Cutentr-osx 0.3.2, A Native Ntr Streaming Client For Mac

• Cutentr-osx 0.3.2 A Native Ntr Streaming Client For Mac Free

An anonymous reader writes 'It seems that Apple is indeed porting its new iTunes software to Windows as evidenced by a posting on its (No. 1949938) This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable? Will this have any effect on P2P networks?' Sure enough, I go there and it says, ' Looking for a Senior Software Engineer to desing (sic) and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows.' This wont require iPods, but it will sell them and more Apple hardware in the long run.

* Assembler, C Compiler, and Monitor * Native 32-bit Code to run on Windows95 and WindowsNT * Sophisticated Project Management System @ Drag-and-Drop Code Development Libraries l Hardware-Aware Dynamic Debugging: Single Step, Breakpoints, Animation * Supports interrupts, Mixed Mode Programming (C -Asm) R167-JIF -- $167, READS1 66 Lite -- $300.

The best way ive found to show off how great the mac platform is is to show people iTunes, and then tell them that almost all Apple apps are that clean and intuitive (almost =iCal). Right now its not about the 'next killer app' thats being brewed in some R&D lab, the killer app is right here - an iPod + iTunes is a reason to buy a computer.

For Apple that means making big margins (read: iPod) on a commercial for their other 'digital hub' services. And to think that when I bought my first mac in '99 Apple was the worst plaform for digital media, thank god for Steve Jobs. Oh wait, he is god, my bad. Apple also know that free-as-in-beer software is a cheap quick way to get people onboard.

It comes down to the argument used by a lot of software piracy advocates; When you copy software you're not stealing because nothing is taken. All you're doing is using it unlicensed. Similarly with iTunes - Apple have put development time into the app, and with every copy downloaded they're increasing the value of their machines. Apple lose nothing from the download, but only gain in a higher user satisfaction - and now with a windows version, have the potential to increase the value of their Music Store ten times over.

Add a few more free apps, and you have quite a lot of the value of a mac. IDVD, iCal, iTunes, Safari, Mail, iPhoto, iMovie etc.

All free-as-in-beer, and to common old users like myself part of the reason I get a lot out of my mac. I've been wanting iTunes for Windows for sometime now, but at the same time not wanting it, because it's a good program that makes the mac platform special. I think it will be good for both music and ipod sales, but will it have Rendezvous built in? That would greatly increase music sharing on my campus, and since it would work only within the lan it wouldn't count against upload/download restrictions. I still don't think apple will move much more to X86, and esp.

They will not be using X86 CPU's anytime soon. Well, I've only seen the demos by Jobs, but supposedly you can copy songs to your iPod from inside iTunes, then modify the songs(tags) or playlists or rate the songs and when you sync with the mac all of the information is transfered into iTunes. You can even pause a song on the Mac, sync and the iPod will pick up where you left off. The same type of thing goes the other way. Great for audio books.

I actually don't have an mp3 player, so maybe you can already do this kind of thing with other players, bu. It's not quite THAT fancy. Basically, iTunes lets you either specify your whole library to go on the iPod(if it fits), or just the playlists you specify.

You can modify the tags and assign star ratings, 1 to 5 starts, for each song. You CAN'T pause a song in iTunes and continue in the same spot on the iPod, or vice versa. ITunes 4 adds Rendezvous network streaming over LAN or AirPort networks, or manually streaming to one remote IP address. It adds the iTunes Music Store, and lets you store album art fo. Two responses that don't really answer you. Let's say you have a 5 GB iPod and a 4 GB music collection. You can set up iTunes so that the iPod syncs to your music collection every time you plug it in.

The first time you plug it in, all of your music and playlists will be downloaded to it. Buzz buzz, the iPod will get hot while the FireWire cable sparkles. You unplug your iPod. You go do something. You come home, and shop on the iTunes Music Store. You buy three songs. You plug your iPod in, and poof!

