iTunes On OS X Finally Has Competition 668
mallumax writes "The truth is, iTunes is an average music player. Though the UI is simple and good like most Apple products, it has lagged in features compared to music players available on Linux and Windows. A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes. There are no plugins or themes. Despite the many faults, many of us continued to use iTunes because of the lack of options available. But today the wait is finally over. Not one, but two music players have become credible contenders.
Songbird: An open source music player which has been in the works for more than 2 years has finally released its 1.0 Release Candidate builds. The team behind Songbird has members who previously developed for both Winamp and the Yahoo Music Engine. It has support for extensions and themes ('feathers' in Songbird parlance).
Amarok: The undisputed champion among Linux music players is finally coming to OS X, thanks to KDE 4 being ported there. Amarok developer Leo Franchi has been able to run a Amarok on OS X natively. So we can expect a reasonably stable Amarok to hit OS X in a few months' time.
Hopefully these players will gain traction among OS X users, which will finally force Apple to either step up in terms of features or open up iTunes for extensions."
Lacking Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Themes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Basic feature? (Score:5, Insightful)
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes
I don't think of this as a basic feature... essentially you are asking for automated library updates whenever new files are added to the system. iTunes is built around two methods of file importation: Rip from CD or add from iTunes Store. The third option is manual: Drag and drop files to the library.
Plugins [apple.com] are even listed at Apple's website.
Themes are missing, I admit, but for many people this is not a "basic feature", either.
iPod (Score:5, Insightful)
Feature Creep is not a Feature (Score:5, Insightful)
I like iTunes specifically because it doesn't waste my time with themes and skins and color choices. How cares what your music player looks like? How many times has an attractive woman looked at the customized UI for your software and thought "Wow. There's a guy I'd like to get it on with". (Answer: Zero)
I'll grant that some competition might drive additional features into iTunes, but please please please can we stop acting like altering the UI of a program does anything even remotely useful?
The Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is, iTunes is an average music player. Though the UI is simple and good like most Apple products, it has lagged in features compared to music players available on Linux and Windows.
The features it is missing are niche features. How many of these "more feature complete" players you are using have features like Genius playlists? Video podcasts? How many also seemlessly manage the songs on your mp3(iPod) player? Smartphones(iPhone)? How many offer iTunes music sharing/streaming on the local network? How many seamlessly integrate with the most popular music store?
That's not even including the non-music features of itunes, such as syncing calendars, contacts, photos, applications, and songs with iPods and iPhones. It offers video podcasts, downloadable tv shows, and streaming internet radio.
iTunes missing one feature compared to other players does not mean it has less features overall.
Uhh... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Basic feature? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Themes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do i want themes? I would much rather have a clean simple music player
Because people disagree on what "clean simple" means. If the UI is not themeable and you don't like it, you have to switch to a different player altogether. If it is themeable, you just need to switch to a different theme.
Re:Basic feature? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why have to "import" at all? Why does every music player have to manage a "library"? I've got a file system. I've learned to use it to manage files in ways I like. Just let me do that.
Re:Themes? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the rare chance I find a theme I genuinely like, it's for a slightly older version of the program and half of the elements are broken.
When are developers going to admit that they should just stick to the OS's GUI toolkit? The user can then theme their entire window manager, instead of each individual program.
Re:The Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Monitoring your music folder for new songs is not a "niche" feature. It's an "everybody except iTunes manages to do this" feature.
My wife doesn't understand why songs she downloads from somewhere other than iTMS won't just be "seen" by iTunes. Especially when, say, her photo library software, or ANYTHING ELSE media related, does exactly this.
Absolutely nothing "niche" about such a simple, painfully obvious feature.
The Zune software does it brilliantly.
VLC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iPod (Score:1, Insightful)
And of course only Apple is allowed to provide iPod/iPhone sync software. How convenient.
And people call Microsoft a monopolist.
Re:Themes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people disagree on what "clean simple" means. If the UI is not themeable and you don't like it, you have to switch to a different player altogether. If it is themeable, you just need to switch to a different theme.
I don't buy that. Does skinning really achieve that? I don't think I've ever seen a skin that really improved usability. Or really changed it much.
And most people, especially average users, go with the default skin anyway. IMHO, skinning just slows things down, and it often breaks with the UI standards.
Folder monitoring? (Score:4, Insightful)
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes.
