPod to be usable as well as marketable is... well its quite understandable as it is incredibly cost effective... but its none the less annoying.
iTunes is horrible to use and imposes draconian rules about which files you can use for what computer... ugh, don't get me started. Suffice it to say I bought a PDA about 5 years ago, which still outperforms every iPod and iPhone and etc... on the market. It cost me ~ 170... which is about $300. /5 years ago/. Its just as usable, although the web browser isn't actually as good... the only problem is nobody markets them with b-list celebs, pretty colors and aesthetically pleasing design.
Certainly can't fault Apple's business strategy though... and forcing the user to install iTunes is a part of that. The problem with expecting non iPod/iPhone users to use iTunes store, in my opinion, is that it is easier and cheaper to steal the music...
Jheriko on July 10, 2008 5:32 AMITunes (and Apples in general) are for people who don't know anything about computers. People like us shouldn't concern ourselves with it.
bumble on July 10, 2008 5:32 AMCan you show me a music service other than Apple's iTunes that I can use as easily and trustfully? Plus tell what software and which music player to use? Are there really as practical overall solution alternatives to Apple? And take into account that I live in Europe, Finland. Illegal copying of music is not counted.
Silvercode on July 10, 2008 5:42 AMI received the equivalent of a drive-by download while visiting the Apple site today from my machine at work (which runs IE, my only option). Apparently my machine did not previously have Quicktime installed on it, and while viewing the iPod info pages Apple felt it necessary to:
1. Download the QuickTime installer
2. Install QuickTime
3. Prompt me to reboot my computer
...all without asking my permission, or indeed any questions at all! I was reasonably sure that the content security settings were set up on my work machine to ask me prior to doing stuff like that. I may have to review those.
Partly due to crap like this, I have disabled the Java, Flash, and now Quicktime plugins on my IE. My browsing experience is generally more peaceful, especially with fewer animated ads.
Greg Hewgill on July 10, 2008 5:45 AMInteresting that you choose Amazon as a counter-example. They make you install software in order to download an album, but not a single track.
http://blog.ciarang.com/posts/amazon-just-sell-me-the-music/
Or at least they did - haven't been back since I found that out.
Ciaran on July 10, 2008 5:47 AMyep, Amarok is awesome.
I love hooking it into last.fm for radio play by artist or category groupings.
with Wine and Amarok, no one should have any need for windows or mac.
:)
42 on July 10, 2008 5:48 AMWhile I do think that iTMS has some issues, this generally isn't one of them. I think bigger complaints are the lack of tabs and the extremely narrow browsing that iTunes offers.
Since things are purchased through iTunes it generally seems to make some sense to browse through it as well and it also guarantees playback goes off without a hitch whether it be previewing it or purchasing it.
Additionally, the first thing I ever bought from Amazon actually *did* prompt me to install the Amazon download manager. I wasn't looking hard but there at least was no /blatantly/ obvious link to just download a Zip file of the album instead. Additionally, emusic also requires that I use custom software to download from it and is probably more annoying than iTMS when it comes to browsing content - you have to have some kind of login cookie left on your computer or it punts you to this giant trial screen with no apparent link (at least when I signed up) to actually view the library.
Additionally, the complaints about the draconian DRM are somewhat amusing. iTunes has long had the most liberal DRM (an oxymoron I know...) in terms of number of devices to play the tracks on, and there is a growing DRM free section but Apple is at the mercy of the label's terms and they haven't exactly had the customer in mind...
Is it ideal? Perhaps not, at least in terms of browsing which can certainly extend to your argument, but its not without parallels from the other larger services either. I don't think its something most customers notice however, as they are likely already using iTunes before they ever try the store.
Jeff B on July 10, 2008 5:50 AMI fully agree that it's user hostile what Apple are doing with their store. But that's hardly a surprise and just how they are. If you're a freetard or if you don't want to run Apple's software you're not welcome.
Ultimately this is an accessibility problem of the person linking to Apple's store, though. The store is known to be inaccessible, so if they cared for their non-Apple running readers they wouldn't link there (only). Hence putting the links up is another 'Not Welcome' notice. While one can blame Apple for pushing that attitude by giving people money to link to them, it's certainly the choice of the person putting the links there to do so.
iTunes (and due to their historically instable content and URLs, I'd also say the rest of Apple's web properties beyond the home page) simply cannot be linked to if you want a hope of providing accessible and reliable information. I think it's as simple as that. No surprises, no scandal. Just business as usual.
ssp on July 10, 2008 5:50 AMYou almost got it, apple is just anti-anything not apple..