Quick as can be, those songs are now on your iPod. You make a couple of playlists, and those are on your iPod, too. You rip a new CD, and those songs are on your iPod too. There's more. When you plug in you iPod, iSync automatically launches and downloads your address book and calendar items (including alarms) to it.

So now your iPod is a simple PDA as well as a music player. All of this happened without your having to actually do anything beyond the initial set-up. It's all automatic as soon as you plug the iPod in. And because we're talking about FireWire here, it's all fast, fast. In fact, the limiting factor on the iPod's transfer speed is the internal hard drive itself, not the connection to the computer. There's more to it than that.

ITunes has support for smart playlists, which means (for example) that you can have a playlist that randomly picks 10 songs you've listened to at least once but haven't heard in a week or more. All in all, the iPod is both the most expensive and the most popular music player on the market, and that ought to tell you something. Yeah, I know, 'the one that's pre-installed'. We may still be globally screwed, but at least Apple's trying.

Cutentr-osx 0.3.2 A Native Ntr Streaming Client For Mac Free

Being that AOL still comes pre-installed on plenty of x86bawksen - and being that there are strong rumors of AOL leveraging the Windows iTunes port for music management and purchase - it's not a long stretch to imagine a good% of future plebeMachines shipping with iTunes. We can always hope that Apple and AOL work out a series of deals with the vendors to leave iTunes separate from the AOL install (or at least not requiring an AOL account to access/use it - that's the long stretch) AOL could be the 'Trojan Horse' Apple needs to ferret their way in. This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes or Mail. They all bought a Mac for the overall user experience of the apps and OS X. It's great that WinXP will get iTunes. It still won't have Safari, iDVD, iPhoto, Mail, Terminal, Fire, etc.

And it definitely won't have the BSD layer of OS X. There are still fundamental differences between OS X and WinXP that will attract people to OS X. One or two ports of favorite apps won't change that. I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes I did. I bought an iPod when they were still Mac-only, so I ended up buying the eMac to go with it. After using iTunes once on a friend's iBook, I was hooked. Doing ID3 tags on a Windows platform is like looking forward to a root canal when you're talking about 5,000+ songs.

Of course, I don't mind a lot of the other features of OS X, but iTunes and the iPod were a killer combination. Frankly, I still prefer Win2K over OS X, not least because a number of programs I use are still Windows-only and have no decent OS X equivalents. It kind of pisses me off that had I waited a year, I could have saved myself a massive ($3000+) investment in Apple hardware. I suppose that's the price for being an early adopter - but I'm still pissed, and I hope Apple makes the iTunes for Windows client a shadow of the real thing. Isn't that feeling of being pissed at Apple just part of being a Mac fan? I remember that feeling very well: 1) Buying a Plus two weeks befor the Clasic came out. 2) Buying a Powerbook 140 only to have it fixed 4 times before it become 'discontinued' 3) Bying a LaserWriter NTR for $2,500 back in'91, cuz it was the cheapest way to print postscript - reliably.

4) Bying a PowerPC 6100 (pizza box) only to watch my dad's Perfoma our perform it 6 months later. I had to switch to a PC if for no other reason than to transfer my hostilities to a more worthy villan. So help me God, I'm desperately wanting to by an ipod - bring on the heartache. I got a 12' Powerbook as well.

Doesn't mean I didn't find other uses for the equipment, but still, that money could've been better spent elsewhere. I'm selling the eMac (tonight, actually - got a buyer yesterday) and thus recouping some of my loss.

Truthfully, iTunes wasn't the ONLY justification for purchasing an Apple machine - I'm a web developer, and I needed a PowerPC platform for testing; similarly, my 300 MHz PII laptop was getting a bit worn out. It was a major part of the reason for purchase. I read somewhere reputable that Apple makes almost as much profit off of an iPod as an iMac.

When you think about it, it makes sense. Thanks to all the $599 P.O.S. Machines Dell keeps putting out, the lower end desktop market has rather thin profit margins.

On the other hand, the cheapest iPod is 300 @#$@#$ dollars (but god do I want one;)). So, if they can port iTunes to Windows and instead of requiring people to change their entire way of life and buying a mac, all they have to do is buy an iPod, then they've made almost as much money PLUS revenues from the music store, which selection aside (give it some time), is one of the easiest things in the world to use.

