Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaolinite | Hacker News Reader

You either install iTunes or you use someone else. Apple aren't interested in catering to 100 different music applications and 1000 different music devices - either join the ecosystem and gain the advantages, or don't. That strategy doesn't sit well with some people but for most consumers, it's the easiest way to get songs on their phone reliably and in good quality. The same also goes for films, TV shows, etc, with Apple TV.

I agree though, the iTunes software is pretty awful and even worse on Windows I hear.

View on HN

> Apple aren't interested in catering to 100 different music applications and 1000 different music devices

They don't really have to. Put up a storefront on the web like every other 21st century company and let people download mp3s and flacs and they're good to go.

A simple mp3->iDevice utility is all it would take to simplify importing onto a device and even better you should just be able to cloudplay purchased iTunes songs on your iDevice and/or download/push to the device directly.

iTunes serves almost no purpose in a modern world.

You're saying this as if Apple is some naive newcomer to the world of online music.

> iTunes serves almost no purpose in a modern world.

Seriously? iTunes invented modern online music distribution. It singlehandedly heralded in the age of digital music distribution.

Just because you don't like the fact that you can't download music from them without using their (very good, in my experience) music player doesn't mean it's useless or their strategy is broken.

They know exactly what you've outlined, and they knew it long before you did. Why don't they do it? Because it's antithetical to their business model. Simple as that.

> Because it's antithetical to their business model. Simple as that.

I agree. Their model is built around locking consumers into this artificial and, these days, complete unnecessary workflow.

The next model Apple will have to go to is simple, the competitors are already there: iTunes on the web, cloud stream to your iDevice. But even then this will only work so long as iTunes continues to offer exclusive content that you can't get elsewhere, and that's also rapidly diminshing . As a content provider would you like to be locked into one platform or show up on as many as possible?

> iTunes invented modern online music distribution.

So? Their model is now, quite frankly and charitably, old fashioned. The only current purpose of which these days is to try and keep people from fleeing to other, better, platforms.

> The only current purpose of which these days is to try and keep people from fleeing to other, better, platforms.

I can't refute this claim any more than you can back it up, so lets not waste our fingers on an argument about it. I agree with everything else you said, though.

Honest question though, and not meant to be argumentative (you already know my thinking on it). What does iTunes do for consumers that the other competing methods (online storefront, stream cloud to device, etc.) don't?

I'd imagine its for these couple reasons.

1.) None of the iPod's except the touch have WiFi or any internet connectivity. Can't stream cloud to device if theres no connection.

2.) Infrastructure. Consider for a second that albums routinely push 100+MB, and think about pushing that over 3G/LTE. Telcos will make a fuss, etc. Yeah you can force downloading only over WiFi, but then again whats the point? iTunes already has WiFi sync, and to most people that would be the exact same thing.

3.) iTunes is already there and most people already have it installed. If you don't like it, you can also use the online store on the phone.

What it starts boiling down to, is Apple is going to spend x-y million dollars building an online marketplace for some people who don't want to install iTunes.

What does an online storefront do for consumers that iTunes doesn't?

Provide a great experience.

Trying to explain to my parents how to get a music file from their browser downloads folder into iTunes would be challenging to say the least. However saying just click this button to Buy and it will be in your Recently Added playlist is much easier.

Perhaps it's a matter of taste but I was thinking yesterday that the iTunes app reminds of the old dial-in AOL.

What iTunes does is provide music from multiple publishers which you can buy with one click at which point the media is loaded onto all your players without requiring you to jump through hoops such as manually syncing file systems.

> iTunes invented modern online music distribution. I believe it was actually Napster, who invented modern distribution :)

Now seriously - iTunes is kinda OK-ish, but web purchase/download could only increase their customer base. Their whole ecosystem works nicely, but I believe that customers will soon require more open approach rather than tying everything to one platform.

you're forgetting that all of Apple's digital storefronts , online services exist for only one reason - as accessories and support systems to their hardware ( Macs and iGadgets ). The only reason iTunes on Windows exists is to increase the addressable market for iPods, iPhones and iPads ( not to increase the addressable market of the iTunes Store itself - but it comes as a side effect of the first one).

True, although such strict lock-in seems to be counter-productive. For example - I have iPad (and love reading on it), but I never buy books on iBooks Store. I use amazon instead, because I can easily strip DRM and convert to any format I want and read anywhere I want (should I ever buy different device). iBooks books are tied to apple devices for ever.

This strategy may work for now, but I don't think it's viable in a long term and apple always seemed to prefer bigger picture rather than pursue immediate profits.

It is long-term. Opening up iBooks to any device or just being available on the web would increase profits immediately. Building out the ecosystem is the long-term part.

