macnews.net.tc
2007-04-19
AppleMatters thinks iPhoto for Windows
The matter of Apple's software on Windows comes up a couple of times a year. Sometimes it's Safari for Windows, sometimes iPhoto or iWork (after all, Apple _did_ sell ClarisWorks/AppleWorks for Windows...). But Apple hasn't got much reason to embrace Windows even more. Apple's money is not in selling cheap software for Windows. It's not even in selling cheap software (like iWork and iLife) on the Mac. It's mainly in the hardware. The reason Apple does Quicktime and iTunes for Windows is clear: Those are required for where _more_ money lies: The iTunes Store. (The AppleMatters article mentions that as well.)
The article is based on the thought that Apple wants to _control_ the experience of Apple TV. Why let photos be handled by 3rd party software like Adobe Album or Adobe Photoshop Elements, they're asking. Well: Because they work just fine for this task. When Apple used 3rd party software for controlling the iPod on Windows, that software simply was a sub-par experience for the user. And: Photos are not _the_ integral part of Apple TV, anyway. It's a nice addition. Even more importantly, however: Such a thought would not have come up only with Apple TV, but with the iPod before that. The iPod has had photo capabilities for years now. 4th generation iPod photo, anyone? But Apple's focus clearly is on iTunes here. The halo-effect of iPhoto would certainly not be as big as the iPod's or iTunes' for one. Rather, iPhoto is one of the tools that you get for free with a Mac, and that's one good reason _not_ to make iPhoto for Windows.
Basically, I merely want to state that the linked article is, quite probably, on the wrong track.
"With Apple TV, now it makes sense." - Nope. The Apple TV may sell a few devices, but the iPod has had a big market for years, without Apple creating iPhoto for Windows. No, no, no. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 13:57 [article link] 0 comments
The article is based on the thought that Apple wants to _control_ the experience of Apple TV. Why let photos be handled by 3rd party software like Adobe Album or Adobe Photoshop Elements, they're asking. Well: Because they work just fine for this task. When Apple used 3rd party software for controlling the iPod on Windows, that software simply was a sub-par experience for the user. And: Photos are not _the_ integral part of Apple TV, anyway. It's a nice addition. Even more importantly, however: Such a thought would not have come up only with Apple TV, but with the iPod before that. The iPod has had photo capabilities for years now. 4th generation iPod photo, anyone? But Apple's focus clearly is on iTunes here. The halo-effect of iPhoto would certainly not be as big as the iPod's or iTunes' for one. Rather, iPhoto is one of the tools that you get for free with a Mac, and that's one good reason _not_ to make iPhoto for Windows.
Basically, I merely want to state that the linked article is, quite probably, on the wrong track.
"With Apple TV, now it makes sense." - Nope. The Apple TV may sell a few devices, but the iPod has had a big market for years, without Apple creating iPhoto for Windows. No, no, no. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 13:57 [article link] 0 comments
2007-04-12
The Unthinkable Happens...
Apple today announced that Leopard would not ship in June, as expected, but rather in October. The reason given: Finishing the software for the iPhone has taken more energy than anticipated. Apple had to take some engineers out of the Leopard crew and put them onto iPhone's development.
Apple today also seeded a new developer build of Leoaprd, Mac OS X 10.5 9A410. The build has quite a list of outstanding bugs. Apple will give developers at WWDC in June an almost-finished build of Leopard, Apple said today. But for people who have put off buying a new Mac because of Apple's previous stance of delivering this "in Spring 2007" (so people have been expecting March, April and later May and June as the release date), this certainly is frustrating.
Update: At least the new build of Leopard, 9A410, shows some promise in the UI department. Gone is brushed metal, the apps adopt the unified look already present in Mail.app etc. in Tiger. I, for one, applaud that. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 23:09 [article link] 5 comments
Apple today also seeded a new developer build of Leoaprd, Mac OS X 10.5 9A410. The build has quite a list of outstanding bugs. Apple will give developers at WWDC in June an almost-finished build of Leopard, Apple said today. But for people who have put off buying a new Mac because of Apple's previous stance of delivering this "in Spring 2007" (so people have been expecting March, April and later May and June as the release date), this certainly is frustrating.
