Somebody Has To Say It: It’s Time For iTunes Lite | Hacker News Reader

Somebody Has To Say It: It’s Time For iTunes Lite

techcrunch.com

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide a compelling reason why those features shouldn't be in iTunes if you want to make this argument. "I don't need them" isn't good enough.

Is 88MB too much for you to download? Is it too much to store on your hard disk? Is that "Burn Disk" button in the bottom right when you're viewing a playlist too distracting? Is the UI hard to navigate now with all these features? Is the "Share on Facebook" contextual menu item getting in your way when you're trying to listen to music?

All of those things (and more) could be potential arguments against adding those features to iTunes. However, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of iTunes users would answer "no" to every one of those questions. Apple has done a great job of adding features to iTunes without sacrificing much usability at all. If you click the button that hides the Genius bar, then the main screen is still just a list of playlists on the left, and your music library in the main pane. Pretty simple.

Thousands of other people use and love those features. People love Macs because they don't need a separate application to burn CDs. Have you forgotten what a refreshing experience it is for a PC user to use a Mac for the first time and realize that it does everything they want out of the box?

Presenting users with a set of checkboxes during install is one of the worst things you could possibly do. That's a usability nightmare. It's like setting a trap for your users. How do they know which components they need? How can they be sure it will work if they don't install all the components? What if they choose incorrectly and want to install more components later? Is that possible? The lack of these types of installers is yet another breath of fresh air when you switch to Mac OS X. In most cases you just drag the app into your Applications folder.

Apple's applications need to work for ordinary people, not just techies. If you're going to accuse Apple of getting usability wrong, you better be a legitimate expert and have a compelling argument.

There are some good points in this comment. Still, have you watched over the shoulder of a non-techie trying to use a recent version of iTunes? Accomplishing many goals, like configuring what content ends up on your iPod, is remarkably confusing for several people I've observed (and then helped).

I'd just suggest that the number of installs of iTunes doesn't necessarily correlate to user satisfaction. If you own an iPod or iPhone, you have essentially no choice but to use iTunes, particularly if you're not technically inclined enough to investigate alternatives. Apple has a captive audience for iTunes.

I think you're right. Apple is daisy-chaining each one of its products to get more and more users. The iPod/iPhone requires iTunes, which requires Quicktime and Webkit, and which (on one occasion) was bundled with Safari.

Because Apple has a captive audience, their usual aesthetic of hiding everything complex and letter the power user discover things has given over to the profit motive. Apple has an incentive to showcase features like the Genius Sidebar right off the bat, because Genius links into the iTunes Music Store.

I read an interesting article on Steve Jobs and the original design of the iDVD application: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/28/idvd_hung_out_...

The key bit for me was in this quote:

Evangelist and a group of Astarte developers described pitching the simplified app concept to Steve Jobs. "Jobs never glanced at their presentation," the article noted. "Instead, he walked up to a whiteboard and drew a square. This is the program, he said. Users will drag their movies here to create DVD menus. Then they'll click 'burn.' That's it. 'I don't want to hear anything about drawers or pop-out' windows, he said."

Seems like Steve needs to take his own hypercritical hatchet to iTunes. (http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2009/05/hypercritical.a...). It would be just in time for iTunes X (pron. iTunes ten).

That is because all these devices center around media.

Note, iMovie, iPhoto, Garage Band, Final Cut, are separate, because they would not make sense as part of iTunes (but they do integrate beautifully with iTunes).

It honestly took me 10 minutes to figure out how to create a "Genius Mix" yesterday. Somehow I don't feel that going "Store > Update Genius" is the most usable way to activate a new feature... I really doubt my Mom would have ever figured that one out.

I think we're actually approaching the problem from the wrong direction. For me, I don't want those features in iTunes because I feel that those features are hindered by being shoved into iTunes, not necessarily the other way around.

