What the death of iTunes says about digital habits
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Please explain. What is is missing? I find that it works pretty well. Is was one of its main selling point at the time and its interface spread throughout the OS: Finder, Spotlight, System Preferences, etc
I use it as the old 2000s versions, no album cover stuff
I was just browsing my library today and it's a tragedy how bad it got...
Haven't made the jump to Catalina just yet. Mostly because of Sizzling Keys (control iTunes from system wide keyboard shortcuts)
I think the trick is to set “filter by all” on the search field, but there might be some other preference setting somewhere.
I can't imagine successfully staffing a giant monolithic application. I think it would be hard to get job satisfaction working on a tiny piece of an app with decades of cruft.
Most apps like this are several orders of magnitude larger than say, the linux kernel.
But I mean that's not true. I suspect the reason it was such a behemoth was because Apple wanted it to be the gateway and gatekeeper to both acquiring media and transferring it to the device.
Like Spotify manages to do quite well for itself without being the monstrosity that iTunes became. I'd guess that the foundation of Apple's garden walls is also the source of their technical debt.
Hmm, not really. I took a brief look at the UI during the Catalina beta and concluded that I wanted nothing to do with it. I have spent years learning how to use iTunes well. I'm not about to throw away that investment of time and energy on a new, untested app with a different UI. I'll stick with iTunes to manage my music library. Catalina will have to wait, probably forever.
Come on, now. Think of the poor product managers, the struggling UX researchers and designers. How are they going to make their careers off of minor upgrades tied down to past investments of users?
Fortunately, that disappearance was only temporary. It returned in 10.15.2.
Select "Songs" in the left sidebar, and a "Column Browser" submenu will be added to the View menu. Turn it on (⌘B), and you get a nice, no-nonsense, high information density view of your collection, letting you quickly filter by genre, artist, and album. Right click on a column heading and you can add columns for composer and grouping or remove columns.
That said, of all the people you know in the Apple ecosystem, how many people know/do the following: know what an id3 tag is, manage the metadata of their digital audio content, listen to audiobooks. Maybe I'm wrong, but most non-nerds I know don't and would not ever want to think about 1 and 2. Plenty of people who fall into 3, but again all people who don't like or work in tech that I know use audible or the public library or some other service.
I like so much about Apple products, but my big and growing fear is that my needs and the needs of the kind of person who edits ID3 tags are constantly being subsumed by the much larger portion of their customer base that has no need and no desire be involved in anything like editing file metadata.
Of course I have no idea if this is reflected in the world-wide breakdown of Mac users, but I'd be surprised if the 'programmer' category isn't sizable enough that it's kind of silly (in a typical Apple way) to ignore them.
It’s hard for me to believe that Apple is or even can dedicate the resources I want want to the laptop/desktop line when iPhones alone make 80% of their revenue. I’ve mostly switched to linux with a windows box when needed.
You could say the same thing about using the Terminal.app - removing everything but the most widely and commonly used features is a foolish strategy. The sum of all niche audiences still makes up a significant user base.
That said, even as someone that carefully maintains a rather large and growing local music collection I'd almost agree with you and be fine with a stripped down Apple Music app since anyone serious about that interest probably uses one of the superior and more in-depth music management options out there. However iTunes/Apple Music is still required to sync that music to your iOS device. So while I'd have no problem completely replacing iTunes/Music.app with any of the more feature-complete options I can't. I have to use it, even if it's just for syncing and apparently it has lost quite a few features since Catalina (haven't upgraded yet).
In other words: If Apple doesn't care about the kind of users that maintains a local music library they shouldn't hold them hostage by only allowing to sync said library via their otherwise barebone app. It just means I have to manage my content in 2 locations.
You’ve got the obvious “manage my music files on this device” part. Then you’ve got the “manage my music files as part of this iCloud library” part. Then you’ve got “stream music from the subscription service” part. It’s actually quite hard to make playlists and stuff since, over time, people start to lose track of what form they have the rights to any particular song.
I don’t agree at all. While iTunes was feature rich and relatively stable, the replacements are relatively feature poor and quite unstable. Apple should’ve taken another year to introduce the replacements.
The Podcasts/TV/Books apps that got split out OTOH I believe are all iOS ports
Wow.
You could take NeXT back to Thompson & Ritchie. NeXTStep as ur-Aqua is also a fair argument, but again, not occurring on mainline Mac generally. By that argument Classic Mac might be traced to the Alto and MOAD.
according to wikipedia classic MacOS was partially based on Lisa OS, whereas OS X is nothing more or less than a full port of NeXTStep with a slight visual update. i have used both. they are the same UI. the difference is cosmetic. it's the same code too. i believe the kernel has changed more than the UI layer.
the question is not the spiritual ancestors but how old the code is that is still in use today. and i belive that if we look we'll find some Objective-C code in OS X today that goes all the way back to the first versions of NeXTStep.
