Sure, 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.

"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?"

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.

One 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!

Don'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...

Can 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.

I 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.

Interesting 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.

While 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.

I 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.

You almost got it, apple is just anti-anything not apple..

"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 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!

I 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.

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.

Buy 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.

Is 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?

As 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?

My 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.

@Silvercode: There is problem with installing iTunes software when, for example, one is using Linux...

I'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.

without 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.

This 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

While 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.

What'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).

Saying "iTunes is only available for Windows and OS X." is like saying "iTunes is only available for 99% of all computers".

Saying "iTunes is only available for Windows and OS X." is like saying "iTunes is only available for 99% of all computers".

As 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!

What 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.

Right on man!

Ciaran, 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.)

> 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.

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?

aren'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?

I'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.

I 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.

How 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?

Man 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!?!?

Oh, 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!

if you don't like it don't use it. simple.

but browsers can do it all. you just need proprietary plugins.

That'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.

@Jakub Narębski 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...

"But I don't see too much trouble for downloading and installing their software iTunes."

I have trouble with installing iTunes—it doesn't work on Linux. And even if I'm on Windows, I would never let a trashy program like iTunes onto my hard drive. It's a resource hog that, together with programs like Norton and the "official" IM clients, help bring the average computer user's digital experience to a grinding halt.

IMO, this is a big problem with Windows. The average Windows computer takes minute to start up, because it is infested with programs such as Norton, Yahoo Messenger, AIM Triton, iTunes, Quicktime, Internet Exploder and the like. But when I replace these programs with alternatives such as Pidgin, Trillian, Digsby, foobar2000, Winamp, VLC Media Player, MPlayer, Media Player Classic, Firefox etc. there aren't any problems.

I 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!

We 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.

> Amazon 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/

I 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 :)

winamp is crap

Ironic 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.

you guys need to worry about something important

If 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.

I 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.

do 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.

Amen, 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.

Amazing! I don't own any Apple products, but decided to head to the iTunes store recently to see if I could purchase some DRM free songs. Because this screen flashed up so quickly it took me a while to read what it actually said. I could not believe my eyes either... I was really surprised and had the same thoughts too... And people claim that Microsoft do vendor lockin strategies!

It'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.

@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?

I 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

As 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.

I 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.

> But 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.

I 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.

It's also very search hostile. Do iTunes tracks ever come up on Google? Seems like they're throwing away money there.

I 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.

On 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. @#$!% them up their stupid @#$!%&*@ @$$#$.

amarok is better than iTunes.

for just playing music, rhythmbox is better also.

Why doesn't apple want *nix users to have iTunes???

iTunes 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.

I 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...

Silvercode...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.

Ugh, 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.

I 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.

"But 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.

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?

But it's okay in this case, because iTunes is the only "decent" online music store (except that it isn't) and it's really not that much trouble to download and install iTunes (except that it is).

@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.

It's not just about Linux, it's also about (Open)Solaris. Apple got some really cool thinks from Sun: ZFS, DTrace and will maybe even take it's kernel. However, Apple doesn't give anything back ;)

Admitted - very few people actually run on a non-Windows box, so Apple probably doesn't have to care about them from an economic view. But I really hate seeing how the web (based on ideas of freely accessible information for anyone) is misused for applications like those.

This wouldn't even be so bad if the iTunes sofware weren't such a bloated behemoth piece of software. There's a peavy duty "ipod helper service" running after installation, even if you don't have an iPod. On top of that, Apple engages in the worst type of installer-behaviour that made everybody hate RealNetworks (for good reason) by installing extra applications, such as the utterly useless Windows version of Safari.

Actually, I've long been of the opinion that all Apple software for Windows has a severe bloat problem. We tend to accuse MS of this, but Apple is a worse offender.

Simple solution. Don't buy Apple.

Jeff,
You obviously haven't bought mp3s from Amazon. You DO have to download and install software to download & purchanse music from Amazon. And the last time I was an emusic subscriber, they had a client I had to use to use for the same.

Sure, I can preview a track at those sites and not at iTunes, but I STILL need some media player or another to do so. Apple happens to use AAC audio for preview. The best AAC player is iTunes. So the other stores don't lock you into their downloader for preview. big deal. Hell, I didn't even know you could get to their store outside iTunes, and it hasn't affected my life up to this point.

Ah well.

A little research, please.

Second Life is anti web because....

*sigh*

The only reason for Apple to serve their iTunes store over the web is if you could buy songs from there, and even they did that, you would need QuickTime installed to play any of these songs, and you would be lacking the authorization UI for managing the DRM (imposed by the music industry).

How well does Wine work with iTunes?

I tend to agree with the point that Apple's Windows software tends to feel bloated—with the possible exception of Safari.

Nazis...

