Check this out-Email from MusicMatch

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by arn
If you have an iPod + MusicMatch... Apple gave both of those to you. Is Apple in their rights to upgrade MusicMatch to iTunes? I personally think so - but barely.

'scuse me? If someone bought an iPod, and it came with MusicMatch, then I don't see that software as being "given" by Apple - that person bought a license to that software and has every right to expect it to continue to function, no matter what "competitive" software gets installed after the fact. The fact that Apple was involved both times is irrelevant.

-Richard

 

[whooleytoo]

Blech! This is ugly.

Just imagine the potential headline:

"Apple cripples MusicMatch opposition, enforces monopoly on iPod interoperability".

- Just swap Apple with Microsoft, MusicMatch with Netscape (Lotus etc..), iPod with Windows.

Add it to the other recent story:

"Apple puts squeeze on retail competition, attempts to steal customers".

As if the QuickTime/iTunes combined installer didn't have enough points for PC critics already!

Annoying popup "Buy now" dialog.. Check!
DRM... Check!
Disable software on user's PC WITHOUT ASKING... Check!
Hijack file associations... Check!
Rearrange MP3 collections... Check!

Even admitting the last two can be avoided, it's still an ugly list of issues for critics to latch on to!

Mike.

 

[Wash!!]

You don't have to use itunes for playing

Originally posted by iPost
Okay... I don't *HATE* iTunes. I've just been using other jukeboxes/players (MusicMatch, Winamp, and Siren Jukebox) for years and I guess I'm used to those interfaces. Like I said, I can see that some people really like iTunes. And that's a "good thing." It's all about choice and personal preference. iTunes just doesn't work the way I'm used to. (Nothing personal!)

Getting back to the original point... I really like my iPod and I'm a bit upset in that it seems that Apple wants me to use iTunes instead of the player of my choice. If Apple made an SDK available to whoever wanted to program for it, we'd probably see a lot of innovative software appear that supported the iPod (and maybe my favorite program would get even better at supporting it).

Use musicmatch to play your tracks on your pc and use itunes for synching and move on if you don't like it i'll take your ipod from your hands.. and go buy that crappy dell "I want to be an ipod so bad" dj thing...

 

[arn]

Originally posted by rjstanford
'scuse me? If someone bought an iPod, and it came with MusicMatch, then I don't see that software as being "given" by Apple - that person bought a license to that software and has every right to expect it to continue to function, no matter what "competitive" software gets installed after the fact.

Do you expect Palm Desktop 2.0 to sync to your palm after you install Palm Desktop 3.0?

Look, i'm not being difficult... just pointing out that this is a unique situation in that Apple did not (happen to) control the first version of the ipod syncing software.

That being said... yes, Apple should offer an either/or or at least a downgrade option.

arn

 

[the_dalex]

If Apple provided the plugin, and they needed to make changes to that plugin to work with iTunes, and the new plugin couldn't be made to reliably work with both... then I don't see a problem with it.

Somebody posted that there was a warning when iTunes was installed, but people are not reading it. Can we get a confirmation on that? If so, this whole discussion is about how people get fired up over things that are their own fault for not paying attention...

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I believe iPod syncing in Windows is not necessarily built in to MusicMatch, but is a seperate program built by Apple that allows interaction with MusicMatch. The iPod is listed seperately under add/remove programs from MM and iTunes. Apple updates their own iPod program and makes it sync to iTunes. My guess is MM has no code or anything dealing with the iPod, just like Belkin wasn't able to see the iPod when designing products for it. So, basically, as syncing improves, MM's software they are licensed to use will become more and more out of date, making iTunes the only logical solution for syncing with the iPod in all platforms. Makes it a lot easier, if you ask me. How confusing could it get if two programs were both trying to sync with the iPod?

Doesn't seem like MM is complaining much anyways. They also haven't posted a program that does the job of re-enabling MM for you with the iPod because, I believe, they're not allowed to under agreements with Apple. They wanted to be able to work with iPod and realized Apple would eventually have its own software for their product. I just think the free iTunes signals a great diminishment in the popularity of MM.

 

[pankau]

2 applications attempting to "sync" at the same time

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
So, basically, as syncing improves, MM's software they are licensed to use will become more and more out of date, making iTunes the only logical solution for syncing with the iPod in all platforms. Makes it a lot easier, if you ask me. How confusing could it get if two programs were both trying to sync with the iPod?

First, I don't personally believe Apple has the right to forcibly dictate which syncing application/solution is "the only logical" one to use.

Second, it is not at all confusing when two or more programs both try to sync with an external device. Do you have a digital camera? If you're like me, you most likely have some sort of utility software that came with your camera as well as an album-like application that organizes your photos. When I connect my camera to my computer, a little dialog pops up asking me to choose which application I would like to use to connect to the camera (and I can set this as the default for the future if I want). Same thing goes for when you insert a CD into your cd-rom drive. Multple applications want to read/play/burn that CD, but YOU get to choose which one gets to do so, not Apple or some other company. This is my problem with Apple hijacking MMJB's access to the iPod. Functionality already widely exists for multiple applications to attempt to connect to a newly connected device.

 

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by arn
Do you expect Palm Desktop 2.0 to sync to your palm after you install Palm Desktop 3.0?

