

ITunes is Anti-Web - bdfh42
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001149.html

======
mechanical_fish
Yeah, iTunes is "anti-web", by the enlightened standards of 2008.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out _why_ iTunes is anti-web: iTunes was
originally released in January 2001. The best-of-class web browser at the time
was IE 5.5. IE6 was nine months in the future. Safari was two years in the
future. Firefox 1.0 was nearly _four years_ in the future. The XMLHttpRequest
object had not been invented. The term "Ajax" was four years in the future, as
was the first famous Ajax application, Google Maps.

Apple is a farsighted company, but surely it's a bit much to expect them to
have _traveled half a decade into the future_ and brought back Web standards
that didn't exist yet. And, let me assure you: Web versions of iTunes built
with the technologies of January 2001 were _terrible_ ( _cough_ Java applets
_cough_ ) compared to iTunes. That's not a hypothetical -- lots of people
built such apps. They're all forgotten now.

Why, now that things have moved on, doesn't Apple abandon the iTunes model and
build a web app?

A) Because iTunes needs to connect to iPods. Can you build a web app that can
reach out over the USB ports and talk to an iPod? I'm pretty sure that, if I
could, it would be treated as a _dire emergency_ and high-priority patches
would be issued. If I can talk to your iPod via JS, I can talk to your hard
drives.

Even the Amazon music store communicates with iPods via... iTunes! There are
few other ways, and no other sanctioned way.

You could, I suppose, reduce iTunes to a tiny browser plugin or a stub, but
that would still require users to download and install a third-party plugin,
and it would lead to problem B:

B) Now that iTunes is established with millions of existing iPod owners -- who
are Apple's best customers, now that so much of iPod sales are to people
replacing existing iPods -- why make a major change in their workflow, with no
benefit for them and trivial benefit for the world? The risk of confusing one
existing iPod customer may well offset the potential benefit of getting
_several_ new music-only customers like Jeff -- who obviously _doesn't own an
iPod_ or he wouldn't be complaining.

Plus: Cross-browser maintenance of an app as complex as iTunes is expensive
and difficult, you can't control every aspect of the UI, and the population of
people who balk at iTunes is small and is unlikely to contain many loyal Apple
customers.

~~~
mojuba
Then there's reason @ (@ comes before the letter A, right?) -

@) iPod is a closed proprietary gadget that can only be accessed using closed
proprietary software. If iPod was open and standardized, the rest of your
reasons would probably magically disappear.

~~~
raganwald
I don't understand. If iPod was "open and standardized" in 1991, how would
Apple have built an iTunes Music Store that would have provided the same
experience?

Or are you arguing that instead, they should have built something using the
"open and standardized" components of the day, precluding almost all of the
functionality that made it successful?

~~~
t0pj
_iPod was "open and standardized" in 1991_

1991 was a sweet year for the iPod and iTunes. I had no issues installing it
on MS-DOS 4/Windows 3.1 but had a hard time with corrupted data when
connecting it up via centronix cable _(I think iTunes also used a dBase III
back-end at the time)_.

:)

~~~
raganwald
But you must admit, it looked great on a Hercules Graphics Adaptor.

------
mcormier
Saying that iTunes is anti-web is like saying that any desktop application is
anti-web.

When you click on a link in the browser it is forwarding the request to a
desktop application. Just because the application connects to a remote server
and displays html type content does not mean it needs to go in a web browser.

This is classic idealistic programmer blindness.

Examples:

I could write this program and I don't think it's worth $20 so it should be
free.

It should be open source.

I can't reprogram my the fuel intake of my car so it must be anti-web.

etc, etc, ...

~~~
Tichy
OK, so I'll say it: any desktop application is anti-web.

Is it programmer blindness? The reason I hate it as a programmer is that I
don't see any compelling reason for the store to be not on the web. And it is
very inconvenient. So it appears to be bad design, which disturbs the harmony
of the cosmos.

~~~
mcormier
No reason? Seriously?

How about some business reasons?

\- Don't have to test on multiple browsers. \- Can upgrade the browser engine
automatically with application updates and tie new features to iTunes version
\- Less risk of HTML hacking (source is much harder to get to), increases
entrance barrier \- Long term goal of familiarizing Windows users with a mac
style interface.

~~~
wallflower
Even if iTunes could be coded using jQuery+CSS, how would the sync to your
iPod/iTouch/iPhone be handled?

~~~
Tichy
Let them use iTunes for that, why not. But why not let me browse the selection
on the web. I think you can also buy the stuff directly from the phone once
you have one.

~~~
gnaritas
How about because you're not their target market? Businesses exist for profit,
and their resources are not unlimited, they clearly put their efforts into
their customers, you know, the ones with iPods for whom iTunes exists. Their
business is rocking, they have no need to chase you.

~~~
Tichy
Actually I am interested in an iPhone, and my decision to buy it depends also
on the selection of applications available.

Obviously Apple is doing fine without me as a customer, so what can I say...