Examples:

* (As I stated in another thread): I wish the iTunes store was just on the web. Being inside of iTunes, I get a "web like" experience that is encumbered. I can't open multiple tabs, and this often drives me crazy. On Amazon.com, or any online store, I'm often given lots of suggestions, good suggestions. I like to open them up in lots of tabs and then read them one by one, or just keep them around until later. Can't do it on the iTunes store! Also, it is often difficult to get links to items. ALSO, why should I only be allowed to see the store essentially when at home on my iTunes? If it was on the web, I could browser, get the link, email it to myself, and make the purchase when I get home. If they want to force you to buy through iTunes, they could still make a custom URL that popped iTunes open just for the downloading portion.

* Movies and TV Shows. The management of these just kind of sucks on iTunes, and the reason is because this is MUSIC player, and music organization is very different to video organization. They are forced into this music metaphor which works well for songs, but not at all for videos. Had Apple integrated this into Quicktime or something else, it may have been much better.

More importantly, it sucks for playing videos. With other video players, I can full screen and not have my other screens go black. Can't do it on iTunes. Again, I believe this is a function of being a jack of all trades and a master of none.

* Preferences for EVERYTHING. There's all sorts of different preferences and options in iTunes and they're confusing because you're actually managing 7 programs, not 1. And even still, some prefs are left out (like the movie ones for example) because then it would be even more overwhelming.

I don't even want to get into the fact that iTunes even talks to xcode (!!!!) to do all the iPhone SDK stuff and all the headaches that brings.

Let's not kid ourselves, adding all this stuff into iTunes was not some sort of "design decision". Apple got iTunes onto enough computers, so now if they want them to see new Apple stuff they are going to put it in iTunes. Logical enough from a business perspective, but it sucks from a program perspective.

Let's just clarify...

So your argument is:

  "Apple did all the research and has been successful in design before, 
  so you must be wrong if you dislike it."

And your suggestions are:

  1. people should just live without the 88MB
  even if they don't use it.

  2. visually ignore pieces of the ui 
  if you don't use them.

  3. configure your view to be simpler (as 
  opposed to starting simple and configuring 
  your view to be complex)

I think if I stick your response in the un-jerk-ificatilator, the tranlation is:

  "I like those extra features and I bet 
  you could configure your view to be more simple.  
  Maybe Apple could add an easier way than the 
  checkboxes Winamp had.  Have a good day."

Ah, much better.

I never use the Help menu item / feature in any app. But I don't demand that it be removed because of the tyranny of the creator's design decisions which they deem correct for their overall audience.

Most of the software I run on my Mac is not from Apple. While I consider myself as a techie/nerd/geek, most of my friends who are on Macs are not. And yet, most of them are running non-Apple software on their Macs.

Sorry to hear that you're stuck on Apple usability, but we've moved on.

I have a mac but don't use ITunes because the playlist management is so poor. I use the mac port of Amarok instead. It's playlist management is way better for my needs.

I don't use the ITunes store, don't have an IPhone, and want to play my music in formats that ITunes doesn't support. So for me when it comes to playing Music the Mac most emphatically doesnt do what I want out of the box. Granted I'm not the average user but still there's nothing wrong with wanting a music player that is just a music player.

For people like me ITunes is just wasted Disk space since it has so few features I want and doesn't support many of the ones I do like.

I used to create playlists for everything, but I realized that I was compensating with synthetic metadata for the lack of natural metadata attached to my files. By actually making use of the secondary ID3 tags (Genre, Rating, Kind, Play Count, Skip Count, Compilation?, Disc Number, and other such fields), and making sure they all have correct values, I find that I never have to make playlists, only fulltext-search-then-sort (which iTunes is very good at.) I say this as someone with 28000 listened songs :)

Amarok has similar functionality. With the added benefit of song queueing. So if I want to listen to a particular song without killing my playlist it's easy. And queuing a particular song to be next can influence the dynamic playlist allowing me to have one playlist that changes throughout the day to match my current mood/desires. Itunes doesn't have this feature and doesn't seem likely to anytime in the future.

yeah but it's so hard to get good metadata these days.

It'd be nice if iTunes did some sort of MusicBrainz thing.

I don't usually like techcrunch but this hit the spot for me. Itunes is broken for my (simple) needs. A 'lite' option that is basically a file manager would be very welcome.