OK, this is your lamest post so far.
Apple made purchasing music of ITMS users as simple as possible. If you don't like it - you can sure find
other places for shopping. Adding extra hassle just to please your strange ideas how ITMS should work - no thanks.
"it is most certainly against everything the web stands for and was built on." Wow, just wow. No, really? Against everything? ITMS must be a huge failure then. Oh, wait…
And I fail to see how ITMS is web. Clicking on irc:// link should bring you to the web page about given channel/user, right?

How about this: http://rimantas.com/misc/zune.png ? And I do not see version for OS X either…

Well, then.

Can't Jeff find his missing album artwork on some other site? Must he be mad at apple for making him install THEIR application just so he can download HIS missing album artwork?

My 2nd point is Jeff's being oblivious to the fact that Apple is pretty well known for not doing to much unless it's on their platform. That's apple, love it or hate it. I am still shocked that they created iTunes for Windows, but I guess they had to increase their market share. But then since you can only play their songs in their iTunes application, if you aren't running Mac or Windows, their is no point allowing you to view the songs if you can't download their application.

I _have_ iTunes installed on my computer, and I still always get that message. I don't think I've ever had a music link successfully open up the relevant page in the iTunes store without me having to hunt for it manually.

Its called forcing people to do something they dont want to do, and then locking them in.. Something that people have been bitching and sueing MS over for years.. Yet for some reason unknown to me, people don't seem to realise Apple are actually doing it too, and in many cases MUCH WORSE.

You shouldnt need software on your machine to visit a god damn website. What if (for sake of argument) I was CONSIDERING getting into the whole iTunes thing? I want to browse their site, OH WAIT, I *HAVE* TO BE INTO THE WHOLE ITUNES THING.

It really, really, really pisses me off! I first encountered the wonder that is iPod/iTunes interop a few years ago, and put simply. THERE IS NO INTEROP - If it aint Apple, it aint gonna work with Apple...

Funny how MS Zune seems to work with everything.. But hey ho..

Actually, this has never happened to me. I guess if these links are regular looking http://www.apple.com/... type links I'd be very disappointed that they resolved to something that my browser couldn't handle. But so what? Apple is a company that thinks form is more important than function. Their primary skills are in the marketing department.

iTunes is one of the worst media players I've used. And on a strict cost-benefit analysis basis, an iPod is a waste of money. The reason they win in the market is because it looks deceptively simple to operate and since very few of us can actually afford the money or time to buy and compare three or four similarly spec'ed mp3 players, people who get iPods are unlikely to criticize the player they are now forced to live with. It's how the brain works.

And of course, once you've bought an iPod, you can't escape easily because your iTunes collection is not in a portable format. So because of the heavy up-front cost of switching (via burn/rip) the iTunes/iPod user will probably never seriously consider a different system.

iTunes is anti-web browser*

*fixed that for you.

Considering the iTunes is the market leader and by all accounts a run away success you may want to consider what makes it so appealing to the majority of customers.

The web is much bigger and more pervasive than people sitting at a computer pushing a mouse around.

Jeff:

You asked "what about the rest of the world" [that doesn't run OS X or Windows]. The answer is, bluntly: they don't matter. Sorry.

I may not agree with that philosophy, but I understand it, and I think you do too. When 98+% of people can be reached by designing for those two operating systems, you simply disregard the chaff as unprofitable.

I agree that iTMS should have a web-based component to it, but I don't see iTunes going away any time soon.

Let's distill this further: "I want identical content in a web, desktop, and mobile experience."

"iTunes is necessary to sync media with Apple's iPods..."

I use Poddox for this. No crappy iTunes software for me! (I don't know of any other apps that work on iPhones, though.)

This is exactly the reason why I never buy anything from Apple. I use reTune to manage my iPod instead of iTunes.

I always think: Their loss if they don't want my money ;)

I'm not much into music and portable player devices, but once I needed iTunes to get music into my celullar phone. So, I installed Vmware, made a virtual image with windows XP then I installed iTunes, it's so easy to get iTunes...

Not to mention that you need an itunes Account, with a valid international credit card number, just to download the cover art!

I don't want this power-to-buy-at-your-fingerprint in the hands of my teenage daughter.

That's Good for Dopisp http://www.mgtek.com/dopisp/

Wow, 90% of the comments written here ridiculous and off-point.

1) Jeff is clearly not bashing Apple for iTunes or any other software they provide
2) The issue is about delivering descriptive content on a web-site to users
3) iTunes sells songs, metadata allows you to decide whether you want a song, they aren't delivering the metadata in a reasonable way
4) YouTube shows videos, videos can't be delivered via HTML/CSS/Javascript, they use flash to accomplish their goals
5) Comparing YouTube videos to iTunes song information is invalid, where as comparing videos to actual songs would be
6) YouTube displays metadata about videos is you don't have flash!!!!

Sorry to add insult to injury, but we're mostly programmers/IT/analysts, right? It's a valid point, and it's structured correctly so I ask you to please reconsider your logic.