The question about DRM-free, lossless music sources comes up again and again, but personally I think it has never been easier to purchase digital, lossless, DRM-free music from countless stores. My favorites include:
- Bandcamp
- Boomkat
- Qobuz (particularly useful for mainstream music)
- Bleep
- 7Digital
- Juno Download
Boomkat: See above, except I've not personally used it. Also downloads seem to be a one time thing, sounds like you need to ask support for a limited number of redownloads?
Bleep: Limited selection, but has at least some
7Digital, Qobuz: Actually pretty ok, I'll have to check them out in the future.
> Boomkat: See above, except I've not personally used it. Also downloads seem to be a one time thing, sounds like you need to ask support for a limited number of redownloads?
How many redownloads do you think you need? All your purchased releases stay with your account, ready to be downloaded at any time again and while I had to re-download some of them repeatedly due to network errors on my end I never ran into any download limits. Should be a non-issue.
> you could not remove a single grain of sand from its place, without thereby, although perhaps imperceptibly to you, altering something throughout all parts of the immeasurable whole
Funny how "intuitive" interfaces must regress to ideas that must be over half a century old by now just to work properly.
So I am like you. I religiously arrange my home screens (iPhone and iPad) but just use `fzf` and other similar software pieces (like `helm` for Emacs) for pretty much anything on my Macs.
I am also pondering paying for Alfred for macOS. I hear it's a fantastic piece with a similar search-centric idea in its heart.
Though I guess I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that most people have incredibly low standards for their computing devices.
It used to be that I found apps by typing in a few letters. Lately, however, I’m more likely to find an app by pulling down the search mode on my iPad and then tapping one of the suggested apps.
That shows to me that there are definitely better ways to organize and present apps to users that haven’t been tried enough.
It's too bad because when it was just an app to manage your music library it was clean, easy to use and logical. When it had to manage the kitchen sink of crap that Apple piled into it and morphed into a syncing app first and music player/library management became a secondary (or lower) priority, it never had a chance.
Strong disagreement here: I always found iTunes to be the poster child of incompetent design. It's design was a good fit for stuffing a lot of functionality into because it was never coherent or usable to begin with.
Only now it's split up to two different apps, once of which is laughably unfinished but otherwise continues to do the job.
Meanwhile, after 5 1/2 years and $578, I cancelled my Netflix subscription and have no intention to ever start it up again.
Dead, indeed.
Also, I use it to have a full backup of my phone. I have hundreds of gigs of photos and videos I don't want to lose, and you can only backup everything if you use your computer.
...except for waiting (several) hours re-downloading things and blasting out the data limits on one’s broadband plan. A local sync with a computer has been much faster for me all the time when setting up a new phone.
> So what really failed, maybe, wasn’t iTunes at all…
At which point whatever substance he's abused to get that far really kicks in for his final point.
> In 1940, the German critic Walter Benjamin wrote about an angel in a Paul Klee painting. […] It is now clear, 80 years later, that the angel is looking at his phone.
Sheesh.
In fact... someone on HN in 2014 claimed that Benjamin was a "postmodernist" too, and they were quickly shut down on that claim[1].
Found your problem.
So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists says very little about the value of their positions to non-literary fields. There may have been a fact of the matter as to whether Walter Benjamin really was an inspiration for post-modernism or if he's merely confined to modernism, but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.
This is patently false if you read any critical theory, in which reaching the truth on a matter is taken much more seriously than any literary aim. You can claim that mainstream critical theory didn't or isn't reaching the truth, but it's a wild claim to say it makes no attempt to do so. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me.
>So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists
Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists - it's not only critical theorists in some kind of secret club where they all congratulate each other. They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions.
>but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.
They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).
That's pretty hard to distinguish from "just" literature; of course not all literature is fictional or journalistic. But neither criticism nor aesthetics are particularly bounded in their ability to make negative or positive claims due to the flexibility of interpretation of background assumptions that both pancritical + justificationist disciplines rely on. It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such.
This is why I doubt the claim that there is a central truth that critical theorists are attempting to discover when their methods are designed to be as disputative or ambiguating as possible. Even if we're in a position where no assumption can be taken for granted in the end, productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action, and perform interventions which can maximally orient the institution towards further action. Subversiveness stalls except in how it wants to prevent such institutions from prolonging themselves.
> Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists
Are they all trained out of the Frankfurt school by any chance? Yes they're sometimes worth responding to, no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end.
> They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).