Install mpd & theremin (https://theremin.sigterm.eu/)

(I'm sure there's a similar windows client if that's your thing.)

edit: alternatively, picoplay (http://www.kronenberg.org/picoplay/)

VLC?

I've never liked iTunes.

Thanks for the tip - I'll check VLC out.

Take a look at Ecoute[1], a minimalistic player which uses your iTunes library as a source. It's a lightweight iTunes replacement for me.

[1] http://www.ecouteapp.com/

thx! I was looking for something like that. I don't like to open iTunes everytime I want to listen to 3 songs.

Try winamp. Loved it. Still do so. It's simple and the search feature is good (and fast)!

You can always double click on your .mp3 in your file system browser, no?

That's far less convenient than a searchable bank of music that plays consecutively.

i.e. iTunes.

Yep!

Problem is, iTunes is so good at what it does (in terms of satisfaction, anyway) that it's got no real Mac competitor, so that the people like me who get pissed off at small things like not looking like a goddamn toy don't have anything to switch to. If only I could code.

Just let it go; enjoy your music, podcasts, videos, iPhone apps.

I do. I'm an outspoken supporter of Apple. It's just that such a significant UI downgrade feels a little like a betrayal.

you could always.. just.. you know.. not upgrade

Nope - it will copy them to an iTunes music folder and play them from there. Then it will continue playing in alphabetical order from that song on.

That's just a preference.

Check out Preferences / Advanced: - Keep iTunes Media folder organized; AND - Copy files to iTunes Media folder when adding to library

I agree that iTunes needs reworking, but I don't believe a Lite version is the answer.

I'd rather see Apple rethink the entire iTunes interface and try to rebuild it while making it simpler - think iMovie '09 or the iPhone. Asking for a Lite version sounds similar to Henry Ford's customers wanting a faster horse - it doesn't fix the underlying problems.

This is exactly why I run Rockbox on my iPod. I can now use simple folder-organization to sort my music and have it show up exactly the same way on my iPod! I hated having one organizational structure on the disk and an entirely different one when I opened iTunes. Who knows if the ID3 tags in all my various mp3s are correct, standardized, or contain the information I would need to find them? In iTunes, I'd often have to go back to my folders to find a file, figure out how that file was tagged, then go back to iTunes and find it again!

When I find mp3s online or get them from friends, I never bother to edit their ID3 tags, but I often sort them using a simple tree-structure that's built into almost every device called a file system. I'm used to storing documents, photos, and source code this way. Why should I learn a new way just for one app? If my files' ID3 tags were entered correctly or can be downloaded automatically, I'm happy of course, but when I make my own mp3's or find ones with empty tags I hardly ever bother to fix them. What's the use?

Isn't the whole premise of the iTunes approach that you shouldn't have to bother with folder structures? I mean, really, what's the advantage of doing that?

Isn't it better that you can literally just type in a keyword and the system shows you the matching music?

The advantage of a folder structure is that I know where my files are all the time. If I use another OS or copy files to another device, I can just browse through my files just like I'm on my own desktop. Rockbox also allows you to browse by ID3 tags, but I rarely use this. I have my own classification scheme that doesn't exactly fit with iTunes' artist/genre/album scheme. For example, in my spoken audio tree, I have two folders, one called "en", another called "ch". These are for English and Chinese respectively. Sometime, I have an file with Chinese audio, but an English filename. What could be easier than to have a folder for Chinese audio? There's only one thing that I can think of that could improve it, and that would be tagging. Sometimes I have a file that falls under more than one classification. If I could tag it with both that would be great. But this doesn't bother me enough to start using iTunes, which has too many annoyances.

0. BTW, you can tell iTunes NOT to copy your music into their folder structure. Check it out in Prefs.

1. Just use iTunes on both OS's. ;-)

2. In iTunes you can right click on an album, track, etc. and copy it elsewhere.

3. You can tag songs/albums/etc. multiple ways in iTunes.

I understand where you're coming from, that used to be me; but if you give up your compulsion to control every little (unnecessary) mechanical aspect of managing your media and just let iTunes does what it thinks is right, you'll see that it frees up your time.

