Talk:ITunes/Archive 3

message: Version 7 removed the Ogg icon from the package. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the Ogg icon is not actually from Apple. Mine is still in the package, except it's still green instead of blue, leading me to believe that Ogg isn't actually part of iTunes natively. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ogg icon 

message: I think the criticisms in this article are valid, but misplaced. Most of them belong in the iTunes Store article, and not this article about the iTunes application -- the DRM and EULA disputes are about the store, and not the jukebox software used to access the store. I propose that these criticisms be merged into the article on the iTunes Store. Perhaps the major criticisms (the DRM, the lock-in) could be briefly mentioned under the iTunes Store section in this article. Anyone agree? Disagree? 
And while there were bugs in version 7.0, that is not uncommon, and Apple released an updated version (iTunes 7.0.1) 15 days later. Minor bugs and bug fixes belong in the "Recent Version History" section, not as a "Criticism" of the software itself. Anyone agree? Disagree? BJ Nemeth 09:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I'll move the criticisms to iTunes Store. Thomas Ash 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but now there's no criticism in the iTunes article. What about how it doubles the space your music takes up? That's fairly noteworthy. Software as sucky as iTunes should have plenty of criticism. 
70.72.50.20 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for personal views. These are not widely held views. --80.41.90.45 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you are an idiot and shouldn't be allowed near computers?75.23.46.184 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Music purchased through the iTunes Music Store has contained account information from day 1 - get info on any purchased song in iTunes, whether DRM-free or not, and it'll give the account name and email address associated with the account that purchased the song. It's hardly a watermark, though - "watermark" implies that it's embedded within the data stream in some difficult-to-remove fashion. This is just standard stream metadata; the only thing that differentiates it from the standard metadata (title, album, author, etc.) is that iTunes doesn't provide an interface for editing it. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: No mention of the included 360k myster-block in the new Watermark-only itunes.  Nor the privacy concern of them using your full name and email address in plain text for the purpose of waterarking both the DRMed and Watermark-only versions "options".
I propose this criticism is included in this main article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6711215.stm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-apple-hides-account-info-in-drm-free-music-too.html
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/06/no_explanation_.html
Wageslave 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Music purchased through the iTunes Music Store has contained account information from day 1 - get info on any purchased song in iTunes, whether DRM-free or not, and it'll give the account name and email address associated with the account that purchased the song. It's hardly a watermark, though - "watermark" implies that it's embedded within the data stream in some difficult-to-remove fashion. This is just standard stream metadata; the only thing that differentiates it from the standard metadata (title, album, author, etc.) is that iTunes doesn't provide an interface for editing it. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermarking and Privacy 

message: Which file format do I get when buying from the iTunes store? I gather it's DRM'ed, and I'm guessing some sort of Apple format, but exactly what do I get? Codec? Bitrate? What is the DRM limitations? When buying an album, do I get the cover art, and in that case in what format? Mannaja 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is MPEG-4 Part 3, most commonly termed "AAC", at 128kbps, in a FairPlay wrapper.  Purchased albums come with album art; not sure what format, but I assume it's JPG. —bbatsell ¿? 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually around 128 kbps, but some songs are higher or lower format. The album art is embedded in the song (iTunes 6 and below). The file will have the extension .m4p. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Podcasts are often of lower quality - 56kbps I believe. Their quality varies due to a wide range of users posting podcasts. Audiobooks are 32kbps http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/audiobooks.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The freddinator (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Podcasts (at least the few I've downloaded for free through iTunes) are .mp3's and not ACC, but music you purchase is AAC with FairPlay (.m4p) as said above.  In May, there will be the option to buy some tracks without FairPlay (DRM-free), which will be AAC format at 256 kbps. --Georgeryp 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  File format for sale? 

message: if i install iTunes in windows, how much hard disk space does that take up?
:The Apple website doesn't say. This is probably because if you're using a computer that possibly won't have enough space to install iTunes, you won't have enough space for music OR your computer is too old and slow to play music properly. Any space taken up to install iTunes itself will soon be dwarfed by the amount of space needed for your music. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the reason is that Apple is used to fixed architecture computers, assuming everyone has upgraded to something recent. Thus, as mentioned in the response above, people who buy iPods are assumed to have gigabytes of free storage. However, on Windows PCs we're used to little information boxes full of hardware requirements that let us know if we will run this without problems or not. However, even running iTunes on a Core 6400 with several terabytes of storage behind it, you can't get away from iTunes being a tad buggy and slow compared even with Sony's notorious SonicStage software. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Add/Remove Programs applet under the Windows Control Panel says iTunes 7 uses 50.4MB of space (my library of music and video is much larger and so is not included in that number). --Georgeryp 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows hard disk space requirements? 