According to Songbird's site, it doesn't support folder monitoring either. It also doesn't support iPhones, the iPod Touch, Airtunes, CD ripping (?), or video. I forget, why would I choose it over iTunes?
Re:Feature Creep is not a Feature (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the age old Linux argument.. "but, but, but... you get CHOICE!" The truth is, people don't want choices, they just want something that works.
Re:Themes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Themes do nothing to "clean" or "simplify" the interface. They just apply a mishmash of bitmaps to it - almost always hideously ugly ones.
Don't Even Think of the iPhone (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to break this down... (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is, iTunes is an average music player.
itunes is significantly better than average.
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes.
How exactly is that a basic feature? Music enters itunes 3 basic ways:
1 you rip a Cd with itunes.
2 you buy a song from itunes music store
3 you drag a file from your computer onto the itunes library
and one advanced way:
4 you tell itunes to import music from a folder
Setting up itunes to monitor a folder would be number 5, and in the 'advanced feature' category.
Secondly, how exactly do the "latest music files" get into this monitored folder? If you manually dragged them there, then you might as well have just manually dragged them onto the itunes window. If they arrived there through any other means, that just further underscores that its an advanced feature.
There are no plugins
That is certainly not a basic feature either. And its probably the ONLY thing I sort of agree with.
I'd like iTunes to support automatically syncing with non-Apple players. I'd like iTunes to support syncing with programs other than Outlook on Windows.
[There are no] themes.
I call that a feature. I'm not 13 anymore. I am happy to let my programs to feature well designed UI, without delegating the task to other 13 year olds who variously have an unhealthy fascination with celebrities, movies, or just want everything to be some sort of gothic red and black. If anything, I think iTunes on Windows should look MORE like a windows app.
Despite the many faults, many of us continued to use iTunes because of the lack of options available.
Its few faults and many strengths actually. The biggest advantage it has over other players is that it works with =all= ipods/iphones seamlessly.
Songbird: An open source music player which has been in the works for more than 2 years has finally released its 1.0 Release Candidate builds. The team behind Songbird has members who previously developed for both Winamp and the Yahoo Music Engine.
Hardly a ringing endorsement if you look at either of those products.
It has support for extensions and themes ('feathers' in Songbird parlance).
Right, because inventing non-standard gimmick terminology is always a good idea. I'm glad Thunderbird has addons not 'feathers' and firefox...? 'hairs'? 'teeth'? Spare me.
Amarok: The undisputed champion among Linux music players is finally coming to OS X, thanks to due KDE 4 being ported to OS X. Amarok developer Leo Franchi has been able to run a Amarok on OS X natively. So we can expect a reasonably stable Amarok to hit OS X in a few months' time.
'reasonably stable' with a KDE4 look on OSX? Yeah that's going to create an army of converts.
Hopefully these players will gain traction among OS X users,
They won't. They will make a very small niche (self)-satisfied. That's not a bad thing, per se, mind you, but don't make more out of it than is really there.
which will finally force Apple to either step up in terms of features or open up iTunes for extensions."
See above. It won't. Even though I really do want iTunes to work with Thunderbird instead of Outlook...
Re:Themes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly you don't understand the difference between skins and themes.
Re:Basic feature? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a naming convention that identifies my work from the directory and filename. iTunes basically strips this info, making it pretty useless for me.
So you're NOT using file metadata? That would seem to be the easiest solution, and makes a whole variety of software and players like your mp3s better.
Additionally, iTunes..Preferences..uncheck "Keep iTunes Music folder organized" with a nice little description of everything that that means below it. That option has been around as long as I have been using itunes.
Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? (Score:3, Insightful)
Random access to all online media formats? Integration of podcasts from anywhere on the web? No need for a bucket of plugins and Add-ons for basic media integration?
Try it before you bash it.
Re:Basic feature? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Unfortunately, this can slow down search "
I don't want search. I know where my files are, and have better ways to search for them if I didn't.
"and shuffle functions"
after I've given it a list of files to shuffle between, I expect a machine up to playing audio can generate some pseudo-random numbers quickly enough.
"if the directory structure is corrupted in anyway (yes yes, that's mostly a Windows issue)"
Not an issue I've ever seen, and I'm mostly a windows user. Not sure how locking me into a bad UI for managing music files helps in any case, since it rests on the file system in the background anyway.
