
  Somebody Has To Say It: It’s Time For iTunes Lite  - jasonlbaptiste
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/09/somebody-has-to-say-it-its-time-for-itunes-lite/
======
mrshoe
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.

~~~
al3x
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.

~~~
Perceval
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_...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/28/idvd_hung_out_to_dry_as_apple_pushes_movies_online.html)

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...](http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2009/05/hypercritical.ars)).
It would be just in time for iTunes X (pron. iTunes ten).

~~~
joubert
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).

------
sharpn
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.

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

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

~~~
joubert
i.e. iTunes.

~~~
unalone
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.

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

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

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

------
rufo
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.

------
reedlaw
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?

~~~
joubert
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?

~~~
reedlaw
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.

~~~
joubert
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.

~~~
reedlaw
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.

~~~
derefr
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".

~~~
mdemare
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.

------
derefr
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.)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
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.

~~~
CrazedGeek
What app are you talking about in your last paragraph?

------
jac_no_k
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.

~~~
alecthomas
> 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.

------
endtime
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.

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

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

------
jsz0
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....](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/3906199116_89fecdd502_o.jpg)

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.

~~~
junklight
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...

------
bbsabelli
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?

~~~
whatusername
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

------
Readmore
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.

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

~~~
sarvesh
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...](http://blog.winamp.com/2009/03/11/how-to-manage-music-in-ipod-using-
winamp/))

------
tjstankus
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.

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

~~~
puffythefish
Wow, that's a very nice app.

------
derekj
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.

------
bena
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.

------
igorgue
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.

------
jrwoodruff
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.

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

------
allenbrunson
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.

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

~~~
prawn
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.

------
jhancock
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?

------
moe
Analyzing gapless playback information...

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

------
lurkinggrue
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.

------
msie
Need one say it in so many words?

------
nuweborder
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.

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

~~~
nuweborder
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.

