Apple goes too far in iTunes 8(blogs.zdnet.com)
blogs.zdnet.com
Apple goes too far in iTunes 8
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=536
49 comments
.. any remember RealNetworks?
I still suffer nightmares from it.
Just the other day I really wanted to watch an online presentation, yet it insisted I installed realplayer. I was considering it, as I really wanted to watch this particular presentation, but unfortunately I just could not bring myself to going through that again.
I still suffer nightmares from it.
Just the other day I really wanted to watch an online presentation, yet it insisted I installed realplayer. I was considering it, as I really wanted to watch this particular presentation, but unfortunately I just could not bring myself to going through that again.
I also would never install realplayer. Real alternative + vlc has worked for everything I've tried.
The BBC has a special version of RealPlayer that doesn't have the adware or nag screens:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/categories/plug/real/newreal.sh...
seconded
yeah, this is definitely paranoia, but is it possible that apple is trying to make the user experience of itunes in windows frustrating so heavy ipod and iphone users with limited technical knowledge will blame it on windows and think about switching to a mac? It's certainly not a nice practice, but Jobs didn't get the market share he has by being nice either.
I doubt it. At least in the press, a lot of Apple's growth is attributed to 'See how good ipod/itunes works? You'll like OS X.'
I think I recall Apple's own marketing materials leveraging the same 'If you get itunes, you'll get all apple stuff' line.
That all sits on top of the fact that Apple doesn't necessarily seem that excited over selling macs. They're happy selling iphones & ipods that need pc support. It may be a lead in to a mac, but's its a big business in itself. A single long term iphone user may even be worth more then a mac user (kickbacks, music/apps, more frequent upgrading).
So purposely being crap on windows is not smart.
I think I recall Apple's own marketing materials leveraging the same 'If you get itunes, you'll get all apple stuff' line.
That all sits on top of the fact that Apple doesn't necessarily seem that excited over selling macs. They're happy selling iphones & ipods that need pc support. It may be a lead in to a mac, but's its a big business in itself. A single long term iphone user may even be worth more then a mac user (kickbacks, music/apps, more frequent upgrading).
So purposely being crap on windows is not smart.
That strikes me as highly unlikely.
First, it's extremely risky. It would expose Apple to class-action suits from users, as well as giving other companies fodder for an anti-competitive practices lawsuit.
Second, this particular error is more likely to hurt Apple's reputation than Microsoft's: The article says that the crashes were observed when plugging in an iPod or launching iTunes. Users will almost certainly associate new crash behavior on an otherwise stable Windows system with their last action: using an Apple product. If Apple really wanted to hurt Windows' reputation, they would have made the crashes random.
First, it's extremely risky. It would expose Apple to class-action suits from users, as well as giving other companies fodder for an anti-competitive practices lawsuit.
Second, this particular error is more likely to hurt Apple's reputation than Microsoft's: The article says that the crashes were observed when plugging in an iPod or launching iTunes. Users will almost certainly associate new crash behavior on an otherwise stable Windows system with their last action: using an Apple product. If Apple really wanted to hurt Windows' reputation, they would have made the crashes random.
You're assuming they did it on purpose. Why assume that?
Ever heard the saying about not attributing to malice something that can be explained by incompetence.
Ever heard the saying about not attributing to malice something that can be explained by incompetence.
The malicious assumption is in the parent post ("Jobs didn't get the market share he has by being nice") -- I'm saying that's unlikely, hence I agree that Apple's problem is most likely due to incompetence.
seems that the names Jobs and Gates are getting closer to being used interchangeably.
I find that Apple continually installs Safari with iTunes automatic upgrades. Very annoying. They are nicer to me on my Mac.
What happens if you rip out Safari on a Mac?
Define rip Safari out of Mac. Safari is nothing but a shell for WebKit, the HTML renderer. (+ JS and a lot of other things.) You can probably delete Safari no problem, although it'll probably reinstall with system updates.
You can't pull WebKit out of Mac since it's used in all kinds of programs. The least of which is iTunes for their iTunes Store.
You can't pull WebKit out of Mac since it's used in all kinds of programs. The least of which is iTunes for their iTunes Store.
Heh, didn't another company get sued for that kind of crap?
Nothing. If you try to delete WebKit, though, Dashboard and a host of other apps will stop working (Adium, iChat, some aspects of the finder, Mail, etc).
In terms of operation or in terms of updates? In terms of operation, everything continues to work fine (where everything is not literal, but nothing significant).