Maddox once covered this topic and it says it all: iTunes is the new Real Player.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

What's that itunes??

iTunes *shivers* One of the worst user experiences I have ever had. I am impressed people actually put up with this. But I guess that's the nice thing for Apple's about its fan boys, they are inherently very forgiving as long as they get a shiny interface.

You may see a virtual stop sign; I see a virtual velvet rope.

Apple and the i* brand have the "cool" cache, so people assume that whatever is behind the velvet rope *must* be worth it.

Installing applications worked for AOL until AOL became a cultural joke. And I think this will work for Apple so long as its brand is strong.

@Silvercode:
does emusic.com works for you in finland?

This is exactly the reason why I never buy anything from Apple. I use reTune to manage my iPod instead of iTunes.

So, you paid Apple money for their hardware, but refuse to use their free software to manage it...

Your little way of "sticking it to the Man?"

Wow. A story about how Apple could improve its iTunes store web presence brings out a Windows/*nix fanboy tag-team pile-up. Whee!

I'd agree, if I was under the belief that Apple/ITMS were actually a web store. But it's not, nor was it intended to be.

Look at the URLs and tell me that the whole web-link-to-iTunes-Music-Store thing wasn't a complete afterthought. It goes to "phobos.apple.com" for heaven's sake, instead of some easily memorable URL. I almost get the impression it wasn't even something Apple really advertised, just something somebody reverse-engineered and splattered all over the internet.

Apple's not selling music over the web. If they were, they'd have a web interface. They're certainly not strangers to such things. This looks and smells, for better or worse, like a calculated move on apple's part. You may not agree with it (I don't, certainly. I'd rather have a web interface) but this is intentional.

(also, why is it that anyone who says "I actually like [apple product x]" is immediately labelled as a drooling apple "fanboy?" My house has one mac, 3 Win machines and a Fedora server, and somehow I'm still an apple fanboy. I don't get it.)

I doono how ppl use Itunes ..Its is a piece of crap . Its heavy , unresponsive ,cannot run on linux/unix , the worst software that apple has produced and I hate that ipods and iphones need itunes for everything .

If it was not for Ipods Itunes would have long gone !

Got some good alternatives for Itunes from the comments Thanks

dont forget the apple store in you neighborhood mall
rudest, snobbiest fan boys are usually working there
did want to take back the ipod I bought from them said I had to ship to apple online store, which does not make any sence

Yaaaayyy! Finally someone with the nerve to holler that the Emperor is butt-naked. I really liked my little K.I.S.S. iPod shuffle, even with the occassional annoyance of iTunes. But I upgraded to a full-blown iPod. And the gilt really flaked off the proverbial gingerbread. Cover art's hit and miss at best. iTunes can't natively import DVDs (a big WTF moment, that). And I frankly find the whole iTunes/iPod experience to be lackluster and half-baked on a good day. IMO, anyone who raves about Apple's so-called design superiority has skipped past the "drinking the Kool-Aid" phase to snorting it straight from the packet.

And +1 to Vishal on the alternatives thanks.

Does this mean stackoverflow will no longer be available through iTunes?

People, he is not complaining about needing iTunes to BUY anything. HE IS NOT BUYING. He is BROWSING. As in, WEB browsing. Amazon does not require you to download sh!t to browse it's site to your hearts content. Nor, in fact, does YouTube! You can still read the comments and all, you just don't get the Video, which is the ONLY thing Flash is REQUIRED for.

He is complaining that he can't use Internet Explorer (or whatever) to browse iTunes, he is required to use iTunes for that.

I'm undecided on how bad this is as a concept - basically what you are saying is that the iTunes store should have a Web front-end with info that you can link from. I suppose so, if you are wanting a page with general music info. But the iTunes store doesn't really have that much info beyond links to the songs (ratings maybe?), so the reason to link to it is to go download songs, and that doesn't happen in a browser for iTunes (though the iPhone manages something similar). Which you can argue whether it's good or bad (a la the amazon example), but it's the setup Apple have been using and based all their deals with the record labels on. The fact that the labels have then done an end-run around Apple to the other stores and allowed them less stringent DRM/downloading rules is more symptomatic of the labels' dislike of the deals they originally made with Apple.

I would say it's more the fault of Apple-lovers who post the links to the songs. Rather than point to a general information page, they point to the iTunes link - maybe they get click-through profit? What I find worse is the fact that the iTunes Store is region-specific, so the links never work for me anyway (I am in the UK). When a blogger links to "Single of the Week" which I actually would want to pop to iTunes to see, I can't look at it because it's from the US Store.

Bah! I blame the record labels as much as anyone, and without iTunes we probably wouldn't have legal amazon downloads, and I certainly wouldn't want to be lumbered with PlaysForSure (except when it doesn't). But I wouldn't be surprised if a web-based Store appeared in the future (albeit with iTunes integration for syncing up the 'pod).

So, you prescribe that Apple maintain 2 storefronts, 1 web, and 1 software based? And since you can't manage your multimedia hardware from the web, you'll then have to use the desktop client anyway. You want Apple to build a neutered client that can't perform the tasks that are generally regarded as the successful, nice to use part of iTunes.