------
inovica
Maybe it is anti-web, but its leveraging the internet in what it does. We have
created some hybrid apps that work really well - we have the power of the
desktop (for what we do) and the connectivity of the internet (not web) for
delivering a better service. I don't like how iTunes works, but I do like what
they have been good at which is pioneering the service they have. I also use
it for renting movies, which is a great service. At the end of the day Apple
is a business - most of us are on here because we're looking at, interested in
or running startup businesses and if we had a great idea that took off similar
to iTunes I'm sure we wouldn't be so negative towards our own invention.

------
raganwald
Typical "Apple is against freedom" linkbait from someone drenched in the
Windows ecosystem. That being said...

Lots of links on the web are to other applications. like links to flash, pdf,
office documents, .dmg disk images to download, files to ftp, ...

The iTunes Music/Movie/Application store is just an egregious example of this
because it renders a lot of stuff that looks like it could be rendered in a
browser, which is why they use a browser under the hood.

But we could make the same argument about PDF, and the defenders would say
that PDF can render things with a UI and a rendering model that surpasses HTML
in fidelity, and that its users need that.

And that's the reason iTMS isn't a web site. Apple wants an interaction model
that is difficult to render with fidelity in browsers.

We can make something almost as good in a browser, but almost as good isn't
what Apple does. It's what Microsoft does, and that's why people for whom
Windows is good enough don't understand why iTMS isn't a web site.

~~~
Tichy
The annoyance is not that "Apple is against freedom", it is that I can not
check what is on offer at the store right now.

At home I'd have to boot my gaming PC so that I can take a peek at the store
(lucky I still have a gaming PC instead of a console). It is simply not user
friendly.

But I know, Apple is making money with it, so whatever...

~~~
raganwald
I sympathize with you greatly, and you'll notice that on my own blog I promote
Amazon books and music.

But you and Jeff are saying very different things: You said iTMS is annoying
because you have a use-case it does not support, whereas he said Apple is
Anti-Web because they employ a technique--web links to a proprietary desktop
application--that supports a different use case.

I think I can agree with you while disagreeing with the way he frames his
argument.

~~~
Tichy
OK, let's agree ;-)

------
hopeless
100% agree. I hate that iTunes store. I'd really like to legally buy an MP3
for my wife's Creative Zen and yet I have to install iTunes? Hell, I can't
even see if they stock the track. Nah, don't think I'll bother thank you very
much. I'll go and buy the CD from Amazon.

I think the browser/html/http combination are perfectly capable of delivering
MP3 files but I guess that's not proprietary enough for Apple.

~~~
bdotdub
I think Apple is okay with Creative Zen owners not buying MP3s from them.
They're only targeting iPhone/iPod owners, which has by far the largest market
share.

The trouble of getting the iTunes store onto the web
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=242316>) would not be worth it because
they already have the largest market share in MP3 players AND in MP3 selling.

So I don't think they mind. People can complain all they want, but as long as
Apples earning money, they won't be sad about it.

~~~
hopeless
I guess it depends whether the iTunes music store is about _selling music_ or
just _selling music to ipod owners_. Obviously, Apple's priority is the latter
(understandably from a business / monopoly point of view). However, if the
iPod/iTunes combination didn't feel like such a lock-in (i.e, if the online
music store, software and hardware could operate independently), I might
easily be persuaded to drink the Apple juice.

------
Tichy
Agree 100% - no iTunes at work and at home I use Ubuntu. Guess I won't be an
Apple customer.

~~~
gnaritas
I use Ubuntu as well, doesn't prevent me from using my iPod. Besides, if you
use Linux, you're such a small part of the market Apple doesn't need to care
about you. Windows and Mac users are the low hanging fruit.

~~~
Tichy
Well to tell a secret, I also have an iPod. This discussion for me was more
about the iPhone applications, really.

Also, Apple made sure that iPhone apps can ONLY be bought via iTunes. For the
iPod you can get your MP3s anywhere.

------
grhino
Amazon music store is a little Anti-Web. It requires the user to download and
install their "MP3 downloader" if they want to purchase albums.

Why isn't Amazon's "MP3 downloader" completely optional?

------
danielrhodes
I agree, it is. iTunes would be nothing without the iPod. It's not even that
great a piece of software, and it never was, even prior to when Apple bought
it.

Apple is consistently been anti-open everything, and iTunes is another
example. Can't use their hardware with other OSes. Can't use their OSes with
other hardware. The only reason they opened up the iPhone was because people
were vehemently demanding it and were going to open the thing up by themselves
if Apple wasn't.

------
sanj
By this definition, mailto links are anti-web.

Unless you have some serious browser hacking ( _) kungfu, it takes you to
(gasp!!) a desktop email client!

(_) kungfu measured against general populace, not HN populace.

------
mojuba
On top of that, Google has the right to ban them. For example:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=site:itunes.com+pink+floyd>

~~~
raganwald
How is that different from Google reaching into PDF documents, Word documents,
PowerPoint presentations, or Flash applications?

In all of those cases, end users must use a proprietary application to
actually view the content. I clicked on your link and when it opened in
iTunes, I saw the same text that Google's spider previewed.