The long rant seems to be two parts:
1. A buggy device driver.
2. MobileMe getting installed.
The former isn't anything new on Windows side, and part of a continuing trend in lower software quality out of apple recently. Hopefully they'll tightening down their dev & testing processes soon.
The latter is the 2nd time they've used iTunes as a beachhead for pushing other software onto Windows.
Maybe it's just old payback for forcing IE on mac os for all those years? Shame how it's the user who has to pay.
The former isn't anything new on Windows side, and part of a continuing trend in lower software quality out of apple recently. Hopefully they'll tightening down their dev & testing processes soon.
The latter is the 2nd time they've used iTunes as a beachhead for pushing other software onto Windows.
Maybe it's just old payback for forcing IE on mac os for all those years? Shame how it's the user who has to pay.
The iTunes 8 release FAILs on my macbook running the latest OS X. Crashes on startup. I'm not the only one; their support forums have lots of other folks complaining about start up crashes. They didn't shit on windows; they just screwed this upgrade up royally.
I should add, for anyone else who's seeing this, I found that if you hold down some combination of alt-command-ctrl (play around, it's not hard to find, and I can't remember exactly what it was) when you click on itunes to start it up, you'll get a "Starting iTunes in safe mode" dialog and that will get you past the crash I'm seeing. It seems to be related to processing cover art.
Wow, the fact that iTunes has a "safe mode" is just ridiculous. Glad it helped you, though.
Many apps have a "safe mode." The Firefox safe mode has saved my butt many times when I installed a misbehaving plugin....
iTunes is not just a music player. It is also a media store client, a CD/DVD-burning application, and a sync tool for the iPod & iPhone.
Why then should it be surprising to anyone that it installs background processes and drivers? Yes, malware authors use hidden background tasks, but so does everyone else. The technique itself is not evil.
Furthermore, blaming Apple for poor QA because some Windows systems crash when iTunes 8 is installed is ridiculous. Windows is an ecosystem, not an operating system, and there are far too many possible system configurations for Apple (or any other vendor) to test them all.
There are plenty of causes to call Apple evil (DRM, restrictive platform access, insane RAM pricing) or incompetent (MobileMe launch, iPhone 3G signal issues) but a buggy Windows experience isn't one of them.
Why then should it be surprising to anyone that it installs background processes and drivers? Yes, malware authors use hidden background tasks, but so does everyone else. The technique itself is not evil.
Furthermore, blaming Apple for poor QA because some Windows systems crash when iTunes 8 is installed is ridiculous. Windows is an ecosystem, not an operating system, and there are far too many possible system configurations for Apple (or any other vendor) to test them all.
There are plenty of causes to call Apple evil (DRM, restrictive platform access, insane RAM pricing) or incompetent (MobileMe launch, iPhone 3G signal issues) but a buggy Windows experience isn't one of them.
I missed where "MobileMe" was an essential component of iTunes.
And this isn't a problem of "testing them all". It's not like there's 4 rogue configurations floating around in the Windows ecosystem. It's TENS of THOUSANDS of people, and the problem falls well within what should be standard pre-release testing.
And I think people would be far less upset if it weren't for the fact that Apple tries to pretend it doesn't do things like install bloatware.
And this isn't a problem of "testing them all". It's not like there's 4 rogue configurations floating around in the Windows ecosystem. It's TENS of THOUSANDS of people, and the problem falls well within what should be standard pre-release testing.
And I think people would be far less upset if it weren't for the fact that Apple tries to pretend it doesn't do things like install bloatware.
The moment where "MobileMe" became part of iTunes was precisely when they decided to make iTunes the gatekeeper all iPod and iPhone content. Want to use an iPhone on Windows? Them's the breaks.
Also, your "TENS of THOUSANDS" of people are a frigging drop in the bucket compared to the TENS of MILLIONS (or possibly even HUNDREDS) of Windows systems currently in deployment in countries where Apple distributes their products.
Don't people constantly defend Microsoft with the same argument -- namely, that they have no way to test every possible interaction between bad drivers and hardware components simply due to the sheer number and variety of Windows systems in use at any given time?
Also, your "TENS of THOUSANDS" of people are a frigging drop in the bucket compared to the TENS of MILLIONS (or possibly even HUNDREDS) of Windows systems currently in deployment in countries where Apple distributes their products.
Don't people constantly defend Microsoft with the same argument -- namely, that they have no way to test every possible interaction between bad drivers and hardware components simply due to the sheer number and variety of Windows systems in use at any given time?