They can't lose. While Apple has not commited to porting Safari to the Windows platorm, I think it would have a major positive impact on Apple. Many web sites are still being designed for Intenet Explorer for Windows only. If you aren't using the most popular platform, your not admitted. Microsoft has been winning the browser battles but not the war. The OSS community and Apple have clearly shown that that can innovate in this space.

However only Apple has the marketing muscle to try and battle IE. IE for Windows accounts for 90-95% of the hits for most of the web sites that I am involved with. For some developers those #s justify developing for a single platform. If Apple can get 100% of Mac users to adopt Safari we may see a 1% shift. However if Apple can get 25% of IE for Windows users to switch to Safari for Windows, the playing field will quickly level.

As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site and not have plugins available for non IE browsers. Apple can help their long term position by leveling the internet playing field and thus making migration to a non Windows platform that much smoother.

Choice is good. 'Apple can help their long term position by leveling the internet playing field and thus making migration to a non Windows platform that much smoother.' But if Apple make a habit of porting their applications to Windows, why bother migrating at all - people will just 'expect' each app to be ported sooner or later. Besides, Safari for Windows wouldn't create a revene stream.

ITunes for Windows, with the Music Store, does create a revenue stream. Remember, these companies do exist to make money after all. A while ago (like, 2000) some of my friends were discussing the significance of QuickTime on Windows. I think it came out of Apple's testimony in the MS antitrust case about Windows appearing to 'break' QuickTime. (A lot of Windows people tend to bash QuickTime on x86.

I've played with it, and while I agree that it's somewhat clunkier - somewhat - than the Mac version, it works fine for everything I've thrown at it. I've often suspected that these people who hate Qt/Win are used to v3 or something.) QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning. It can literally do anything (I used to joke that the cure for cancer was in QT if you knew the right keyboard shortcut.) I've seen people juggle dozens of disparate codecs, publish automated PDF spreadsheets, and control remote cameras and robots w/QT. (Okay, I like QT.) Now, QT on Windows I've always regarded as a sort of Apple Secret Weapon.

The original QT-Win port actually contained a really significant chunk of the Mac Toolbox API out of necessity. Don't know if that's still true.

What my friends were discussing all that time ago was whether or not Apple could use this installed base of what amounts to a mini-OS against Microsoft, if the media wars every truly got nasty. Think about it - you hook everyone on something like, say, apple.com, get everyone to install it. Now you roll out iTunes, which everyone loves, which relies on QT for many functions, not the least of which your new DRM (FairPlay - good name) for the Music Store you just launched. Nothing really insightful here but QuickTime could pose some major problems for Windows hegemony in media dominance. It's already captured the format for the MPEG4 spec (MS just howled bloody murder over that). It's been around since the dawn of time. ITunes for Windows is just the head of the spear.

Apple has been playing defence for a long time but this is really significant, especially of consumers really glom onto Apple's method of DRM. Palladium, anyone? (I know its not the same, but do you think any typical users know that?) Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback. That's so fucking funny to me now, it hurts. Helloooo, iMovie.

Slightly OT: Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux. The port alone, while earning them no money, would be very strategic. It may have a stunning architecture but until it starts following the Windows GUI guidelines I'm sorry. The Windows GUI guidelines The what?!? The Windows GUI guidelines I can hear and understand the words, but I can find no meaning in them.

Joking aside, if you're looking for interface consistency then you are using the wrong OS. Windows is many things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I mean, Microsoft's own media player looks absolutely crazy-like. Same with WinAmp, same with nearly every media player.

Yes I know about the classic skins. Besides, interface consistency is kind of a weak argument in this instance. I could understand that for something that needed you to do more than poke 'Play' and maybe adjust the volume. Are you deaf? Deafness isn't the issue. The problem is that he's not blind, or he might actually get conned into believing that MS follows their own guidelines. Check out the MS CD player on Win2k sometime.