Re:Basic feature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't get a retarded proprietary music player*.
* It's not their fault you don't think before you buy.
So I guess most OSX users won't use it*.
*It's not their fault that developers don't think about why most of the people are using iTunes when they are trying to compete with iTunes.
Re:Basic feature? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Feature Creep is not a Feature (Score:3, Insightful)
But the truth is, what works for one person may not work for somebody else. That's why the market for media players is so lively in Windows-land, despite Microsoft bundling WMP with the OS.
Re:iPod (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a replacement unless I can use it to buy music, TV shows, movies, and iPhone apps and sync them to my iPhone.
Re:Folder actions are your friend (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you visit the site in the parent post, download the script and you're done.
Doesn't this fall under the 'plugin' feature the article claims iTunes is missing?
Re:The Truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Video is crap in iTunes because it doesn't support many widely-used codecs. And as far as podcasts go, Songbird and Miro have a far better implementation, to which ITMS seems restricted and unsorted.
iTunes was cool when what it offered was groundbreaking and new, but Apple's closed iSystem is beginning to show the wear of time. Nowadays it's a music player with basic functionality that is restricted to one brand of player.
Re:Uhh... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, if iTunes is your music manager, why is it not managing your music? That's why people want automatically updating folders. See new file, add to library, silently. We've had inexpensive filesystem monitoring for years, and we know OS X has pretty good control over what files exist on your system.
Re:Themes? (Score:4, Insightful)
What you're saying makes sense to me, but I've never seen it work out that an application being "themeable" was a particularly good thing. With a lot of programs, I feel like making the UI highly configurable really ends up being an excuse for the developer to not spend a lot of time making a good default UI. It's like, "Meh, I don't want to spend time making it usable or pretty, so I'll just make it so someone else can figure out how to make the UI good." And then no one else does.
Even if there's an active theming community, you usually end up with thousands of themes to sort through, 5 of which are moderately good, but none of them integrate well with the OS. And then, if you're slightly neurotic like I am, you end up constantly looking for a new, better theme, when all you really want is something that doesn't feel jarring when you switch to another application.
I admit that a lot of this is just my opinion, but all I'm trying to do here is voice my opinion. For me, the only time theming makes sense is when you can theme the entire OS thoroughly and consistently so that all applications match. I don't just want clean and simple, I also want consistent. The qualms I have had with the iTunes interface have been when they've chosen to give it nonstandard interface elements.
Re:songbird is a poor imitation of itunes (Score:1, Insightful)
"it syncs calendars & contacts with outlook & apple addressbook"
which is exactly why its a giant bloated piece of shit. who the hell thinks putting all that into a media player is a good idea? itunes should be split into about 50 applications that do one thing and do it well.
Re:Themes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do i want themes? I would much rather have a clean simple music player.
Bully for you. What you want does not necessarily provide a universal standard for us all to live by though.
The UNIX Way (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, if iTunes is your music manager, why is it not managing your music?
Why do you think iTunes is not managing your music?
That's why people want automatically updating folders. See new file, add to library, silently. We've had inexpensive filesystem monitoring for years, and we know OS X has pretty good control over what files exist on your system.
Because many things in OS X do things the UNIX way - do one simple thing well. Why should my MUSIC PLAYER be doing crazy things like watching a folder?
No, instead Finder should be watching folders and run actions based on directories or file types. That's why the system has Automator.
You want music files to be loaded into iTunes automatically when placed in a specific folder? Well then use Automator which can do this simple task quite well today. Please do not try to load iTunes down with more crap than it already has.
Re:Basic feature? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Allow me to break this down... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? It's mediocre as a music player. A list with a little display and some controls at the top? Color me impressed! Every music player has this. That's what makes it a music player at all.
The only advantages it has are its tight integrations with iPods and iTunes Store, which is hardly impressive when you consider that's why Apple bothers with it at all. (As an aside, I've always found the store integration felt clunky--but that's neither here nor there.) And the fact that so many other players have similar integrations, at least with iPods. Will they always work with the latest and greatest? No. Apple isn't going to give them a head's up to change their software, so they need time to actually get their hands on a new device, figure out the changes and code to them. If inside knowledge of a particular product line is your definition of better than average, well... okay.