Stephen on July 10, 2008 5:51 AMweird, I've just been trying to buy gift vouchers for a birthday pressie , refused to install the software as it reminded me of AOL then I saw this article :) Apple have just lost out on 25 of my hard earned cash! lol :p
Geoff on July 10, 2008 5:51 AMIs there anything more anti-web than demanding users install custom software to display information that could have just as easily been delivered through the browser?
So you don't have Flash or Adobe reader installed on your box?
The real problem comes when you accept iTunes and install it and start using it as a media player replacement. Then you realize that it has a lot of implementation problems.
I really don't mind having a 15Mb or so client software... but having a buggy, non-responsive, CPU-hunger software, ouch!
Pippo on July 10, 2008 5:56 AMI don't think Apple really cares about other users though. I doubt their goal is universal usability/accessibility. They have software that all works nicely together with their own things and if you happen to be on a mac and encounter this page then it is no problem. I agree they should make it more friendly to other OSes and provide more info, but this is Apple; they don't care about anything but users of their own software (OS X / iTunes) because that's who they are providing the it just works experience to.
macuser on July 10, 2008 5:56 AMThis is the paradigm Apple has choosen, like it or not. Its their culture. Just look at how closed their computer ecosystem is. Its like going into a candy store and complaining that you can't buy gas.
Chess on July 10, 2008 6:00 AMBuy somewhere else. Simple.
I'm all for the diversity. Let people that enjoy iTunes to use it, otherwise go for Emusic.com, Amazon, Allofmp3 (or whatever it is called now), bittorrents, whatever. The web is great for a lot of stuff but the ability to have a richer, full-featured client (iTunes, Flash, Silverlight) is also important.
SomeGuy on July 10, 2008 6:05 AMIs there anything more anti-web than demanding users type orange to post a comment that could have just as easily been delivered through the browser?
Nikos on July 10, 2008 6:05 AMAs I read most of your posts I find myself nodding my head - not this time.
This post came across more as Apple-bashing than anything else. Amazon forces you to install Flash so does YouTube is that not anti-web too?
What is wrong between providing links between a web page and a desktop application.. especially when that application provides so much more convenience and functionality than any web-based solution could ever offer.
The AOL comparison is an extremely poor one. What convenience did that offer?
Using iTunes I can find something online, buy it and have it on my ipod in about three clicks.. you might not appreciate that, but I am sure there are plenty of novice computer users that will put up with the inconvenience of having to launch a desktop application for that convenience.
How is Apple forcing you to install a Flash Plugin like Amazon does any less anti-web?
techmate on July 10, 2008 6:07 AMMy biggest problem is that the average user just clicks, OK, and Apple is making tonnes of money off of this nonsense anyway. And those users will suggest I'm the moron for telling them how horribly wrong it is. And they'll use that exact phrase: It just works. No, do you even understand what's going on here?
The answer is no, they don't. And they don't care.
That's really sad.
dnm on July 10, 2008 6:08 AM@Silvercode: There is problem with installing iTunes software when, for example, one is using Linux...
Jakub Narbski on July 10, 2008 6:09 AMI'm no mac user but i don't think this is an itunes problem. If they were to link you directly to the content then you'd need some type of player to play it. This is true for any media online. A stop screen is certainly better than a browser window full of binary/hex characters.
Everyone has software installed to play media online... lets make a list: .net runtime, java jre, flash, pdf viewers, windows media player (or other), codecs for said media player, etc.
CR on July 10, 2008 6:10 AMwithout installing flash a lot of sites don't work. there was also a time when IE stopped supplying java support and you had to download crap to make that work.
versak on July 10, 2008 6:10 AMThis is some pretty weak sauce. Apple sells music through a local app, just like tons of other services. You can hyperlink to items in that local app, just like you can link to email addresses, FTP addresses, and a million other things that aren't web pages or browser-based information. I suppose you should also be upset at everything here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme#Official_IANA-registered_schemes
Chris B. on July 10, 2008 6:13 AMWhile the lock out from Apple can be annoying, I'm surprised people actually link to iTunes pages. From iTunes it isn't immediately obvious how to do this or that it is at all possible. But apparently there are several people that think this is useful and use it on the web.