I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Hmm, I just thought that this might link in with the other "cloud" stuff Apple is doing, like MobileMe. There they are syncing the local apps (Mail, Calendar) with a web-based interface/server storage.

While I doubt they will be moving all your music to a server any time soon, you might be able to manage your playlists/purchased music/iTunes Store via a similar interface (again, they do something similar on the iPhone itself for the Store).

At the end of the day, iPod/iTunes/Store is a vertical integration, which Apple will leverage at every opportunity, like the new iPhone Apps, and there they can guarantee you have the "store browser" on the iPhone, and can make it very integrated. Which they probably care about more than random browsing from non-iPod owners.

You have a valid complaint, one that bothers me as well.

As a small suggestion, I would recommend writing an article about something you like about Apple for once. After the other articles you've written, I'm starting to think you are completely anti-Apple (which isn't a very balanced viewpoint.)

Daniel, browse the web as much as you will. ITMS (not iTunes) is not a web site, period.

I would tend to agree with you Jeff, if the website did not clearly mark the link and you were unknowingly taken to itunes.

But if the link is clearly marked, I don't see the problem. In fact if I used Itunes I think that it would be a nice feature.

my 2 cents.

What can you expect from a company that asks for substantial sums of money for a Unix-based operating system?

The criticisms of Jeff are ridiculous. What is wrong with asking, or expecting Apple, to do a better job with their software?

If you're a software developer then you should be promoting good software. If we left it up to the people who believe we should just accept it, or not use iTunes, we’d all still be using AOL.

iTunes isn't a web appilication, it is proprietary rubbish – let’s point that out so they improve it in the future.

Jeff is completely right here.

You know, I've never actually thought of the iTunes store as a web application. Sure, it's an "internet" application, but what is it that makes you associate it with "web?" Had I ever really stopped to think about the nature of the iTunes Music Store, I probably would have described it more as a "remote application that I connect to using a local interface." Yeah...I guess that pretty much describes most websites that you hit in a browser too, but I think it also has the potential to describe a lot more than just websites. In other words, I think "websites" is the sub-set here, and iTunes (and other apps like it, if there are any), are something "other." Wow...that probably got really garbled going from my brain to my keyboard, but I hope it makes some little bit of sense.

I don't need iTunes to sync an iPod. I sync my music and podcasts to my iPod nano in Ubuntu Linux with Gnome using RhythmBox (http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/).. Works great. :)

"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?"

Seriously? If you're trying to sell music or movies, the rest of the world simply *doesn't* *matter* because Apple has all of the market share (or close enough as to count). Sure, it might be nice to link to Amazon, too, for some of it, but even they often require custom software, so what of it?

You've got a classic chicken-and-egg problem. It doesn't make sense for people to provide alternatives to these options becaue the other options don't have enough market share--but since no one supports the other options, they aren't used.

There's really no use in complaining about the logical result of following market forces. If it bothers you so much, then take some time off from stackoverflow to create an iPod/iTunes killer

And good luck: no one else seems to have had much.

iTunes - this_crap + Open Web = Songbird.

>> Ever find yourself clicking on links to music or videos and getting blasted in the face with this delightful little number?

Actually, no. I'm not an iPod owner, nor do I have iTunes installed. What kind of link gets me to that stop sign?

> What can you expect from a company that asks for substantial sums of
> money for a Unix-based operating system?

Because all Unixes are free! Except for the fact that's NOT TRUE.

Seriously folks, keep up the FUD. It's highly amusing.

> But how about software that's more in harmony with the rest of the web?

I'm surprised somebody has a dream that there is some kind of harmony in the web! As a business entity anybody (including Apple) has the right to devise a method to entice money from the rest of population. Maybe that method does not work for you, but it clearly works for many others within the target market. To Apple, that's good enough.

Jeff,

you have to consider the target audience. Same people who bought into a sluggish OS shrink-wrapped in a colorful plastic shell have also bought into iTunes lockdown. Controlling the user experience makes a lot of sense, not just for Apple.

Look what mess Microsoft has to deal with because they are *not* controlling the user experience (by letting third parties sell bad hardware with Vista).

Web is one thing. The business of running a company and keeping customers coming back for more controlled experience, quite another.

Apple is a consumer-oriented company, not a geek-oriented company(although a lot of consumers pretend to be geeks by booting up OS X and criticizing Vista and Microsoft even though they have no clue what they are talking about).

Come to think of it, have you looked at Microsoft Update lately? Or the patches that mess up Outlook?

Great link to that Obasanjo blog about Web 2.0 annoyances. I stopped reading some news site because of all the flying widgets, ridiculous ads and slow performance. I even cancelled all online subscriptions to newspapers. Why? Even as a paying subscriber, I still have to look at dumb ads. I paid you once already, dude. Just give me the content.