You're kidding, right? Most of us have some sort of music or mp3 directories, potentially with any number of subdirectories under it for organization. Personally I have mp3/[Genre]/[Artist] and potentially /[Album] if I ripped the whole thing rather than downloaded particular songs. I'm going to put these files into this structure regardless of how it gets into my music player. To claim I should have just dropped it into iTunes itself is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. I don't want my music strewn all over my system, I want it in one place of my choosing. Of course having my player realize to look there periodically is better than it staring dumbly at me until I tell it to.
The truly sad part about your comment is that Apple could probably have this "advanced" feature added in two hours of work. They already have the core of it with the ability to import a folder. Now all they have to do is keep a list of them and monitor. Chances are it's already built into the kernel and just needs to be tapped into. If not I guess they'll need to poll some directory mtimes.
You're right. Downloading or ripping the music directly into a destination folder is voodoo magic.
And you won't get it, because Apple has no interest in it. You almost certainly would have it if others were allowed to write plugins, but they aren't. Do you really consider this request advanced?
I don't necessarily blame Apple for not providing plugin interfaces; that's their prerogative. The fact that so many other music players have it and iTunes doesn't does go to validate the submitter's point about iTunes lacking functionality that many others have though, does it not?
Congratulations. I'm happy you like people making your UI decisions for you, but not everybody agrees. To insult them by pretending that must mean they're 13-year-old goths or have "unhealthy fascination[s]" just makes you an asshat. Period.
I don't care if a program supports theming, but the appearance ABSOLUTELY affects my decisions on whether or not to use a program and I'm sure it affects yours as well. Having that support can
Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Allow me to break this down... (Score:3, Insightful)
A list with a little display and some controls at the top? Color me impressed!
You blew your argument right at the beginning. I stopped reading because this is mind numbingly retarded. I see two possibilities here:
A) You really do think this is all iTunes has, in which case you are incapable of actually evaluating software and your opinion is not valid.
B) You measure quality of software by quantity of shiny controls exposed directly in the visual interface. If that's the case, then you should see no reason for Apple to exist at all, as both Windows and LInux deliver considerably more features at every turn. Fortunately for Apple, most people prefer simple usable software to having every feature under the sun.
Oh there is some further stupidity I need to respond to:
Most of us have some sort of music or mp3 directories, potentially with any number of subdirectories under it for organization. Personally I have mp3/[Genre]/[Artist] and potentially /[Album] if I ripped the whole thing rather than downloaded particular songs. I'm going to put these files into this structure regardless of how it gets into my music player. To claim I should have just dropped it into iTunes itself is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. I don't want my music strewn all over my system, I want it in one place of my choosing.
This right here is pure strawman. Look, if you want to organize your music by hand be my guest. I let iTunes organize mine. I have no desire to manually sort my music. I'd rather have it sorted by the meta-data and iTunes has a perfectly capable id3 editor. It's not strewn about my hard drive because it's all in my iTunes library folder which is easy to navigate and I never have to touch it.
If that doesn't work for you, then more power to you rolling your own system. But it's completely non-sensical on one hand to say iTunes is feature-weak and then on other hand bashing it for promoting a workflow where you do less manual file organization.
Re:iPod (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it's not a replacement for you.
For the outstanding majority of people who don't buy music, TV shows, movies and iPhone apps however, it still is. Have fun in Apple-land, 'cause it seems you ain't getting away from it any time soon.
But, iTunes had Skins! (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the days the software was known as SoundJam MP, iTunes had all sorts of skins and UI enhancements.
When Jeffrey Robbins, the creator of SoundJam moved to Apple, all of those exotic features were stripped off of SoundJam MP. Instead, the UI was vastly improved and the whole project was relabeled iTunes.
And, that's why iTunes is so successful. It is simple and easy to operate. You put in a CD, and almost magically, the music is now in your iTunes library. You go to the iTunes store, click a button, and there it is in iTunes.
We heard many of the same complaint with the iPod when it first came out. The iPod had no microphone, it didn't have a radio, there was no slot for a memory card. You couldn't use it as a recorder. All it could do was play MP3s. It will never sell!
But, sell it did. What Apple had demonstrated time and time again is that features don't sell. Simplicity and elegance do. There are plenty of high end packages for Mac OS X -- including SoundJam's main competitor Audion (Freely downloadable from Panic's website). However, Apple's solution is to ignore the dross and concentrate on usability.