Update: At least the new build of Leopard, 9A410, shows some promise in the UI department. Gone is brushed metal, the apps adopt the unified look already present in Mail.app etc. in Tiger. I, for one, applaud that. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 23:09 [article link] 5 comments
2007-04-06
It's a _linux_ virus, st00pid.
Wow. I was afraid this would happen this fast. Someone apparently wrote a demo-virus for linux on the iPod. And voilà: Now you can read about the "first iPod virus", probably in a few hours all over the 'net.
Just to make this as clear as possible: Your iPod is not in danger. Even if you're running linux on it, the virus is not in the wild. But as long as you're running your iPod as intended, this virus does *NOT* apply. At all.
Wow. It's incredible how people don't think when writing headlines. As if most people would remember what the article actually says. :/ So please, if you're blogging somewhere, repeat after me: It's a _linux_ virus, st00pid. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 16:26 [article link] 0 comments
Just to make this as clear as possible: Your iPod is not in danger. Even if you're running linux on it, the virus is not in the wild. But as long as you're running your iPod as intended, this virus does *NOT* apply. At all.
Wow. It's incredible how people don't think when writing headlines. As if most people would remember what the article actually says. :/ So please, if you're blogging somewhere, repeat after me: It's a _linux_ virus, st00pid. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 16:26 [article link] 0 comments
2007-04-02
EMI - New product: Higher priced, but DRM-free products?
EMI announces DRM free, vastly improved sound quality songs. More to follow. The format is high-quality MP3, not AAC. The first partner to support this format: Apple's iTunes. Starting in May, EMIs complete digital catalogue will be available as premium MP3, DRM-free. iTunes, however, sells 256 kbps AAC, DRM-free. Price per premium track: 1.29$. Upgrade from standard DRM'd .99 track: 0.30 USD.
Apple continues to sell DRM's AAC 128 kbps, so people have the choice. They estimate that over 50% of all tracks sold at the end of 2007 will also be available in the new format.
1st question: When are the Beatles' tracks going to be available digitally. EMI: "We're working on it." Steve Jobs: "I wanna know that, too!" ;) - Asked whether inplementing a dual system is rather complicated than, Apple's normal way, simple, Steve said: He thinks the way to go will be DRM-free and a tad more expensive, but for the time being, they want to offer the choice, not take away anything. Follow-up question, whether opening would mean lower iPod sales, Steve answers: We're offering the best music store, offering the best music player. Plus: "We're not offering anything today they couldn't get before on CD: Good quality, DRM free music." Good to hear, Apple's not ignoring that. Strange, though, that people outside want to sue Apple about it.
Asked about whether the other big labels will follow: He can't say today, but he thinks they'll follow. Saying that EMI's pioneering here today. This is about a good thing for consumers. And you can't really stop good things. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 14:24 [article link] 0 comments
Apple continues to sell DRM's AAC 128 kbps, so people have the choice. They estimate that over 50% of all tracks sold at the end of 2007 will also be available in the new format.
1st question: When are the Beatles' tracks going to be available digitally. EMI: "We're working on it." Steve Jobs: "I wanna know that, too!" ;) - Asked whether inplementing a dual system is rather complicated than, Apple's normal way, simple, Steve said: He thinks the way to go will be DRM-free and a tad more expensive, but for the time being, they want to offer the choice, not take away anything. Follow-up question, whether opening would mean lower iPod sales, Steve answers: We're offering the best music store, offering the best music player. Plus: "We're not offering anything today they couldn't get before on CD: Good quality, DRM free music." Good to hear, Apple's not ignoring that. Strange, though, that people outside want to sue Apple about it.
Asked about whether the other big labels will follow: He can't say today, but he thinks they'll follow. Saying that EMI's pioneering here today. This is about a good thing for consumers. And you can't really stop good things. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 14:24 [article link] 0 comments