Jeroen on July 10, 2008 6:15 AMWhat's even crappier is the fact that the iTunes store is an actual website, just hidden behind tonnes of Apple spackle. There's actually no reason they couldn't just expose the website outside of iTunes (well except the previews wouldn't work because they hook into iTunes itself).
Matt on July 10, 2008 6:17 AMSaying iTunes is only available for Windows and OS X. is like saying iTunes is only available for 99% of all computers.
Ryan Montgomery on July 10, 2008 6:17 AMSaying iTunes is only available for Windows and OS X. is like saying iTunes is only available for 99% of all computers.
Ryan Montgomery on July 10, 2008 6:17 AMAs far as I can see, there are only two things missing from Safari to stop it from replacing iTunes - a) HTML5 audio and video elements, b) HTML5 offline cacheing.
Both will probably be complete in Safari 4 (and Firefox 3.1). So Jeff, you may get your wish soon!
Chris on July 10, 2008 6:19 AMWhat really bothers me is when people only post an iTunes link to their podcast. Way to immediately deter thousands of potential listeners. (I'm looking at you, jayandjack).
Someone needs to make a browser plugin that converts apple phobos links into a reasonable alternative.
dsims on July 10, 2008 6:20 AMRight on man!
blake on July 10, 2008 6:20 AMCiaran, you're just partially right. Amazon let's you browse, preview, buy and download music online just with a web browser, wherever you are with the only exception of albums. ITMS quite frankly does not. (Album downloads require Amazon software because it uses a custom compressed .amz archive format for distribution.)
PalotasB. on July 10, 2008 6:23 AMUsing iTunes I can find something online, buy it and have it on my ipod in about three clicks.. you might not appreciate that, but I am sure there are plenty of novice computer users that will put up with the inconvenience of having to launch a desktop application for that convenience.
I believe Apple could do all this *AND* have a web storefront, too!
I am by no means anti-software to manage your preferred bit of multimedia hardware. I understand and appreciate the need; it's not like browsers alone can reach out start downloading MP3 files to your iPod, or sync your music library.
But how about software that's more in harmony with the rest of the web?
Jeff Atwood on July 10, 2008 6:24 AMaren't you being as fascist as apple by saying they should do it 'your' way? what is the 'web way' anyway? bit of an inconsistent mess i would say. sharepoint anyone?
fred on July 10, 2008 6:24 AMI've not had any problems with the later versions of iTunes. The earlier versions were horrible, but not these days. (on Windows at least.) From a programming perspective, I think the custom app was a great idea. Imagine writing such a feature-rich web platform that had to be consistent across all browsers.
The DRM in iTunes sourced music is not that bad, in fact... I've seen worse. I don't even have five machines that I want to have my tunes on. Only one PC at home is really needing it, my laptop at work, and my iPod. What's the point of having the ability to play my music on three machines at home?
Also, This is the paradigm Apple has choosen, like it or not. Its their culture. Just look at how closed their computer ecosystem is. Its like going into a candy store and complaining that you can't buy gas.
Their computer ecosystem is nowhere near closed. Apple support a lot of open source solutions even right on their own website. There are countless links to tools and applications listed on their site.
Normally I agree with your comments, but not completely this time. You seem to be miffed that clicking a link takes you somewhere out of your control and you don't know what you are getting into; I would argue that you probably shouldn't click on any link, if you don't know what lies on the other side. Remember, just because you click a lick that ends in mp3, doesn't mean that that is what the server is going to serve up to you.
Corey Furman on July 10, 2008 6:24 AMI agree with you, Jeff. I recently set up iTunes U at my school (their extension to iTMS for educational institutions) and was saddened when I realized how locked down the whole thing is. The fact that they feel the need to force every little bit of their software down users' throats just for market share is disturbing and disheartening.
Michael on July 10, 2008 6:25 AMHow different is this from any other browser plugin? Like Flash. First time you hit some Flash content, you have to install the plug-in. Then you're done. With iTunes, once you install it, you're done. Is this SuperSite for Windows or Coding Horror?