For more information, see the story of Audion at .
UGH. (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear poster :
Please, do not start with complaining about iTunes' "lack" of features. Given that BOTH Amarok AND Songbird lack the ability to RIP or BURN music CD's, I don't really wanna hear it.
Part of why iTunes works is because Apple does a pretty damn good job of making a player that does its job : Database player/sync for a portable device that holds all the music you're ever going to buy.
You know how agrivating it is to try to burn a CD and have it re-direct you to K3B, which then errors out because your audio format, which works fine in Amarok, isn't compatible with IT?
Batch encoding is a JOKE in Amarok, which is aggrivating given that you realize you're better off settling for converting to MP3 in iTunes using iTunes' crappy MP3 encoder.
In iTunes, not only is your music added to the player, but so are your playlists, and when you have 10 gigs of music, it's nice to have immediate access to the arrangements of the 20 some odd songs you're enjoying at the moment. I've yet to see a sync app on the market that does this aside from maybe the Zune, and the purchase of that device will happen on a cold day in hell.
Don't talk shit about Apple's setup 'till you can present an app that's better or at least EQUIVILANT. I'm not talking about compatibility with a handful of devices, I'm talking about actually having that great handful of FEATURES in syncing.
UGH. >_
Fighting fire with paper (Score:5, Insightful)
I think open source contenders are failing to understand the mentality of the average Mac user, the ones that put them in the powerful position they are.
Apple wants you to 'Think Different', but not freely. They want you to think differently than Windows, but more like Apple everything.
Many people accept this, they get drafted into a specific process and the only efficient way to use OS X is to do it the way Apple intends for you to, but it's DAMNED EASY to work with and that's incredibly easy to appreciate.
Open Sourcers want freedom, options, the preemptibility that if there comes a point when something needs to change, it can be done. Mac users don't want that, they don't need it. They want their shit to work, and if you eliminate the variables, it almost always will.
Expecting Apple to open up is like expecting McDonalds to eliminate their fatty foods; What they're doing now is working for them INCREDIBLY WELL, ethics are a hard thing to propose when the process in indisputably effective.
Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know some people actually like iTunes but I really have problems wrapping my brain around it. One thing they tend to have in common is limited experience with good media players like Winamp and Amarok. Even Windows Media Player stomps all over iTunes in terms of usability.
It's really a matter of taste (or lack thereof). The one time I tried Windows Media Player it confused the hell out of me and I went back to iTunes. iTunes may not have all the advanced features, but to me the interface is more intuitive. All I want to do is play my music.
Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Windows Media Player stomps all over iTunes in terms of usability.
Spoken like someone who has never used iTunes or Windows Media Player.
Or is it just that you don't know what usability means? iTunes is not the paragon of UI design, but it's far beyond the train wreck that is WMP.
Re:Why is there a browser in the music player? (Score:5, Insightful)
Monitoring a folder is the job of the OS not the App.
I have 3 Macs sharing a music folder off the house fileserver. Your excuse for why I have to manually go to each Mac and add new music after ripping it onto the server is pretty awful, especially since Amarok has this feature working.
Let me put this another way: monitoring a folder is a perfectly reasonable service for the OS to provide to applications. If OS X can't do it, then it's the only Unix I use that doesn't.
Note that Amarok takes the more sane approach of actually looking at folder contents from time to time. That might offend your purist sensibilities, but it's pretty darned handy in practice.
And mac OS has folder-actions that let you monitor a folder and add songs to any app, not just itunes.
And that works on (increasingly common) shared folders, and it knows that more files have been added since the last time it connected? Give me a break.
I'll remember this the next time a Mac user teases me for manually performing some tasks that OS X does automatically. I still have to add printers by hand, but at least I only have to do that one time. With iTunes I'm working behind the scenes every time I get new music.
Re:The UNIX Way (Score:2, Insightful)
many things in OS X do things the UNIX way - do one simple thing well
iTunes is certainly not a model citizen in this regard, although I can appreciate your interest in not making things worse.
instead Finder should be watching folders and run actions based on directories or file types
There is a long precedent now in OS X of introducing libraries that do cool OS-level things (think Spotlight, Time Machine) and then integrating the functionality into existing apps. Using the "folder changed" facilities in OS X to add a feature to iTunes would be a classic example following in this mold.