message: The citation: "Amorim, Roberto (2003). Results of MP3 at 128 kbit/s public Listening Test (http). Roberto's public listening tests page. Retrieved on January 12, 2006." is gone.  It is referenced in "File Format Support."  Is there another location of this test, or another different test altogether to cite?
PS. I hope I used the Talk correctly, (first Talk post)
Sp3z1aL 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source #8 does not exist anymore 

message: Is there a reason the standards technical limitations disclaimer isn't in place? -b 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you see the article title as "ITunes"?  Appears as "iTunes" on my screen. AlistairMcMillan 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the technical limitations preventing lowercase initial letters, and their associated warnings are no more. That's why the article is called 'iTunes' --81.105.251.160 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you change the first letter of an article name to be lowercase? I tried moving a page to a lowercase name, but it appears with a capital. It was a different name from the original one so it's not some name taken issue. -- Lima Golf Talk | Contributions 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  uses a JavaScript hack to make the first letter appear lowercase, but the article is still called "ITunes". In browsers that do not support JavaScript, a short message is displayed instead.--HereToHelp 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITunes iTunes? 

message: iTunes for Mac apperently runs the webpages in itms on a type of Safari-engine (khtml-based). What does iTunes for Windows runs on? Khtml or Internet Explorer ? --213.112.157.143 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, iTunes for Mac does not use WebKit for rendering the music store. I forget the exact details, but it's basically streamed WebObjects. Presumably, Apple ported whatever renders it to Windows. --Steven Fisher 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safari or Internet Explorer 

message: The visualizer built into iTunes is not GForce. It's a lookalike, originally written as a component for SoundJam MP. I believe the original version was called "Melt-O-Rama". Zetawoof(ζ) 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "January 11, 2001 SoundSpectrum creates and licenses a special version of G-Force to Apple Computer for inclusion in its new iTunes music player as the "iTunes Visualizer"  AlistairMcMillan 12:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it's in the about box, under the companies old name Whitecap.  AlistairMcMillan 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GForce 

message: which used to be featured in the article. There is no other such resource. Thadk 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I miss the release notes. 

message: Appears to be a large number of problems with the new release - many users find iTunes crashing when they try and play a track —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.147.155 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:ATT.  We need "reliable sources".  Forum postings and your own personal experiences are not "reliable sources."  AlistairMcMillan 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes 7.1.0.59 

message: Consider creating a new article like the above as we may well have Apple employees regularly visiting these pages to take out the negative comment.  As one editor suggested Apple doesn't yet officially support Vista at least according to the download page. This particular editor is keen not to see Vista comments (and possibly -ve comments) on the iTunes page. There are the obvious immediate technical and performance issues (not just on Vista apparantly) and also there is ample opportunity in such an article to explore any trade practices issues that may arise in the internet press as and when they do in verifiable ways.  We all know that there are good commercial reasons for Apple not to make iTunes work well under Vista.  Such issues are ideal for the article as I said as and when any such alleged issues are alleged in the media. ;-)  I am hoping I will not be deeply disappointed to see Apple behave like Microsoft did with the AARD code and DR-DOS many years ago aahhummm I have always thought they were a better corporate citizen than this.  Advertising campaigns are one thing and within acceptable bounds of more or less fair competition under capitalism (and trade practices law i.e.: the rough and tumble of the marketplace and acceptable "puff" within advertising) however deliberate inaction and/or even worse -ve action is very disheartening to say the least.  I for one would like to continue to respect the company and whats more would "like to" migrate to their platform.  I used to positively say "intend to" (and soon) - sad - my opinion must already be changing without my even knowing... I fear moving from one proprietary and monopolistic devil to another and it was my major reason for "intending to move" in the first place...  If I could only be proved wrong Steve (J) :-( so please don't disapoint us as even if we have moved to Vista it doesn't prohibit us from then moving on to OS/X (my own upgrade was only ever "intended" to be a stop gap on this progression and then running my cheap Vista upgrade under Parallels Desktop on my new Mac if I needed to). Oh dear we are getting royally screwed from both sides now... Apple Marketing Men: Please pass it on to your boss! (And I had an iPhone in my future sights too!  For that reason alone Apple doesn't need to sink to Microsoft's level and play dirty tricks as you've always been a technology leader that could rely on your honest innovation alone.  Remember: leaders lead, followers cheat!) Mattjs 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources to back up your edits.  Wikipedia:Attribution clearly says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."  What you are doing now is bordering on vandalism, please either provide "reliable sources" or stop. AlistairMcMillan 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you revert my last edit I will consider you a vandal and the matter will go to arbitration - THIS IS MY FINAL WORD!!! Mattjs 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!!! AlistairMcMillan 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the are are 6 references now on problems including performance (not confined to Vista) and it can readily be added to or the stuff you put back in - good idea thanks! - can readily go into a Vista problems article as well...  give it a few more months and there should be some critical web cites on trades practices issues as I have suggested here already... feel free to correct citations but please do remember what I have said about reverting and  ARBITRATION.  Apple employees and religiously extremist operating systems defenders and protagonists alike take note.  Everyone can see from my post above that I am not biased nor laughing and any criticisms of MS (or anyone else) on my part are well founded on historical facts (e.g. MS's many restrictive trade practices prosecutions (although the AARD code is not one of them...)) Take care! Mattjs 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[iTunes Windows Vista issues]] 