Tens of thousands are tens of thousands. Don't try to skew the data, ten thousand people is a lot. There is no room to be relative there. People buy a product and expect it to work. Not just that, there are probably much fewer than "tens of millions" using the iTunes software. So ten thousand would be a big number, even in relative terms.
The issue presented here isn't microsoft, its Apple. its about apple's iTunes product being sub-standard quality. And thats that.
The issue presented here isn't microsoft, its Apple. its about apple's iTunes product being sub-standard quality. And thats that.
I like how you justify malware/bloatware/bad stewardship of client machines. "But we say you need it" does not defeat the fact that it's malware.
And tens of thousands of users having the same problem (and having it be reducible in 2 or 3 days to a repeatable problem) means that there was little to no testing done. Part of testing is USING the myriad environments of the ecosphere in which your application will exist. It would be like writing a web phone app that only works at 120 x 160 but crashes at 128x128. Sure, it doesn't crash on EVERY phone, but it crashes on a significant number of them.
(It's unclear to me, by the way, that your claim that only a few systems crash is true. I'm able to reproduce the error bug by doing a clean install of iTunes 8. It seems like the problem is much larger than you want it to be. But even if I concede your point that it's smaller than everyone, it's still large enough that we're seeing 'software malpractice')
And Microsoft got hip to how bad the "but there's lots of systems, wahhhhh" excuse is. Welcome to the 21st century. Apple should get hip to how lame that excuse is, too.
And tens of thousands of users having the same problem (and having it be reducible in 2 or 3 days to a repeatable problem) means that there was little to no testing done. Part of testing is USING the myriad environments of the ecosphere in which your application will exist. It would be like writing a web phone app that only works at 120 x 160 but crashes at 128x128. Sure, it doesn't crash on EVERY phone, but it crashes on a significant number of them.
(It's unclear to me, by the way, that your claim that only a few systems crash is true. I'm able to reproduce the error bug by doing a clean install of iTunes 8. It seems like the problem is much larger than you want it to be. But even if I concede your point that it's smaller than everyone, it's still large enough that we're seeing 'software malpractice')
And Microsoft got hip to how bad the "but there's lots of systems, wahhhhh" excuse is. Welcome to the 21st century. Apple should get hip to how lame that excuse is, too.
Hear, hear. I own a Mac Pro, MBP, iPod and iPhone and I'll be the first to admit Apple isn't a perfect company by any means; I have had some sort of issue with all of these devices and many are ongoing. That being said, a CD/DVD burning app that installs CD/DVD burning drivers... that seems reasonable to me.
And I'd like to point out the fact that nobody notices if something isn't in a EULA or License Agreement until there's some really horrendous bug (like causing a BSOD) and people start looking in them precisely so they can say the terms aren't there. I mean, what do you want, a checkbox that says "Do not install drivers required for the proper functioning of iTunes"?
Le Sigh
And I'd like to point out the fact that nobody notices if something isn't in a EULA or License Agreement until there's some really horrendous bug (like causing a BSOD) and people start looking in them precisely so they can say the terms aren't there. I mean, what do you want, a checkbox that says "Do not install drivers required for the proper functioning of iTunes"?
Le Sigh
On the other hand, a driver is supposed to be a low-level interface to hardware. iTunes is not adding a new CD/DVD burner, so why would it presume to know more about the operation of your CD/DVD burner than the manufacturer, who presumably wrote the driver already installed on the system?
I give you the alternative: Linux package dependency nightmare.
Probably for the same reason Daemon Tools doesn't add any hardware but still installs drivers? They're required for the software to function properly.
Daemon Tools needs to install drivers because it is adding fake hardware -- a fake CD drive that needs to be indistinguishable from a real one so that it can circumvent physical copy protection. I'd be surprised if iTunes needs to do the same thing.
Perhaps not the same thing, but it would seem that we have opposite assertions both based on assumptions. I don't think this is going anywhere ;)
iPhone 3G and now this
Apple are under pressure, these are not minor bugs, these are major issues
I guess they are pushing their products way before they are ready for a global release.
Apple are under pressure, these are not minor bugs, these are major issues
I guess they are pushing their products way before they are ready for a global release.
Apple just shits over the Windows platform once again with its software releases.
Intentional or not? I don't know, but this is hardly news.
Intentional or not? I don't know, but this is hardly news.
I share your respect for Apple's products (and contempt for Windows).