0. I did that, but why can't I browse my folder structure within iTunes? Rockbox lets me do it.

1. What about Linux? Portable devices not made by Apple?

2. It's easier to drag a drop a directory or use cp -R /audio /media/mp3player than figure out iTunes' methods.

3. I give iTunes one star for that one. Hopefully next gen OS will give us the ability to tag files.

3. Fulltext-search applies to every column, even the not-so-often-filled-out ones. Try mentally reading "Genre" as "Tags"—works perfectly, both practically and semiotically, even when creating playlists. For example, I think I have a few songs from DDR in my library; their genre is "Dance Game Soundtrack". A few from some old japanese equivalent to MP3.com are Genre'd "Indie Asian-language Pop".

I do that too, but it doesn't work perfectly.

For instance, how do you select all your tracks with genre Game, without also getting "Love is a losing game", or creating a smart playlist.

0. Because why do you want to?

1. Uhm.

2. If you set iTunes NOT to copy music into the Library, then you can continue to manage your directory structure manually and do your command line tricks (or even drag & drop the folder visually). The only big limitation which will probably to continue drive you away from iTunes is point 0.

3. You can tag files in OS X. I don't think you can have unlimited number of tags though. (I don't use this feature).

Here's just a small example of the daily pain I face when I use itunes:

I recently ripped both the mono and stereo box sets of 2009 Beatles remasters. These are all in a proper hierarchical file structure, properly tagged with musicbrainz picard yet iTunes insists on merging both versions of each album and I get something like this:

  1. Taxman
  1. Taxman
  2. Eleanor Rigby
  2. Eleanor Rigby
  3. I'm Only Sleeping
  3. I'm Only Sleeping
  4. Love You To
  4. Love You To
  5. Here, There and Everywhere
  5. Here, There and Everywhere
  6. Yellow Submarine
  6. Yellow Submarine
  7. She Said She Said
  7. She Said She Said
  8. Good Day Sunshine
  8. Good Day Sunshine
  9. And Your Bird Can Sing
  9. And Your Bird Can Sing
  10. For No One
  10. For No One
  11. Doctor Robert
  11. Doctor Robert
  12. I Want to Tell You
  13. Got to Get You into My Life
  13. Got to Get You into My Life
  14. Tomorrow Never Knows
  14. Tomorrow Never Knows

and if you set the album names (or the 'grouping' field) to "Revolver (Mono)" and "Revolver (Stereo)" you wouldn't have that problem.

but those aren't the names of the albums.

edit: I had no idea about the 'grouping' tag. I'll have to give that a try, thanks.

another edit: okay 'grouping' is still useless if I choose to sort by album or album by year (preferred). I guess my only solution is to append (mono) and (stereo) to each album but I'm REALLY pissed I have to do this.

You could also set the Disc Number tag, if that's your fancy.

No. When I want a playlist, it's often not easy or not possible to find a search term that includes just the album I want, so I have to drag the album into a new playlist, which creates clutter. Playlist searching is great for finding a song but terrible for building a playlist.

Type in the name of the album? Or even the artist. If you're in Grid view (top right, next to search), you get pretty album art, you can simply drag & drop the album into your playlist.

The name of the album or the artist are the kind of "seems like it should work" that doesn't work. Lots of artists reuse album names as (all or part of) song names, or there'll be other metadata in the ID3 tags that happens to match an album by a different artist, or whatever.

Also, the grid view would be more useful if you did get album art for most albums, but most of the icons I see are a gray musical note. This is one of those better-in-theory features. :)

Anyway, though I use it today for lack of an alternative, I'm still holding a grudge against iTunes for destroying my music library back in May 2003 when I switched. I only had five thousand tracks or so at that time, but most of them didn't have any ID3 information because I'd ripped them from CDs myself over the years, and the filenames already contained the information I cared about, which was visible in the CLI (I came from Linux); the ID3 tags were invisible metadata I never paid attention to. Then I imported my music, and iTunes helpfully arranged all my MP3s into "Unknown Artist/Unknown Album/Unknown Title (n).mp3" based on ID3 information that didn't exist. Thanks, iTunes.

