iTunes is Anti-Web

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

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…

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

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.

Or at least they did - haven’t been back since I found that out.

yep, Amarok is awesome.
I love hooking it into for radio play by artist or category groupings.

with Wine and Amarok, no one should have any need for windows or mac.


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…

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 :slight_smile: Apple have just lost out on 25 of my hard earned cash! lol :stuck_out_tongue:

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, 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?