Diego on July 10, 2008 6:26 AMMan I hate iTunes. It looks terrible on my Windows Vista PC (often loads with this wierd black shadow to it), is incredibly slow to sync songs to my iPod, and tends to screw up the nice organized song folder structure I had by moving songs all over the place. On my current PC, I have all the songs organized by artist and album, and it decided to move my files around for me into new, wrongly-named album folders AND make tons of duplicate songs! What the heck!?!?
Sam Schutte on July 10, 2008 6:27 AMOh, and by the way, if you want to see a decent web-only music store, check out what www.Lala.com has. Truly beats the pants off of Apple, and its cheaper!
Sam Schutte on July 10, 2008 6:29 AMif you don't like it don't use it. simple.
mac fanboy on July 10, 2008 6:29 AMbut browsers can do it all. you just need proprietary plugins.
ban my ip on July 10, 2008 6:32 AMThat's a great explanation of why the iTunes store is a failed e-commerce endeavour and will never shed any profits for Apple... Except that's not what happened, is it?
I also have some disklike for it, but rather because being in Argentina I'm not even able to get into the store (even with iTunes installed) and browse nor buy anything. But I think iTunes is one of those models of how it can be done rather than something to point and laugh about.
Eric on July 10, 2008 6:34 AM@Jakub Nar#281;bski I gave Linux a chance years ago before I got my XP machine. I admit that Linux has improved since then, but my experience was that web browser and basic applications and Java worked, but that was quite about it. Linux has more elaborate command line commands yes and stuff, but in general it was really horrible to use Linux. I never got even sounds working so that I could have heard something or music. When I tried to install games, it wanted me to update packages. I tried to update the packages, it was very difficult. Then I learned that some packages needed a newer version of Linux itself. New Linux version was not worth my time for few lousy games though. In some point the X-windowing system crashed so badly, it never started up again.
Even today there is not much other programs for Linux either. I support Linux and open source in general, but I am happy with Windows XP now. So, what comes to iTunes for me personally, I couldn't less care about that there is no iTunes for Linux. Of course it would be nice from Apple to provide it, but if you want luxury...
Silvercode on July 10, 2008 6:34 AMI completely agree with you Jeff. How can anyone be comparing iTunes to flash? I own a macbook, I've used iTunes, it's a heavy, non-working, closed down, cpu-hogging behemoth. Worst application ever.
Flash on the other hand; so what if i have to install a small plugin to my browser, at least I can enable it and disable it whenever I want, and it doesn't take up space.
iTunes Music Store is really anti-web, more than flash. Something iTunes might actually be comparable to is Java, good lord, but it's worse. Why would anyone want to be forced to install a complete music player just to view some web-content?
And if you're an iTunes fanboy, well, you ain't got no say in the matter, you love your application and probably couldn't live with out it. I feel sorry for you, you'll never be able to experience Linux and the wonders of amaroK!
anemos on July 10, 2008 6:36 AMWe have both an iPod and Zune in our household. We buy our music from Amazon and use the Amazon Downloader (desktop app) to download the music. I can download and browse for music at the same time. We have never had any connectivity issues.
Rich Blumer on July 10, 2008 6:36 AMAdd me to the Happily own a Zune and don't have to put up with all that crap list.
NickHodges on July 10, 2008 6:36 AMAmazon forces you to install Flash so does YouTube is that not anti-web too?
Flash is generally progressive enhancement. If I don't have flash, *I still see the majority of the web page*, but I'll miss out on some zazz.
Websites built ENTIRELY in flash are equivalent to the iTunes Store experience. And those are distinctly unpopular for a reason..
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/info/6qay4/comments/
Jeff Atwood on July 10, 2008 6:37 AMI think Apple has a tendency to overdue their emphasis on the Designer paradigm (versus the Developer paradigm). While those in the Windows world often err in designing from the Developer perspective those in the Apple world often err in developing from the Designer perspective. Both paradigms can miss the most pragmatic solution. The iPod and iPhone have this beautiful case that has minimal seems but if you want to change the battery you have to ship it back to Apple and pay $100. IMO this is either a ridiculous compromise to make for the aesthetic appeal it buys you or, more cynically, a way to manipulate users into throwing away there old product to buy the new thing.