message: Do we have a reference for this claim? --Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The  Vandal Watchman 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where "third" comes from, but "fourth" was announced during the January 2007 Macworld keynote.  I've edited the article to reflect that.  AlistairMcMillan 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is currently in 3rd place" 

message: Does it say anything about Quicktime's semi-symbiotic relationship with iTunes? They're installed together, and if one is removed, the other ceases to function. I think that's something worthy of note, though it may better belong in a critisism section/page. Unfortunatly, I have no references to cite, though you may clarify it yourself. (Note: There is in fact an installation file for just Quicktime, but it appears to be from a website with no affiliations with Apple)
My very highest regards; 1337 r0XX0r 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an official Quicktime download from Apple that does not include iTunes.  See http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html, which includes "QuickTime 7.1.5 with iTunes" and "QuickTime 7.1.5."  I'd assume the same is true for the Mac download, but I didn't check because they both come with Mac OS by default anyway.  -seinman 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quicktime/iTunes 

message: ;Vista related issues and problems NPOV are being constantly reverted by a particular editor under the pretense that Apple doesn't yet officially support Vista.  
;Yet there is an official knowledge base article: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042 
;In any case it would not then be worth mentioning Vista at all instead the situation seems to be the POV of saying as little as possible about the issues instead as a result.  
Finally perhaps two potentially influencing factors here in general are to be noted:
* There may people here who are OS religiously minded or fanatical
* There may be people here who are either employees or public relations consultants of Apple
My own position is neutral: I am OS neutral and as a user under Vista I am aware and seek to factually document the issues (I have tolerated the fair edit and corrections of my submissions but that have passed the neutral point and moved to the POV bias I have documented above. I am not an experienced user so any posts on how to go about this to my talk back page would be much appreciated.)
;The diffs concerned are as follows:
:Revision as of 18:51, 24 March 2007 (edit) Mattjs (Talk | contribs) m (copyedit cite) ← Older edit 	
::Apple are working to get iTunes working with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista, however numerous issues still remain including poor performance and it is still not yet officially supported.
:Current revision (18:54, 24 March 2007) (edit) (undo) AlistairMcMillan (Talk | contribs) (iTunes isn't supported yet on Vista. We don't need five cites that all basically say the same thing.)
::Apple are working to get iTunes working with Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista, however issues still remain and it is not yet officially supported.
;I am seeking to have it go to arbitration... Mattjs
Did you read the linked Apple support document?  The one that says in the intro "Blah blah blah, Apple is actively working with Microsoft to resolve a few remaining known issues".  Did you look at the iTunes download page that clearly says "Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 or later or Windows XP" under the heading "Windows Requirements"? AlistairMcMillan 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but maybe not.  However it is here now, relevant now, and I see no reasons other than prejudice for it to be ignored.  This is exactly what an Encyclopedia is for I thought!? Mattjs 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion assuming that is the right place.  Mattjs 20:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Though it cannot (yet) be susbstaniated nor can it go in the article for reasons of evidence - if you have read my posts here - I have the strong suspician that the performance issues are deliberate on Apple's part as they have gotten worse with the latest iTunes revision and is the reason for its relevance and why I am insisting that these details go in.  Given Apple's Ad Campaign and intentions you may well be right - it might take a year to get fixed and they have had plenty of time through the Vista betas already to fix it which add to my argument yet again and there are references to discussion along these lines on the web as well which I haven't yet bothered to consider...  The list I made and submitted is short but the six refs after the one sentence are enough to show that something is _definatly_ "going on" as I argue again that they should! Mattjs 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have and had the option of putting this stuff in a Vista/Vista problems/Vists issues/Vista controversy section instead of simply reverting...  I cannot do anything now as I would only expect from your form (and I am not trying to be rude here) that you would simply revert again.  Obsessive compulsive reversion may be a problem at Wikipedia.  I dont know....  Mattjs 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One last point before we leave it to a moderator: the conspiracy theory as you call it - I call it the criticism of Apples performance with respect to minor tweaks of iTunes for Vista - I can readily cite: it is well discussed on the web. (At this point what I shouldn't say is how madingly simple minded  many editors seem to be here and how keen they are to have the last word on every topic.)  Well will just have to wait and see what happens meanwhile I can dig up some more references if you would like.  I would suggest creating a separate Vista section (away from the intro) as that would be an easy way to solve our deadlock. Mattjs 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Vista problems/issues being constantly reverted 

message: The CD-Text article says that "iTunes 7 supports burning with CD Text". Can that be added to this article, thereby confirming it? TIA -- Jerome Potts 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be WP:BOLD -- KelleyCook 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD-Text