Have you tried purchasing anything like the Spore Creature Creator at the EA store? You have to install a special app to download. That app REQUIRES IE and Flash in order to work.

Of course, guess what that fancy little download app also does... it prevents the game you downloaded, from actually running until you uninstall the downloader.

I hate Apple but...

> Tunes is required to browse or buy anything from the iTunes Store.

Well DUH!

You're completely the edge case here, man.

I hope you don't visit any pages, that requirue the use of Flash, or even worse Shockwave, or even much worse, MS Silverlight. Guess what, you will need to install "custom software" to use these pages - yup, unbelievable - and pages that require Flash to work properly exist since 19.. well, I'm not sure, but they exist for a very a long time.

@Bernard

Trust: I went to emusic-site, but it looks very amateurish site, so my first impression was, "no, I don't trust this crap". Then I noticed that there is "Europe"-text in it, so it might be quite ok. But then again there is big "free songs"-signs, which makes me think "its a trap!", because I know there is lots of spam and hoaxes moving in the internet.

Also, what is emusic anyway? I know Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft, but "emusic"? The site doesn't show me any company information at first page but a huge screen "free downloads!!" Hmm... maybe its just spam after all. Then I read the small text "just cancel before the trial period ends". And what if I just forget to cancel it? Are they going to bill me forever until I check my bills history? Maybe its a trap after all?

Alright, I don't trust the site. So I am happy with iTunes, which I trust.

I check the about-page of emusic and see that I need to be 25 years or older. Fine, I am, but not everyone is. Then, blaa blaa, biggest, best, blaa blaa.

Cost: Ah, the subscription based billing. I don't buy lots of music, I only listen the best songs there ever has been and I like. And I remember now that I might have checked emusic earlier too, but gave up just because it has the subscription based billing. The cost is not an issue, but I don't like to pay monthly and be force feeded songs through my ears. I would have to buy music worth of 14 euros, that is 14 songs a month. I don't buy that many, and because emusic is cheaper, I would get 30 songs a month. That is too much. I buy 1 to 12 songs a month, not 30.

Yes, it would be a good idea to subscribe anyway and just buy a little bit more, but I am not quite convinced yet.

Songs: Emusic has for example "Swords In the Wind" from Manowar, which I thought was not in iTunes, but it is after all.
A bit more difficult: Artist: Lee Jung Hyun. No, its not in emusic, though not in iTunes either. I had to order a CD for that from Amazon.

iTunes has browse-feature, that has subgenres, where trance is under dance. Clicking Dance opens subgenres, and clicking Trance opens artists in less than a second. iTunes browse feature is not yet perfect, though, but its good. I mostly use iTunes Power Search where I just input song name or artist.

emusic browsing is just fine maybe, though it looks a bit messier. And then when I went to electronic and trance, it listed some albums, but in the way a web site usually lists them, only a handful at a page at a time. Some 240 pages, how I select for example page 100 when there is no link to it? Good that it shows the album pictures though. I then selected artists-tab, but I found some rock instead of trance music, so that was somewhat confusing.

Looks: iTunes looks cooler and so also better so far. Prelistening works ok in emusic too, but it is still just some web site, not a cool application, like iTunes. I think iTunes is more like a browser, a music browser, itself though its also an application. Pretty advanced and neat, I would say.

Overall impression: emusic looks somewhat not so pro as iTunes, though I start to see emusic might have a chance.

But, why change? Emusic can't even play the songs. iTunes can. I have Winamp, but it has such a messed up user interface that I don't want to use it. I prefer iTunes. Is there any better player? Also I might as well buy the songs from iTunes, while I am using it.

I might be reasonable and buy my songs from emusic anyway to get cheaper and DRM free songs, but I am not some poor guy who needs to save few dollars to stay in food. I value practicality over going to some other service and buying from there. So no, I am not using emusic, even though I admit that it might be wiser to use it and I might, but I won't. So Apple wins this time here with quality and usability.

I totally agree with your thoughts on iTunes & apple. Although I only owned a iPod for a few weeks, it was such a mess to deal with. Everything they do requires me to change my style or habits... I hated the fact that I had to change my all my mp3's to mp4's just so they'd work, and what did that do? It doubled my hard drive space, and confused the hell out of the way I organized my music. The entire sync process blows, and really I don't understand how people find it is easy to use. I guess making controls in a circle improves usability? Screw iPods and it's iTune mother. It's all a big marketing plot that blinds people into thinking they got something extremely awesome. In all reality, Apple has the ability to make an AWESOME product, but would rather slowly implement 'new' functions to hose everyone out of their money... I'm not agreeing with the zune, I'm simply stating how horrible these top mp3 player providers blow, along with their gimicks and service.

I enjoy using iTunes, but it is a giant, bloated application. If I'm doing anything else on the computer, I generally open WinAmp to listen to music instead.

Of course, I can do this because I avoid DRM'd music. I buy CDs (to rip) or MP3s. I can use iTunes, or not - and I won't watch my music sink with the ship if iTunes/iPods ever go extinct.