I have been trying to catch up on the StackOverflow podcasts and I recently listened to Joel praising his Mac Air blah-blah-blah PowerBook for it's lack of seams, vents, etc. and how crappy his Dell Latitude was in comparison, when viewed from the bottom (seriously). I also recently heard Joel complaining about how you could watch video on his PowerBook because it would overheat! I have great respect for Joel but IMO he is a little to far over into the Designer paradigm. Sure my PowerBook overheats but LOOK how beautiful it is! The simplicity! It is a work of art! I would say, Yes, it is truly beautiful. But I need to get some work done so please give me that crappy Dell.
I think Apple wants this seamless, beautiful experience with iTunes that blends the desktop software with your browser in a way that hides the distinction because, hey, only developers care about that distinction. Having a browser-only version of that page doesn't fit that vision so you get that ridiculous form.
And of course Apple wants to leverage the dominance of the iPod in the digital music player market to steer people to iTunes. It is so much easier to buy music from iTunes and get it onto your iPod than to buy it elsewhere, so clearly that is part of the goal. The fact that you don't have iTunes installed indicates that you don't buy music from Apple so you are not are target market for iTunes.
I guess it is good business but it is also why I don't own an iPod :)
Jim Clark on July 10, 2008 6:37 AMwinamp is crap
ban my ip on July 10, 2008 6:38 AMIronic how when Apple locks someone out of their closed-to-all-but-the-enlightened platform, the choice is viewed as a business decision, but when someone can't get Widget X developed by Company Y to work right with Microsoft platforms, it's considered a monopoly and an attack on free thought whatnot.
Go figure.
James on July 10, 2008 6:38 AMyou guys need to worry about something important
amused troll on July 10, 2008 6:39 AMIf you are on Linux, and all you need is being able to sync files (not AAC though) between you're computer and iPod, then gtkPod http://www.gtkpod.org/about.html might be an option it certainly works for me on Ubuntu 8.04).
For downloading podcasts, try bashpodder or gpodder.
Kristoffer on July 10, 2008 6:42 AMI really don't see what the big deal is. iTunes is an internet enabled application. It's not a web application. I agree that it would be nice to simply browse the store from your browser, however, I don't really give it a second thought when I click on an iTunes link. From the standpoint of usability, I don't think the Amazon MP3 store comes close to iTunes. Lately, I find that I shop/browse on iTunes and purchase from Amazon.
I think the general public is spoiled by having the web browser be the front end to just about anything you want to do online.
Jed on July 10, 2008 6:43 AMI was talking about this just today over coffee.
I truly despise iTunes, and Apple's snobbish stance of not letting anyone access anything on ipods. It is by far, the worst software app written by Apple, and trust me, I really like the way it works.
The answer to itunes freedom, is freedom from drm. Until Apple's drm is around, we will have to suffer itunes. I sure hope they atleast try to fix performance issues when managing any decent sized collection (4/5 G of music).
Shivanand on July 10, 2008 6:43 AMdo you guys know anything about flash? have you seen the flash sdk? it is a resource hog because it takes no hardware features into consideration.
amused troll on July 10, 2008 6:44 AMAmen, from a GNU/Linux user. Last.fm is a great example of a music service that is all over that 'web' thing. You can actually link to artists or even songs and it - *gasp* - resolves to a web page.
Blaise Alleyne on July 10, 2008 6:44 AMIt's unfortunate that there's no iTunes release for *nix systems. Even a limited version that let's you sync iPod's or something... But that doesn't change the fact that iTunes is an awesome music player/library application and everyone who's anyone has it installed! Hell, at _work_ where I don't even have anything in the library I still have it installed.
I'm also not sure where you're getting these links that take you to the iTunes store... If it's a link to buy music then... what were you expecting? If it's a link _about_ the music then the site you're going to are a bunch of idiots for not just linking to Amazon.
It's not anti-web just because it's an application. There is no web version at this time, so just don't click on those links if you don't want iTunes to launch.
dude on July 10, 2008 6:51 AM@Ryan Montgomery: Can you supply your source for 99% of all computers running Windows or OSX?
On-topic, I'm not sure I've ever seen a link to itunes on a webpage - anyone have a good example?
bobby on July 10, 2008 6:52 AMI think its very different from Flash. They could show the info in a page. If the people liked it, then they could install iTunes. You cant show a video without installing a plugin (like Flash) first.