Or the MS media player. Here are a couple of simple ones for you. What does CTRL-F do? If you said 'Find' you're obviously not using Outlook.in Outlook it does 'Forward'. So, how does one do a Find in Outlook? Well, that depends on what you think 'Find' means. Then again, it could be F4.

What a wonderful use of those consistent guidelines. But then again, MS does say 'Most first-class applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system share a familiar and consistent user interface.' Apple Computer is looking for a Senior Software Engineer to design and build one of our newest Consumer Applications, iTunes for Windows. Must be possess strong skills in the areas of application design, solid API design principles, user interface engineering, and have a strong understanding of customer and workflow issues. Experience with Windows logo certification preferred. Candidate should have a history of successful large volume consumer product shipment.

Or better in Electrical Engineering. If the quality of these posts is any indication. Consumer applications does not necessarily mean an application that you have to pay for. QuickTime, iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes are all free - if you want Pro (prosumer) functionality from QuickTime, you have to pay.

If you want your iApps in a neato box, then you pay for iLife. So now that we got that out of the way. There's no good reason why Apple would charge for a Windows version of iTunes, but I can think of a couple of really good reasons not to.

Just after Apple bought NeXT, I played with their 'yellow box' development tools on a windows machine. This was basically a port of the ObjC runtimes and several of the basic NeXT frameworks that now make up the core of the Cocoa APIs. They had versions of TextEdit and Stickies that ran on my Windows NT workstation as part of the developer tools. (Talk about creepy.) Anyway, my point is, Apple has been thinking for a long time about the day when they would need one of their apps to run on a Microsoft operating system.users would prefer to go for the cheaper platform that performs just as well or better. No, the chief argument is that all of a sudden you've got millions of people expecting to get 'the Mac experience' by loading OS X on: Motherboard T + CPU U + Video Card V + Audio Card W + RAM X + HDD Y + Power Supply Z (where variables T - Z are a wide array of possibilities) You no longer have a series of machines that 'just work' - instead you have 'that other OS thingie that flakes-out almo. PPC multitasks better than x86 could hope to. I know a guy with a 500 MHz iBook (that means a G3) with 256 MB of RAM.

We were burning a CD, listening to MP3s, and browsing the Internet in both Safari and IE and none of the tasks skipped. The CD came out just fine. Compare this to my 1800+ TBred A running at 1.6 GHz with 512 MB of RAM. I was just listening to some MP3s using Winamp. When I started Phoenix, my MP3s skipped for well over 5 seconds. When I launch Word 2000, they do the same thing. Perhaps it is.

I've re-installed Windows something like 5 times on this machine. First 2000, and I had no problems. Then, xp Pro and it started doing some of the strangest things. Really, I didn't notice the skipping until recently. Perhaps it was some Windows update that I installed? I haven't done anything else system related since I installed xp, so I wonder what it could be. Anyway, my point was that I've had some really bad experiences with my Athlon.

Windows doesn't 'just work' the way that it should. I've got processing power and RAM to spare and it doesn't allocate it such that my MP3s don't skip. Meanwhile, my friend's iBook with one third the processor speed (I know, I know, unfair compairison) and half the RAM running at less than one quarter the speed doesn't have any problems whatsoever. I agree with you that Windows seems to be a lot more mysterious than OSX, in that if something doesn't work right it's pretty tough to figure out why. I hadn't used Windows since 3.11 until I bought this laptop just recently. XP is a big improvement over that but still far from perfect. Your problem with skipping sounds to me like maybe your hard drive isn't using DMA properly.

If it has to run through interrupts then you can see exactly the symptom you described. You might try poking around in the Devi. I believe that the sole reason for porting iTunes is so that they can get the iTunes Music Store for Windows users. The whole point of the iTunes Music Store is that Apple has control of the whole process: You buy the music from Apple with iTunes, load it up to your iPod or burn it to a CD using iTunes. That's what makes it special from the numerous websites selling music downloads. Apple already has iPod for Windows, but it ships with a 3rd party jukebox software.