But this is a bit like all those sites where they have helpfully selected five different "Yes, please spam me!" boxes for you when registering.
But this is a bit like all those sites where they have helpfully selected five different "Yes, please spam me!" boxes for you when registering.
Except there's no option to un-check a box in this situation. This just -is- the practice of malware, and should not be accepted.
Oh? That's just weird..
I haven't used iTunes myself, by the way - I buy CDs for the sound quality.
Sorry for the misinformed post.
I haven't used iTunes myself, by the way - I buy CDs for the sound quality.
Sorry for the misinformed post.
excellent article. seems like if Apple wants to maintain their marketshare with Windows users they had better beat a trail to solving this problem. I'd be curious to find out what percentage of iPod users (and iTunes music store users) use Mac vs. Windows. I know people who avoid the iPod because you can't fill it up easily without iTunes.
The new iPod touch has to be activated (like the iPhone) with iTunes before you can use it.
The one I saw today couldn't be used because activation depended on a firmware update, and iTunes kept crashing before the update could complete.
The one I saw today couldn't be used because activation depended on a firmware update, and iTunes kept crashing before the update could complete.
I personally think iTunes sucks for playing music. I definitely prefer Winamp instead, but unfortunately there isn't a Winamp build for OS X that I know of. If not for easy iPod syncing, I wouldn't use iTunes at all.
What I find interesting is this: The music player has become a huge pivot point. Itunes is (theoretically) one of the reasons ipods have made it.
None of the pre-ipod desktop players really got much out of their previous positions.
Imagine if in the first few ipod years, scandisk, sony or some unknown had come to market with an ipod that uses winamp as its itunes. half the price & just use whatever software you were using before. That would have been a big gun in the arsenal. It was already popular with the right people to buy mp3 players (people who had mp3s), already proved to be nice to use (lots of people used it).
Instead, they used their own crappy software that no one in a million years would choose to use if it wasn't for the damn mp3 player they got when they where too cheap to go for an ipod.
None of the pre-ipod desktop players really got much out of their previous positions.
Imagine if in the first few ipod years, scandisk, sony or some unknown had come to market with an ipod that uses winamp as its itunes. half the price & just use whatever software you were using before. That would have been a big gun in the arsenal. It was already popular with the right people to buy mp3 players (people who had mp3s), already proved to be nice to use (lots of people used it).
Instead, they used their own crappy software that no one in a million years would choose to use if it wasn't for the damn mp3 player they got when they where too cheap to go for an ipod.
Actually when the first ipod (1st and 2nd) gen came out, it was simply miles ahead of any of the competition. It had more than 128mb of storage data and it fitted in your pocket (there was one alternative from creative which, well, didn't fit in your pocket)
It came with a horrible mp3 manager until itunes was ported to windows a few years later, but I was okay with that since the ipod was so awesome.
The device was way more important than the software.
It came with a horrible mp3 manager until itunes was ported to windows a few years later, but I was okay with that since the ipod was so awesome.
The device was way more important than the software.
I didn't know about the original software.
But I was talking about the point when the alternative devices were just as good but with no advantage other then price & a software disadvantage.
But I was talking about the point when the alternative devices were just as good but with no advantage other then price & a software disadvantage.
Now that's just silly. You clearly didn't use both the 1st generation iPod and its competitors.
I fiddled around with the Creative Jukebox or whatever it was called before buying the first iPod: the forward next buttons barely worked, the LCD could barely fit the name of a single track on the screen, and the entire UI was barely responsive. The click wheel for scrolling, the large LCD, the great battery life, the incredible form factor... the iPod was 5 years ahead of the competitors.
There were the Rios which were well made, but that was a different league... they were more akin to the shuffle.
And to top it all off, I was using Windows at the time, so it was at a software disadvantage. I had to use some hacky 3rd party, unsupported software to even sync the thing.
I fiddled around with the Creative Jukebox or whatever it was called before buying the first iPod: the forward next buttons barely worked, the LCD could barely fit the name of a single track on the screen, and the entire UI was barely responsive. The click wheel for scrolling, the large LCD, the great battery life, the incredible form factor... the iPod was 5 years ahead of the competitors.
There were the Rios which were well made, but that was a different league... they were more akin to the shuffle.
And to top it all off, I was using Windows at the time, so it was at a software disadvantage. I had to use some hacky 3rd party, unsupported software to even sync the thing.
Reminds me of another media company that took over your system up upgrades .. any remember RealNetworks?