I am earnestly interested in learning more about non-postmodern critical theorists. The pragmatists of the freshwater school (Sellars and Brandom mainly) are the only people on the top of my head that sing that note due to the way they deal seriously with the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind. But that's analytic philosophy assimilating continental philosophy rather than the other way around, which I'm more sympathetic to precisely because analytics tend to want to bound critique rather than produce more critique for its own sake (i.e. subversion as an ends).
It's very hard for me to read that as anything but a good thing. It's one thing to say that critical theory has no value, but it's another thing to say its only value is subversion. Nevertheless, if what you're saying is true, then there is no better critic of critical theory than critical theory itself. There are central principles of critical theory (and Horkheimer wrote a whole book about it), and there are results produced by critical theory that the authors present as true (sociologists have taken up the concept of the culture industry and Marcuse's idea of one-dimensionality, for instance). I'm skeptical of the idea that CT is subversive of any tendency - no critical theorist repudiated empirical investigation, for instance. When they do criticize, they don't want to completely do away (Adorno had praise for the enlightenment project). Habermas has been one of the loudest voices against "postmodernism".
> productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action
That's true, but if critical theorists do not question these working goals and assumptions, and the very nature of instrumental reason, who will? It seems to make much more sense, for human emancipation and rationality, to examine what we take for granted and against what background we're working. "Maximally orienting towards further action" is precisely the uncritical approach CTs stand against, where in the same breath we guide the Ministry of War "maximally" towards "further action".
>no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end.
Not only do professional philosophers of all stripes disagree, but career activists agree - a famous critical theorist (lowercase) once said that philosophers had hitherto only interpreted the world; the point is to change it.
>the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind
Scientific inquiry has many prerequisites, Hegel himself a harsh critic of pure empiricism. The difference in prerequisites is what gives rise to the Anglophone science and the German Wissenschaft.
If the point of critical theory, which since you pointed me to Wikipedia I'll quote "[is] to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them", and some class of those circumstances are the beliefs and institutions we take for granted, why shouldn't I claim that the goal of critical theory (at least per Horkeimer) is to be subersive of these beliefs and institutions? Or are there self-claimed critical theorists who propose a criterion inconsistent with this goal?
Likewise if it's critical theory best addressing critical theory then surely we should leave the critical theorists to discuss among themselves. No need for anyone else to get involved if the activists are right.
> "Maximally orienting towards further action" is precisely the uncritical approach CTs stand against, where in the same breath we guide the Ministry of War "maximally" towards "further action".
It isn't uncritical! What I'm pointing at is that achieving something within the scope of both (a) clear, explicit commitments with (b) shared interests and backgrounds establishes together good-faith interlocution and a line of distinction of what possible worlds two disagreeing interlocutors within the same frame are committing to (since the frame doesn't have to be completely specified). If there is an intervention that distinguishes which of these sets of worlds are the actual world, then you've gained information.
Issues come when you don't decide to create commonalities between yourselves in a debate. It gives room for at least one of these interlocutors to not accept or gain any information due to it being possible to shift their commitments by loosening up the interpretation of the evidence. Good-faith/intellectual honesty is the only hedge I know against this and it means understanding what you won't simply leave up to interpretation because it allows something to go wrong.
You're still allowed to have dialectic here but it's dialectic that advances through the solution of problems rather than the production of non-evidentialised counter-interpretation, which are almost always possible to produce at the verbal level.
> Scientific inquiry has many prerequisites, Hegel himself a harsh critic of pure empiricism. The difference in prerequisites is what gives rise to the Anglophone science and the German Wissenschaft.
After the Duhem-Quine thesis it's been pretty clear to Anglo-American schools that observations are theory-laden which is why Pragmatism caught on, and is still being worked on to this day by the likes of Sellars, Brandom, McDowell, Wimsatt, Laudan, Van Fraasen... I don't believe any of them are going to be overtly spiteful of Hegel as all of them are dealing with science as a social activity to some extent or another and the structuralist/constructivist/intersubjective theses that get pulled into there. But they all feature prescriptive programmes which are meant to enable the solution of problems, which once again in my mind points to a standard of inquiry that can be truth-finding versus continual deconstructions.
I'm not sure what "difference in prerequisites" is pointing to but would hope you would elaborate.
For the car it's basically local NPR but I don't drive much.
The iTunes Store app is used to buy music on iOS.
The Music app has an iTunes Store section as well.
You can disable even being shown Apple Music (the subscription service) to both of those apps.
You can sync locally just like your iPod, but on Catalina that functionality has been moved to Finder. But I believe you can initialize a music or photo sync in the respective apps as well.
Audiobooks have moved out of iTunes (music) and into the Booms app.
Not really that much has changed besides organization. And the changes have been a good idea, IMO.
...and has for 10 years.
...so Apple - let us manage our own digital media.