For music I don't buy through iTunes, I either do "Get Albmum Art", or I find it online and add it manually.

This is something I can highly recommend as your iTunes experience would certainly go up a notch.

I didn't know there was such a thing. Maybe I'll bring my Nano out of retirement. I've owned more mp3 players than I can count, and the only iPod I'v ever liked was the Nano but I gave up on it because iTunes was just so unusable.

Rockbox is an awesome open source firmware for mp3 players. I run it on my 1st gen Nano.

http://www.rockbox.org/

iTunes has basically become "Stuff-that-can-be-synched-to-an-iPhone Manager." It could be broken down with little effort—Quicktime Player would get the movie/TV store; iPhoto would get the menu for synching photos; Software Update would get the App Store (and hopefully make it a Mac App Store in the process, because that's really not that much more work), and a new "iDentity" app would be created to handle all the other crap (because I use Gmail's web interface, not Mail.app, but want my Notes synced anyway, goshdarnit. Or they could just make a free reduced-capability version of MobileMe.)

The only thing that's stopping them from doing this is that, right now, you only need to download one thing in order to use an iPod or iPhone on Windows, and that one thing is completely owned as part of the Apple experience. After the conversion, you'd need quite a few more apps, some of which, due to just working through APIs, could usurped by badly-written, no-UX-consideration-given preinstallware that would give Apple a bad name (I can just imagine the "Dell App Store client"—oh, how Apple would rage at that.)

What he said.

Apple would not design iTunes like this, if not for the need to deliver it on Windows. It breaks many of its own design rules.

The saddest part for me is seeing the open source desktops head down the same path when this could be a key differentiator for them. Like Apple they bundle a full working desktop with apps that can work together and build on the same libraries. But they don't.

Instead the future appears to be continuing with the totally inappropriate iTunes clone but switching to one that comes with it's on Mono VM and is becoming an independent development platform. It's latest feature is built in photo management! When I read that it was one of those satire is dead moments.

What app are you talking about in your last paragraph?

Agreed that iTunes is tries to do too much of everything and what I’ve noticed from Apple is that there is only the Apple way.

I do really like one feature in iTunes, the Genius playlist is great for people with very large libraries.

And now I have a dedicated device (iPhone) to play music. I only use iTunes to sync.

> And now I have a dedicated device (iPhone) to play music. I only use iTunes to sync.

Same here, but I consider that a failing of iTunes, because I'd prefer to play music on my iPhone rather than deal with iTunes shitty interface.

I'd be happy with a version doesn't randomly delete a song file (not just a library entry, but the actual file) every few months and doesn't make my X4 940 feel like a Celeron.

So if you didn't add new music, over time you'd have nothing left?

I suppose I might, given a few centuries...

I have a lot of complaints of iTunes, but that (file deletion) has never happened to me and I've never heard that complaint.

When I felt like complaining to reddit about it I went and found several forum threads of people with the same problem: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9catv/ask_reddit...

This guy is certainly entitled to his own opinion but I wonder why he's even using iTunes in the first place. Obviously it doesn't meet his needs or desires. He seems to be having some sort of mental breakdown over iTunes 9 specifically but he's choosing to use any of the alternatives. Why not use VLC? If you can't be bothered to download something new just use QuickTime. Better yet how about Cog? It's open source and 3.8MB. I bet he could dig into the source and slim it down to a cool 3.0MB on the dot.

Just for fun I decided to see how minimal I could make the iTunes GUI: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/3906199116_89fecdd502_o....

Took me about 2 minutes and these are all permanent settings. Change it once, forget about it. Or just be a normal, emotionally stable, human being and make choices that suit your own personal needs.

yes for all the grumbling - there things like Cog that seem to do exactly what he is asking for.

I have to say I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum - I use a great deal of the features in iTunes - I keep video in it, I keep TV in it , I have a massive music library , I have several machines round the house that I and the family use to listen/watch stuff. I have an iphone. I buy things in the store.