> Just because you don't like the fact that you can't download music from them without using their (very good, in my experience) music player doesn't mean it's useless or their strategy is broken.

Oh, I don't have any animus against the player. While I preferred lighter weight players that support more formats and are easier to customize, foobar, classic winamp, and amarok, Apple definitely made some gains in usability, simplifying the experience for the commodity consumer.

I love it when they compete on features, I'm just depressed and frustrated by any company that tries to win through lock in.

It's an old quote now, but it still lines up pretty well with my feelings: "The paradigm of competition is a race:by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies--such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will all finish late."

I understand why companies do these things, just as I understand why people steal or commit fraud. I just wish they wouldn't, that's all.

You mean Napster "invented" online [music] distribution.

I came here to make this very same comment; glad to see it had already been posted.

The pirate industry was light years ahead of anything the corporates were doing. All Apple did was convince the music labels to allow them to distribute their music digitally.

The digital download market has succeeded in spite of iTunes, not because of it.

There wasn't a market before Apple and there probably wouldn't be one today if Apple, or someone of equal clout, hadn't created that market.

I agree with my 2 siblings. Itunes served a purpose, but that's long gone. If they would at least allow direct downloads to their devices, I might have less gripes with them, but as it stands...

I must be misunderstanding, this works for me on my iphone

Almost nobody wants to manually drag music files from a web browser's download manager into some app. There are exceptions, but Apple almost certainly doesn't care about those users.

You can already download iTunes songs directly from iOS devices if you wish - it's been possible since 2008, IIRC.

iTunes doesn't exist to sell music.

iTunes exists to give you a reason to buy into, and/or stay in, the Apple ecosystem - to wit, sell Apple hardware.

Apple has zero interest in providing anything that doesn't sell more hardware. They're not going to prevent it (ex.: someone buying & playing music on iTunes on Windows), but they understand that everything they do must serve the core: sell hardware.

> either join the ecosystem and gain the advantages, or don't.

Yar - har - fiddle-dee-dee....

I can't decide if I'm happy or embarrassed to have caught this reference. (I assume it was a reference to Patchy the Pirate, right?)

It's actually from this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLMJpHihykI

Haha yup, the pirate in that video's name is Patchy the Pirate :)

> for most consumers, it's the easiest way to get songs on their phone reliably and in good quality

If and only if they only use iDevices. Otherwise it is easier and cheaper to go elsewhere.

Well yes. iTunes is a service first and foremost for Apple customers. That's why they care so little about supporting Android, etc. No other platform/ecosystem is as straight-forward however, although Google is getting better now that it has Chromecast.

>No other platform/ecosystem is as straight-forward however

I would argue that both the Google Play ecosystem and Amazon's media ecosystem are just as integrated and easy to use as Apple's.

They're getting there but I don't think they're quite there yet. Amazon has no presence on TV or (afaik) desktop, besides web which is pretty poor for music (i.e. no AirPlay integration, no media keys). Google has Chromecast now which is a really good step forward but it's more about streaming seemingly. GoogleTV was a bit of a flop.

Both Google and Amazon are catching up and offer very good services (which may cover your uses - e.g. if you don't use your laptop for music or don't stream music), however they don't offer quite as much as Apple as of yet. Can't wait to see what they bring out over the next few years though.

"Amazon has no presence on TV"

Whatever do you mean? Amazon instant video is right up there with Hulu and Netflix for on-line content. There are apps on my iPhone and my Roku. iTunes can't say that.

Ah, I'm speaking from a UK perspective there. I'd forgotten they were doing TV stuff in the US. I don't think that's available here.

Amazon are quite active in the UK video market; they own LoveFilm, after all.

Edit: removed dupes. Sorry about that.

>No other platform/ecosystem is as straight-forward however

I laughed my ass off when two off my colleagues lost all of their music while trying to format their computer or phone.

That's what goes for straight forward nowadays I guess.

iTunes is a pretty low-margin service; it's really there to shift iPods and iPhones, not to make money as a store.

It also means there's a cost to buying outside of the Apple ecosystem. I was downloading some previously purchased albums to a new device a couple days ago and couldn't find one in my "Purchased Items" that I knew I had purchased. Turns out, I had got it for half the price on Amazon a while back, but by the time I realized that, I wished I would have just paid the full iTunes price so that I could have re-downloaded it from iTunes like all the others.

I don't get why people hate on iTunes so much (on Mac - on Windows, sure, it sucks, because porting Cocoa to Windows is not only hard but dumb). I've used it since version 1, and have moved the same library forward since - over a decade, and through 11 versions of iTunes. There were some dark times, but it still runs fine for me, and does what it needs to do; simply, manage my digital media and shuttling it between my iPhone, iPad or AppleTV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com