ITunes for Windows is the missing piece which will enable Apple to create a similar music purchasing experience for Windows users as it has for Mac users. That's only my opinion, but I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows. What I'm wondering is why the music store is locked out to anyone except OS X users with iTunes 4. If you watched apple.com, he wants the system to 'just work,' i.e., have the music automatically dropped into iTunes and not downloaded into some folder you have to go find, then add it to iTunes manually.

The other reason, just as with the iPods, is to give all the innovations to Mac (OS X) users first. (The reason should be obvious.) If you meant OS 9 as opposed to OS X, Jobs has said a long time ago that OS 9 is dead. No, it's not bad marketing. It's brilliant marketing.

I'm sure Apple hopes that the Music Store will be independently profitable, but I can guarantee you it's going to take a SHITLOAD of 99 downloads to reach that point. For now, the Music Store will drive iPod sales and, to a lesser extent, Mac sales. That's good marketing, not bad marketing. Now, let's talk about the assertion that the Music Store is a 'web based app.' Yesterday I bought 'Birdhouse in your Soul' by They Might Be Giants.

I clicked Music Store. I typed 'Birdhouse in your Soul' in the search box and hit enter.

I clicked 'Buy Song.' I typed my password and hit enter. I clicked 'Buy' to confirm. I went and got a drink of water. When I came back, the song was sitting in my 'Purchased Music' playlist and it was on my iPod, because I had it plugged in and I had auto-sync turned on.

Total cost to me: 99. (I already had the Mac, the Internet access, and the iPod.) Total time required, not counting the trip to the kitchen: about thirty seconds. Try doing THAT with a cross-platform 'web based app.'

It just ain't gonna happen. ITunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford No, it's like BMW making car stereos for Ford. You bought a Mac because you wanted the best driving experience. Nothing has changed there.

But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product. For an Mac user, you don't seem to have much of a concept of the 'ease of use' advantage! On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes. DISCLAIMER I've just posted this in another thread, but this is slashdot, so duping stuff around doesn't make me fill guilty.

And, for it to work, we just need to pass this along. /DISCLAIMER, thank you for your attention. how about making it work with Linux!? apple.com Bitch about Linux support ( apple.com / apple.com) 24/7.

Eventually they might listen. I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About the iPod. About iTunes.

You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. I asked for a 'queue' playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!).

I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way. Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc.) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there are opportunities to fight back Microsoft. But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.

Yes, but this feature has mainly been implemented because users of the old model iPods sent tons of apple.com requesting it. This means WE have been working as testers (call it what you want), and now they implement this feature without 'giving back' to the people who sent feedback. I think the new iPods are attractive enough (expanded capacity, dock, USB 2.0, smaller, lighter, new design, etc) to sell 'by themselves', without Apple needing to try to lure the first-time users into buying new models by NOT in.

Apparently owners of current (old) iPods will not be getting a firmware upgrade that enables the new features like On-The-Fly playlists, notes, games, etc. snip I am outraged by this decision and won't be supporting the iTunes music store. As far as the games and such are concerned: can you tell me how Solitaire would make ANY sense with the 'old' button setup? It seems as though you would need some horizontal buttons of some kind, which the new iPods have. As far as being outraged to the point of not us. Sounds like someone needs a hug.;-) I'm quite happy with AAC support for my 5 GB iPod. I certainly don't need games on something with such tiny buttons and a tiny black and white screen.

If I'm bored, that's what the MUSIC is for! The notes feature might be useful, depending on how it's implemented. But I don't need it. The iTunes Music Store, on the other hand, is all the fun of a Borders store on my desktop at a lower price. (well, no books or videos, but you get my point) I'm sure it will be a sm.

How about making it work with Linux!? apple.com Bitch about Linux support ( apple.com / apple.com) 24/7. Eventually they might listen. I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple.

About the iPod. About iTunes.

You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. I asked for a 'queue' playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed.

I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way. Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc.) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there is a demand from this platform. It's worth trying, anyway. But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.