In all I love the fact it is all integrated and works together without me having to think about it (apart it, must be said, for stupid DRM on video which is a pain). When I used to run winamp on a PC back in the day I used to need a collection of perl scripts to manage the library...

Slightly off topic, but I'd like to know how Apple managed to remove physical media whilst keeping the same pricing.

I'm no economist, but shouldnt the massive iTunes media surplus supply reduce the prices significantly?

because the physical inventory was only a small part of the cost. recording costs, promotion, etc haven't gone down. plus you are paying for convenience.

and as is pointed out here often -- price!=cost , price==value

I'm so sick of TC whining about every freaking thing! If you want a dead simple music player for OS X then freaking write it!

Maybe it will work about better than that 'dead simple web tablet' we're still waiting for.

I still use Winamp. iTunes only gets some CPU time when I need to sync my IPod.

You can sync your iPod, unless it is iPod touch or an iPhone, using Winamp (http://blog.winamp.com/2009/03/11/how-to-manage-music-in-ipo...)

Amen. I've moved to Songbird for playing music on my Mac. It's not perfect, but I prefer it to iTunes. And there's nothing out there that's more compelling. I still use iTunes to sync my phone, but that's what I've come to see iTunes as - a store + a syncing platform, not a music player. There's a real market opportunity sitting there for a slim, slick music player on the Mac.

A comment in the techcrunch post tipped me off to http://ecouteapp.com/ Liking it so far.

Wow, that's a very nice app.

Does Songbird still stop playing music when you X out of it? Because that was disgraceful.

I tried it recently and [it looks like you need an add on.] But I didn't like that it didn't recognize the group by artist flag iTunes uses. And I couldn't set up album-by-artist. And it seemed to use more ram. But, it looks a lot nicer to me.

[edit]

Me too, although I never really used iTunes along the way. I tried to live with Cog, and Play, but both sucked.

Songbird still needs ReplayGain support, and global hotkeys. Then it will be a tolerable alternative for foobar2000.

It amazes me that I read through all of these comments and didn't see one mention of the Zune software. Yes, it's Windows only. Yes, it only syncs with Zunes. BUT, it offers a far better music-playing and music-finding experience. It's laid out better, looks better, is easier to use, has folder monitoring (I can't believe that's still not in itunes), doesn't try to move or edit any of your files or metadata, and overall just performs better.

I actually have a virtual machine of XP just so I don't have to install iTunes on my host Win7 box. I only open it maybe once a month to check out new podcasts that aren't in the Zune marketplace yet. Because of this, I don't want ituneshelper, quicktime, safarai, bonjour, etc etc. installed on my system and put in my Startup group just so I can open iTunes. It's just unnecessary. I cringe every time I see someone struggling with iTunes.

Personally, I'd be happy with an iTunes that worked well, was more intuitive, and more responsive.

I like my iPhone. I think the MacBook I use for work is swell. However, iTunes remains one of the most horrible applications that I've ever been forced to use.

I like what Banshee is heading, pretty cool!, no mac love yet though (yes there is a experimental version, I don't care I use Ubuntu anyways).

In other words you don't need another iTunes you need iTunes mini-mode.

Honestly, the 'genius' sidebar was one step over the boundary. It bogs down iTunes everytime it opens.

Now Facebook Integration? I just want to listen to music, and rip any cds I have left.

Uhh, close it? You'll never see it again.

The "Facebook Integration" is literally nothing but a URL to Facebook's share page that's not unlike those copy/paste "Share on Facebook!" you see on practically every blog. And it's only for the App Store. It's nothing special really.

I can't believe people are acting like the facebook/Twitter integration is such a big deal. It constructs a URL to the iTunes store and opens a browser window to a form. The implementation can't be more than a dozen new functions, can it?

i think a better approach would be to split it into separate apps: one for syncing with ipods and iphones, one for listening to music, one for browsing the itunes music store, and so on. all of them could use the same backend data store and xml description files.

That'd be crazy. I want to manage all my media from one spot. Think iTunes == media management.

You could use the full version of iTunes and leave a lite version to those who wanted that. FWIW, I'd use a lite version - the full thing is a bit of a slug.

its time for my current selected item to scroll into view when I re-sort by a different column. or maybe I'm just being unreasonable, asking for too much?