To me, being locked IN to use iTunes is far scarier than being locked OUT.

The Retune site seems to be down, can anyone give me a link to a mirror so I can download?

Thanks

I have iTunes and I completely agree. Apple is really missing the boat on this one. If I want to buy some music at lunch why can't I use my comptuter at work (no iTunes) to buy the music, and then let my iTunes at home download it later when I get home, or at purchase time if it happens to be up and running and detects that I purchased some music? A lot of stores make money on impulse buys. It would seem that not only is this behavior anti-web, but it is not very innovative and is probably loosing Apple money.

The less-than-1% Linux desktop market share A) can't usually get their audio drivers working, and B) are all pirates, anyway. Linux users don't pay for software or music. There's zero value and a lot of work to get them brought into iTunes. Forget about that.

So, what might satisfy you here would be a web-page summary of the item, if it can't launch iTunes. That's a pretty useful addition, and you should suggest it as an enhancement at http://bugreport.apple.com/

I have an iPod Touch. I installed iTunes. I don't like to use iTunes. I've had a computer since the early '80s, starting with the old Atari 8 bit line. I don't like the iTunes business model. I don't like that Apple has DRM on what they sell you through iTunes.

I therefore go to Amazon if I want to get music for my iPod Touch. iTunes doesn't get my business.

What I find somewhat amusing is that if Apple had made the iTunes Store *exactly* like most Flash web sites, then this blog post probably wouldn't exist—because Apple wouldn't even *have* a mechanism to link to a specific spot in their store. They even went the extra mile and put up an explanatory page, instead of letting the browser give you an error message (as it would if they had create some custom scheme like itunes:\\).

I see your point—Apple should produce a full-fledged browser-based UI for those who just want to buy a song or two and who already have QuickTime—but it still amuses me.

The reason why Apple doesn't play nice with the web is because (they think) they don't have to. Their brand culture is that they are better, aesthetically superior to everyone else. They are in the fashion business as much as they are in the technology business. Anything they do that makes them like everyone else erodes the notion that Apple has something special and different and worth paying a premium for.

The AOL comparison is apt. When AOL first came out, the web was a scary place for novices. AOL said, "Don't worry about all that tech-geeky stuff -- just run the installation from our CD, and you'll be on the internet and getting e-mail!" It worked until people realized that there was a much bigger world out there that wasn't so scary after all, and we didn't need AOL to hold our hands. But even though AOL is a general punch-line now, and probably always was to us geeks, it was very successful with the strategy for long enough that the name of the merged company was *AOL*-Time-Warner.

Apple's doing the same thing. Your non-geeky sister doesn't want to have to deal with organizing MP3's, and putting them in a file system. Apple comes along and says, "don't worry, just by out beautiful machine with 3 buttons on it to play your music, and download our program for organizing and buying more music. We'll take care of all the messy details for you." And people continue to buy it until they realize they're being held back.

But I think it will take more to bring down the Apple brand than it did to bring down the AOL brand.

Most of the time I think Apple is ahead of the game, but you're absolutely right on this score. The real question is not about how they screwed up the web links (which are a pain) but why they don't want to show off their wares to everyone.

I get that they don't want to sell through the web so they can DRM everything, but at least give people who aren't using iTunes a reason to start. Before I downloaded iTunes, I know Apple missed out on a few sales simply because I didn't want to bother with the app... I just wanted to browse first.

"although I would argue syncing should really be a fundamental, built in function of the operating system."

I think it's called a file system. Or, at least it would be if they did use mp3s.

Really, c'mom?!
You're complaining about a link that some developer choose to link to.

This whole article is so childish.

codinghorror.com, deleted from bookmarks.

"IMO, anyone who raves about Apple's so-called design superiority has skipped past the 'drinking the Kool-Aid' phase to snorting it straight from the packet."

+1 to cubiclegrrl for that great quote.

Plenty of people have covered the amazon downloader thing so I'll just add that as a rabid mac/apple user going back to system 6, this "iTunes as a platform" thing apple is doing is currently one of my top complaints about OS X and apple. Adding a store to my media player was bad enough, but now I have to use my media player to update my portable phone? Wha?

Ditto on the podcast comment. I wanted to subscribe to someone's podcast and was presented with that lovely screen. I own a Zune - I have no desire to install iTunes for any reason and don't need it. I contacted the site owners and went back and forth several times before they finally understood that I just wanted the link to the Podcast so I could subscribe in something other than iTunes. I finally got it, but it took a while to communicate.

Just give us the link - don't make us go through iTunes to get the details.

Have to agree with ssp... It's the "fault" of the website that linked to iTMS.

Apple does not cater to everyone (call it arrogance or niche-market targeting or whatever); so if you don't belong to their quite narrow target audience, they won't want you to buy a Mac, and they won't want you to buy at iTMS.