I think what Jeff is saying is something that could help Apple. Dont see any bashing there.
@Jeff
For all the buzz about the Apple it just works mystique, the current iTunes Store design surely doesn't -- at least not the same way the rest of the web does. And I, for one, can't get behind that.
That may be because... I don't know... iTunes is not the web? And it doesn't claim to be either? The only direct relations between iTunes and the web are that you download iTunes via the web (unless you're on a mac where it's preinstalled) and you can create links to a place within the itunes store from the web.
That's it.
In fact, the later is analogous to e.g. Shoutcast streams which can also be linked from the web but do also require a third-party application to be useful.
I believe Apple could do all this *AND* have a web storefront, too!
They probably could. They chose not to. They don't *want* a web front.
But how about software that's more in harmony with the rest of the web?
That's irrelevant, *itms is not the web and neither is it on the web*. There is no rest to speak of here jeff
Masklinn on July 10, 2008 6:53 AMAs much as I like and use iTunes, I agree with this one. When I'm not on the appropriate computer, I just want to see some more information - not this suddenly hostile, 'not invited' web page with NO information what I was linked to.
I agree here with Jeff that those pages are unnecessarily unfriendly - I don't give a darn if it's in Apple's interest to push more adoption of iTunes, I'm already a happy customer that doesn't want to be pushed to install it on every computer I touch.
Most often, when I hit that webpage I close it and close the page that linked me to it. No thanks.
There are lots of good points, above - but most of them miss what I see as this core point, that this 'get iTunes' page is unnecessarily unfriendly and is certainly anti-web.
Step on July 10, 2008 6:53 AMI agree. They'd be much better off showing the information and only bugging the user about software if the user actually wants to buy. A lot of potential customers probably just leave this way.
a on July 10, 2008 6:54 AMBut how about software that's more in harmony with the rest of the web?
Apple wants to keep the 'iTunes experience' as simple as possible and for this reason there is some sense in keeping everything inside the 'walls' of iTunes. A second web store running parallel in a browser would confuse that experience for users that just want 'software that works' and for that reason they would be unlikely to do it.
A cool little widget that can play a track sample, show some iTunes data from their server and then jump to iTunes when your ready to buy could exist without muddying up the experience too much. The problem is Apple wont touch Flash, they would be more likely to use another plug-in based on an 'open technology'. I would expect to see more development from Apple in the future on this, eg SproutCore (JavasScript Framework), which Apple are using for their MobileMe service.
techmate on July 10, 2008 6:54 AMI have an iPhone. So I have iTunes, as well. Don't like iTunes at all - on the WinXP platform, it is a buggy POS which almost always fails to terminate when I tell it too (it leaves the iTunesHelper app running which sucks up 50% of processing cycles! You must either reboot or manually the app on your own.)
I really like the iPhone, so I'll deal with iTunes, but I absolutely would not if Apple did not force the issue.
You are right. They could have just as easily provided a way to browse the store, then when you purchase something, make the download an iTunes only delivery package whereby the download automatically launches iTunes and places it in your music list. A lot of software already does this and does it quite well.
Aaron on July 10, 2008 7:03 AMIt's also very search hostile. Do iTunes tracks ever come up on Google? Seems like they're throwing away money there.
Scott on July 10, 2008 7:03 AMI have to say that I pretty much hate everything about iTunes. It's slow, it silently fails loding mp3 fils that other players have no issues with and doesn't play most audio formats that I use.
And yet, even though I don't use it anymore, I can't escape it because of too many people putting phobos links up for their podcast feeds. This drives me nuts; it's just like MS smart quotes -- even if you don't use the product, the proliferation will still catch up with you. HATE.
Spook on July 10, 2008 7:03 AMOn www.gomusic.ru, no special application is required, music isn't held hostage in DRM, and tracks are only about $0.15 each with a 10% discount off that if you buy the whole album. So @#$!% Apple. @#$!% them up their stupid @#$!%*@ @$$#$.
Rusky on July 10, 2008 7:09 AMamarok is better than iTunes.
for just playing music, rhythmbox is better also.
Why doesn't apple want *nix users to have iTunes???
Now imagine that Microsoft had an online music store, and instead of iTunes doing this, it was Microsoft's store.