Analyzing gapless playback information...

Switch to Mini-Player? (Cmd+Shift+M)

iTunes was painful to me the first time I installed it on windows and it got worse over time.

I never picked up the iTunes habit.

Need one say it in so many words?

Apple has been forcefeeding music lovers for years, but have never been able to give any true nourishment to the unsigned independent musician. Its like eating candy, fried foods, bacon, and soda for the rest of your life. Sounds fun on the surface, and might be a good idea and exciting for a while But if you keep it up, you will die. Or at least end up with a heart attack or other serious illness. Try some vegetables, fish, and water for a change. Or at least another, more nourishing music service. By offering what of what musicians and music lovers want, you actually offer them more "meat" in your service. Makes for more satisfied consumers, and greater brand loyalty.

Uhm, right after installing iTunes 9, I got a free 20-pack indy music collection. That's kinda nice.

And in comparison to the major label artists such as U2, Kanye West, and Amy Winehouse, how much do you think those indie artists from that free 20 pack are actually earning? Not much. The guidelines are not the same for all musicians.

Are you kidding? Apple promotes indie artists excessively.

Really? They're promoting indie artists as much as they are the major label artists? That news to me. Especially when the company has an application process for indie artists that is not required of major label artists. And most of them get rejected. The bottom line, is that via Itunes, the playing field is not level, as it is with sites like Digg and YouTube. I guarantee you that Johnny Random Band is not getting as many downloads and sales per track as Maroon 5 or Daughtry. Next time you see an indie artist who's on Itunes, see if they are wheeling the same Aston Martin DB9 that Kanye has been spotted in these days. I bet you it will be more like a Honda Civic instead.

Newsflash: That's because more people like Maroon 5, have heard of Maroon 5, and will search for Maroon 5 than will search for, say, Grizzly Bear.

That said, once every month Apple releases a new free indie pack for download, and even I, for whom indie is not a thang, download it and get exposed to twenty new bands I've never heard of before.

Exactly. Thanks for proving my point. Clearly the playing field is not level. The only reason that "Grizzly Bear" is not as popular as Maroon 5, is because they dont have the outlet (iTunes or anybody else) in which to present themselves and compete. Maroon 5 is not the hottest thing since sliced bread. Trust me. There are many unsigned artists out there that are just as good and better, and that people would search for and request, and buy songs from, if they had the opportunity. An opportunity that is spawned from the people, music lovers themselves, and not major labels and the FCC.

That's great that "once" a month Apple releases a new indie pack. As if that truly compares to the amount of heavy rotation that major artists receive on iTunes. Not. Sorry to tell you, but that indie pack with 20 new bands once per month, is not getting anybody any significant exposure, nor helping any unsigned musicians to really earn a living from their music. Especially not in comparison to the millions Maroon 5 and others are getting.

Lets take notes from YouTube and Digg.

Look, I see where you're coming from (and I'm irritated that you're treating me like I don't know what I'm talking about), but this is and always has been Apple's achilles' heel. They are not the sort of company that attempts to subvert the mainstream. As a company, in fact, they're practically forbidden from showing any personality, because it goes against their message. That means they've got to side with the masses, give people what they want, and generally dominate the mainstream, because it's what's expected of them.

My point is that Apple's aware of that and does what it can, little as that might be. They use indie music in most of their commercials, promoting an artist at a time (though never anything edgy), they offer free promos of musicians, though not many. That's all they can do. There are thousands of indie artists, Apple can't show them all off, and to be honest most people don't care about them. They care about Maroon 5, because Maroon 5 is easier to swallow.

iTunes isn't trying to make a statement. It's trying to reflect popular opinion. I wouldn't doubt Apple would be glad to be able to show off something more diverse, but our culture isn't diverse and so Apple's not going to do a thing until that changes.

Points taken. Hopefully we can come up with a better formula in the future. The game needs change, and iTunes needs to finally have a viable competitor. Its been great debated with you on here on this topic. By the way, what do you do? Keep posting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com