In the end, the website that linked to iTMS either didn't understand that philosophy, or they did understand it and followed it themselves. In the latter case that would be a sign that you were visiting a page that didn't want you as visitor :-)

If you want to look at the Olympic games in yout PC you'll need Silverlight:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Takes-the-Silverlight-Adobe-Flash-Race-to-the-2008-Olympic-Games-75544.shtml

I don't need silverlight to watch videos over the net so I don't understand why I'll need it this time

"I have Winamp, but it has such a messed up user interface that I don't want to use it."

That's subjective. I think Winamp's interface is much better than iTunes, as it allows you to have a "playlist" as well as a media library, rather than iTunes's one big playlist. Though I do have to say that foobar2000 is better than Winamp, as you can customize it to look like anything you want. On all OS's though, Amarok is the best. I don't think I could use Winamp or even foobar2000 regularly after being spoiled by Amarok ;)

The windows iTunes is the suk of suk. For the longest time iTunes wasn't supported on x64 windows. Want to know why? http://www.hanselman.com/blog/InstallingITunes7On64bitWindowsVista.aspx

Hardcoded paths looking for Quicktime in c:\Program Files

My opinion is they could care less.

@ Silverlight :
"I don't need silverlight to watch videos over the net so I don't understand why I'll need it this time"

You need it for live video streaming. Good luck streaming live HD video with anything else.

@Jeff
iTunes is a content delivery system. Not a web browser and not a media player(as it's primary function). Since the media needs to be delivered in a manner that the music industry (as of 7 years ago) is ok with, it couldn't be "web friendly". At some point you would need to leave the web and use the client.

That Apple requires it's own application instead of using say flash on a web page, is Apple norm. From their perspective there is no need to create multiple ways to view the media, just use the desktop version, whats the issue? See in Apple land and on Mac OSx, there aren't the same security and trust issues with Desktop applications. In their environment it's a non issue to use a specific client.

Its not like the windows environment where there are a million crappy little media players all over the wild, some are spyware some just buggy. And installing one puts itself in startup, establishes itself as the app to handle a million file types(breaking other associations you want to keep), messes up the registry, and overwrites drivers.

Of COURSE as a windows users we don't want to "install" a client that we don't trust and has the power during installation to mess up EVERYTHING on the machine. But that is a windows problem.

From a mac user, "who cares".

I don't see your problem with iTunes. IMO, it seems logical that if you're on the iTunes store (as in the STORE for *ITUNES*), you need the software to actually buy anything.

This is no different from Steam, Vuze, BitTorrent etc.

What is wrong with having a all in one application that does its job really well rather than having this omg-i-need-a-browser-to-do-my-laundry-online-or-else-it-is-crap mentality.

"I don't need silverlight to watch videos over the net so I don't understand why I'll need it this time"

Silverlight is a Flash competitor. Usually you need Flash to watch videos online, but you probably installed it so long ago you forgot about it.

It's not like video is native to html, dude.

@anon: I went to Amarok site, but looks like its for Linux only. Then I noticed its for Windows too in version 2.0. I downloaded it, but its just the source. I don't want to start fiddling around with makefiles and compilers, can't they just have 1 exe file? And its only an alpha version, its not even ready. Apple wins.

Boo frickin' hoo.

iTunes is a client app, not a web app. One reason I suspect Apple designed it this way is to have one place where you can buy music AND sync it with your Apple devices. You can't do that from a web page, period. You may want the option to browse tracks from your browser, or iTunes, or maybe even a web services API, but most people just want their music to show up on their iPod. The less thought required, the better. This approach to design is precisely why Apple owns the digital music market.

"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?"

Them's fighting words, coming from a guy with a mailto: link on his webpage.

I could not agree more Jeff. If Apple can build a MobileMe rich web front-end for mails, contacts, etc., they certainly can build a web store frontend for iTunes. It's like Steve is doing what Bill Gates did with PCs. Create a closed ecosystem.

I actually don't know why you are surprised about this. Apple is one of the most closed sourced companies ever in the IT industry and if they could, they would make you buy any kind of Apple Hardware/Software so that you can use your computer. Let's see when they gain more market share...

It's part of their business model.

I'm sorry to see so many people who disagree with you on this point, Jeff. Apple is definitely shooting themselves in the foot doing this sort of thing--they should at the very least put up some info about the song and allow you to play a sample without downloading iTunes, then if you decide it's compelling enough to download, have them install it. And it's not like they couldn't still support the direct link to the iTMS doing things that way--iTunes users would still get the link loaded in iTunes.

Me? I've pretty much switched to Amazon MP3 for just about all of my downloads lately. I can see and hear samples right on the web page and download music that I don't have to later burn to a CD and rip just to play on my non-iPod player. Apple just can't match the Amazon experience for me, and probably never will, since I refuse to buy into locked-down platforms.

iTunes is nothing without the app only features of local cataloging and playback of music. your assertion that this breaks the web is rediculous.

The Market will sort this out.