Do you think that ANY of that Apple ballwashers in here wouldn't be accusing Microsoft of being anti-web?
LOL! Yeah, it appears this comment thread has attracted the ire of the I-digg-stories-about-ATT-being-evil-but-I-was-waiting-in-line-on-release-day-for-an-iPhone Apple fandom.
Flash and Acrobat aren't the same as what TFA is saying. Flash is properly used on public websites as value-added content. Sites which require Flash deserve and get this same criticism, except in very particular instances (such as intranets) where decrees about requiring software are acceptable. An exception to this is Flash's being hijacked as a video delivery platform, which is mostly due to H.264 (aka a non-sucking universally supported video format) being WAAAY late to the party.
The long, protracted user-hostile pissing contest between Microsoft, Apple, and Real Networks that occurred before it produced three media players that were extremely noisy, invasive, irritating to use, and notoriously bloated. Not to mention, none of the content for one would ever work in either of the other two. Flash succeeded in this space because A) it always works, and B) when you close your browser, Flash GOES AWAY.
PDF, on the other hand, is a file format, and Acrobat is the application you use it with. It's like linking to a ZIP file or something; a downloadable format. The fact that you often get PDF files from the web, and that Acrobat installs a browser plugin to make PDFs more web-like on most platforms is completely orthogonal. You can still *actually get the content* without Acrobat, potentially to transport it somewhere else or open it later, perhaps even with a different program.
ITMS doesn't have either of these graceful degradation characteristics: the site is not even trivially unusable for it's intended purposes without iTunes.
Kyle S on July 10, 2008 7:12 AMiTunes is a bloated mess. It takes forever to install, load, and find my music. The biggest problem is that it doesn't autodetect new music. It's like living in the dark ages.
TJ on July 10, 2008 7:13 AMI agree with Jeff... I don't want iTunes to have to browse a website. I don't want iTunes when I install Quicktime either, but that's another story for another day...
Kris on July 10, 2008 7:15 AMSilvercode...that's the exacted problem. Proprietary bullsh*t. After all, you are going to need it if you purchase music from Apple, I think. That's very opposed to the direction that internet media SHOULD be going. I'd consider buying music from iTunes (as I do from Amazon quite often really) if they'd unlock their exclusivity bullsh*t.
Geebs on July 10, 2008 7:15 AMUgh, who cares? Obviously not the millions of people who are using it. What's funny is that even though you hate Apple so much you are still trying to access content provided by them.
Mattkins on July 10, 2008 7:16 AMI have actually seen a trend where some of the more successful sites online these days require you to install a 3rd party application to get any sort of use out of them.
I'm not talking about flash either, it could easily be argued that these days having flash installed is just as important as having a web browser to browse the web.
I don't really think iTunes needs to be web friendly, the iTunes store was designed to be accessed and used from within itunes, in order to put music onto your ipod. I highly doubt many people without ipods and iphones use iTunes as their source of online music, in which case those people already have iTunes.
If you are using the iTunes store to buy music for your non-apple music device, you should be shot and killed.
Bryan Chain on July 10, 2008 7:16 AMBut how about software that's more in harmony with the rest of the web?
iTunes isn't a web app/site though. It can accept links from the web, but the iTunes store isn't on the web. iTunes is a desktop app that connects to the internet for some features. The only point at which it interacts with the web is when you click on one of those links.
Martin Pilkington on July 10, 2008 7:20 AMSo how about it Jeff, is netflix anti-web?
http://axoplasm.blogspot.com/2007/11/and-now-brief-message-from-netflix.html
Will we be reading about this?
Igore on July 10, 2008 7:23 AM@John,
the problem with the whole having to install itunes thing, as stupid as it is, is that i have it installed on a computer, and still get blasted with that garbage because it cant find itunes.
This is odd.
Are you sure it is not your OS? No! It could not be? What am I thinking? Vista? No. No way. ..... no, it could not.
@Geebs: What ever. I am using iTunes proprietary or not, anti-web or not.
And no one has yet come up with a better overall solution for me. Some alternative suggestions of separate things has been said, though, but I am not convinced enough to change. So Apple stays powerful.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
| Content (c) 2009 Jeff Atwood. Logo image used with permission of the author. (c) 1993 Steven C. McConnell. All Rights Reserved. |
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email
Posted by: |