Here is Google's cache:

[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:GYFPOvjhhfoJ:itunes.com...](http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:GYFPOvjhhfoJ:itunes.com/album%3Fp%3D684888%26i%3D684859+site:itunes.com+pink+floyd&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1)

As you can see, the spider saw the full text of the review. The preview in the
search page might be some metadata Apple provided as a hint to Google or it
may be that Google's spider is really good at extracting interesting sentences
:-)

~~~
mojuba
It is different in that iTunes.com returns text/html:

    
    
      HTTP/1.0 200 OK
      Last-Modified: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:08 GMT
      Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
      Content-Encoding: gzip
      x-apple-aka-ttl: Generated Thu Jul 10 08:46:08 PDT 2008, 
         Expires Thu Jul 10 08:46:08 PDT 2008, TTL 0s 
      x-apple-application-instance: 6105
      x-apple-asset-version: 46436
      x-apple-max-age: 0
      x-apple-request-store-front: <null>
      x-apple-date-generated: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:08 GMT
      x-webobjects-loadaverage: 0
      Content-Length: 1940
      Vary: Accept-Encoding
      Expires: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:08 GMT
      Cache-Control: max-age=0, no-cache, no-store
      Pragma: no-cache
      Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:08 GMT
      Connection: keep-alive
      X-Apple-Partner: origin.0
    

Now, why should this be handled by a custom application? Isn't it called
breaking the Web?

~~~
raganwald
Have you used iTMS? It does a bunch of stuff not handled by any browser
without proprietary plug-ins. So either (a) they have to cut functionality,
(b) they have to give you one or more proprietary plug-ins to give you the
same functionality in another browser, or (c) provide an application that is
also a site-specific web browser, which is what they have done with iTunes.

If it is a choice between (a), (b), and (c), which choice would you make if
you were a product manager for Apple? Which choice would you make if you were
an iPod owner?

~~~
mojuba
raganwald, the only problem here is, that page does not require Google to use
iTunes software for viewing the content. This alone is sufficient for banning
the web site and removing it from Google's indexes.

I used wget.

~~~
raganwald
"Banning the web site and removing it from Google's indexes."

You and I have a very different understanding of why Google does and does not
ban web sites. They ban web sites for SEO black hattery.

In this case, Apple presents information that people searching Google want to
find. Why on Earth would it benefit Google to ban this practice?

Are you equating the iTunes application to some sort of drive-by-download
malware? If so, please make that point and not frame this as a violation of
Google's quasi terms of service.

Do you think that Google is unaware of what is happening, that Apple is
fooling them? Send them an email and let them know how Apple is tricking their
spiders.

~~~
mojuba
Of course I'm not going to fight the windmills, and sure Google is aware
what's happening.

What Google's policy is, as I understand it, to index information that's
openly available to every host with an IP address. Google wants to see the
same content as any other host on the Net can see and that's, you know, pretty
much in the spirit of the Internet.

Going against these principles means going against the Web and breaking it.
Good or bad, designed perfectly or not, and no matter whether the world will
become a better place to live thanks to iTunes and Apple, but this is anti-
Web.

------
pchristensen
Well Jeff, I understand you have a right to be upset at the value you got for
all the money you gave Apple for that info.

This is a rant against what he sees as a stupid business practice, but in a
business argument of Jeff Atwood vs Steve Jobs, do you even need to know the
question before you decide who's right?

~~~
pchristensen
OK, if you disagree, let's compare how the iTunes-only viewing has limited
Apple's market share in music sales so far. Not too much. Then let's check
back in 6 months or a year to see if iTunes and the App Store have bombed.
Doubtful.

If you oppose something (that's you're not even paying for), but it still ends
up wildly successful, then the aspect of it that bothered you clearly doesn't
bother too many people. You can settle for being a minority.

(note: this isn't Apple fanboyism. This is the same argument I would give to
people who complain about Windows, oil companies, pharmaceuticals, Hollywood,
etc. If you're a minority opinion, then you have to DEFEAT the thing you
hate.)

~~~
Tichy
I guess if Apple was a presidential candidate, they would be fighting nails
and teeth for every single vote, instead of saying "we don't care about you".

Yes, I don't have an iPod, but I am inclined to buy an iPhone. So in
elections, I guess I would be a swing voter. Seeing nice apps in the store
might just swing my vote to the right side (buy). Care or don't care - it is
one customer more or less.

~~~
gnaritas
Swing voters don't matter when the election isn't even close. iPods own the
market, why should they chase you?

~~~
Tichy
Fine, let them not chase me, but then don't ask me to be happy with their
service.

------
weegee
so now that Apple has the best music organization program out there, people
can only complain about it. I remember back in 1999, when I began to listen to
MP3's, we used a program on the PC that was a major pain in the ass, but it
was the one popular program so we dealt with it. iTunes works well for me,
it's easy to get, and it does pretty much whatever you want it to. Don't buy
music from the iTunes store if you don't want compressed AAC files, rip your
own CDs to your iTunes with the Apple lossless compressed format.