Next topic.

iTunes is the worst software I have ever used. Vista + iTunes seems like the absolute worst combination of software I can imagine... how depressing after 25 years of software development that this is where we are at now... ;(

"I don't need silverlight to watch videos over the net so I don't understand why I'll need it this time"
Because it's currently the best at handling video. For a new site who's main role is for streaming video it's arguably a smart choice.

"This is no different from Steam, Vuze, BitTorrent etc."
Except it is. With Steam I can go to http://storefront.steampowered.com/ from any browser, navigate it how I'm used to (rather than a thin veil over IE), see what games Steam has and whether I'd want to download and install Steam. I can link my friend to a cool game which she can then look at, assess and decide whether she wants it before having to invest in Steam.

I can go to http://www.vuze.com/content/FeaturedContent.html and browse what they have to offer, find related content and even watch low quality previews. Again, in the manner that I'm used to, with all the webberisms of being able to give anyone a link, being able to bookmark, scale the text, use my favourite screen reader, use greasemonkey to inject html, use adblock if Im so inclined, content protect against pornographic or violent content for my children etc.

And indeed with bittorrent I can use a whole multitude of browser friendly front-ends.

There is nothing about the *browsing* side of the iTunes store which is intrinsicly tied to having a rich client. The interface would only be marginally different on the web (it wouldn't have the split pane) and I could browse it in a way that is more comfortable to me (with my funky Firefox navigation plugins etc.), link people to it more easily and they can assess whether they want to invest their time or not, have it crawled by search engines etc.

Of course it's up to them what business model they chose, and if it works they win and if it doesn't they lose. But AOL won for a long time, yet we all feel sorry for the poor saps that got sucked into it. Using the browser to display your content gives you so many benefits, more than you can possibly think of let alone implement in your custom client. Yes, it's more profitable for Apple to close it off and have more control over it but it doesn't mean it should necessarily be followed and it certainly doesn't mean it can't be criticised for not giving the user the benefits of the browser.

>Ironic 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.

Agreed. People hop on the "let's hate microsoft" bandwagon without realizing that, while they definitely are a company trying to make money and aren't perfect by any means, Apple is the one entirely built around encasing their users in their products. Besides the tired iTunes/iPod argument, there's the requirement to run Mac OS only on hardware purchased from Apple. By this I mean you can't buy the Mac OS separately to install on your custom built computer.

LOL, classic! I've been waiting for a good post from you lately, and boy did you deliver.

I just love it how these Apple addicts diss Microsoft for allegedly attempting to "monopolize the industry", whilst they become digitally enslaved by Steve Jobs. Hence the term "Mactard"; too slow to see the light. Oh, and have you ever used iTunes? What a flaming pile of shit that "software" is!

Get a grip, Apple fanboys, you are part of the problem.

Great post, Jeff!

@ People equating this to Flash, Silverlight, etc...

Flash, Silverlight, etc, are nothing like what is being discussed here...

This is the same idea as a website that requires you download their custom Web Browser before you can look at any of their content.

I've even seen it before with some sites that take their love of FireFox a little too far and refuse to serve up content unless you are using the FireFox browser.

The web has become successful because you don't need to download a custom viewer or special software to view a site. That's all he's suggesting here is iTunes goes against the "spirit of the web".

You have flash player installed, or do you not go to youtube? As for Amazon, go ahead and disable javascript on your machine and see how far you get.

Click on Todays Deal. What do you get...
In order to view Lightning Deals, you need to enable javascript on your browser

This is no defense of having to have an application (aside from a browser) installed to go to a site, but it is not without precedence.

Ah, more ammo for my anti-Apple hate. Though there is one thing to keep in mind (and if it's mentioned in prior comments... well I didn't read them) If you are on a Mac, you have iTunes installed from the factory. Not that it's an excuse, because the last time I checked, the web was for everyone!

omg! apple is stealing the interwebs! oh noes!

"I 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?

I 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.

I 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?

Wow. 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.

If 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).

And 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!

This 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.

I 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?

I thought this was relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxQS_3A7_Fc

"I 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.

The 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).

Jeff,

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.

"@anon: I went to Amarok site, but looks like its for Linux only. Then I noticed its for Windows too in version 2.0. I downloaded it, but its just the source. I don't want to start fiddling around with makefiles and compilers, can't they just have 1 exe file? And its only an alpha version, its not even ready. Apple wins."

I don't see you trying to use beta versions of iTunes, so why are you trying to use a beta version of Amarok? That's completely idiotic. Amarok 2.0 is nowhere near ready for regular usage by Linux users, let alone Windows or Mac users. Try foobar2000.

"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..

@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.)

The 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.

WOW. 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

ITunes (and Apples in general) are for people who don't know anything about computers. People like us shouldn't concern ourselves with it.

yep, 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.

:)

weird, 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

Add me to the "Happily own a Zune and don't have to put up with all that crap" list.

I 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).

> 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-AT&T-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 pu