Not if I "upgraded" it, no. Although if I installed it in a separate directory, especially if it came bundled as part of another application suite, then yes, I would.

I certainly wouldn't expect that if I installed something like Microsoft Outlook which contained palm syncing capabilities that it would disable Palm Desktop 2.0, even if Outlook's capabilities were more up-to-date.

That's what Apple's done here.

-Richard

 

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I believe iPod syncing in Windows is not necessarily built in to MusicMatch, but is a seperate program built by Apple that allows interaction with MusicMatch. The iPod is listed seperately under add/remove programs from MM and iTunes.

Not from the user's point of view. There's MusicMatch, and then the iPod-enabled version of MusicMatch. If you, for example, try to install a later version of MM by downloading it (instead of doing the "Upgrade" link inside your existing MM/iPod), you're even told, "This version doesn't contain iPod functionality that your current one does. If you want to keep it, cancel this installation and upgrade your current one."

How its specifically implemented by the developers is irrelevant to the vast majority of users.

-Richard

 

[Sabenth]

the who and the what now.. you can still use your iPod.. you can still use MM For playing music why in gods name is beyond me i used MM for a little while and i reverted back to WMP9 Till iTunes came out.. havent looked back yet ive got a whole 2 computers worth of music sharing on 2 computers great!!

bit sneaky i know with the ipod sync thing but iPod +iTunes = Entertament ..

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by rjstanford
I certainly wouldn't expect that if I installed something like Microsoft Outlook which contained palm syncing capabilities that it would disable Palm Desktop 2.0, even if Outlook's capabilities were more up-to-date.

That's what Apple's done here.

What if your Palm had come with Microsoft Outlook, and you download Palm Desktop, which disables Outlook's ability to sync with your Palm?

 

[Rumbach]

At a certain point, it seems that the popularity of the ipod requires a certain amount of "fair play" from Apple.

If I am correct, the ipod is "by far" the most popular mp3 player right now.

To only allow your own software to work with your own player, in order to promote your company, could get really dirty.

Why? Because Msoft did the exact same thing with Windows/Explorer - take a very very popular product, then make it bundle/work well with your own software, even if others are out there competing.


I don't like it too much.

 

[zync]

Originally posted by iPost

As far as the other point, perhaps I didn't explain the problem well enough. The problem I have with iTunes is that if you play from the library, the current context of what you're playing in your library is easily lost.

Did you consider how confusing it would be if it didn't get modified in a search? You always know what's playing next because it goes down the list but if it just remembered the order (taking up a lot of system resources while your at it) how would you have any idea what's coming next you've modified the view with a search. The search isn't meant to go find other music while you're listening to music. It's meant to taylor the library into a pseudo-playlist so you don't have to create one. Besides, if you were using a mac you could probably just write an AppleScript to fix all your iTunes woes. That's something MM will never be able to do!

 

[BillyShears]

So what if Macromedia releases a web browser? Would it be fine with all of you if it disabled the Flash plugins in Safari/IE/Camino?

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by BillyShears
So what if Macromedia releases a web browser? Would it be fine with all of you if it disabled the Flash plugins in Safari/IE/Camino?

This situation is a little different from that -- The iPod can't effectively try to sync with two different programs. Trying to accomplish this would just make the iPod more difficult to use. Apple changed which software it used for the iPod, only if you installed it, and warned you that it was changing it's function. The fact of the matter is that they had to pick one or the other to keep the two programs from alternately claiming control of the iPod (which could cause iPod problems).

ALSO, MusicMatch no longer functions fully with the iPod. By including WMA-p downloads that don't work on the iPods, MUSICMATCH BROKE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE IPOD. Apple has a choice between users complaining that MusicMatch doesn't work with their iPods anymore, or users complaining that the iPod doesn't work with their MusicMatch music. Which should they choose? Which would you choose?

 

[Phil Of Mac]

It should be noted that Apple is breaking compatibility only with the version of MusicMatch *that shipped with the iPod in the first place*.

If Apple wants to replace my bundled copy of GraphicConverter with Photoshop Elements, I'm happy.

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by zync
Did you consider how confusing it would be if it didn't get modified in a search? You always know what's playing next because it goes down the list but if it just remembered the order (taking up a lot of system resources while your at it) how would you have any idea what's coming next you've modified the view with a search.

This could be changed with a "Now Playing..." item in the source list. However, I find it useful to be able to do a search to dictate what will play next. If you prefer to use playlists, by all means use them. Playlists do not work any differently because you are able to play from the library.

 

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
This situation is a little different from that -- The iPod can't effectively try to sync with two different programs. Trying to accomplish this would just make the iPod more difficult to use. ... Which should they choose? Which would you choose?

I like your second question. Why not let the user choose? Windows already has well established standards (ignored by Apple like so many other standards are) that address this issue. When you plug in your iPod, Windows can pop up a little dialog that says:

What would you like to use with your Apple iPod?
o Nothing
o MusicMatch
o iTunes
o something else...
[X] Make this choice the default from now on.

This is built in to Windows (at least starting with XP, possibly before). Its how the system deals with this situation with scanners, cameras, and all sorts of other devices. It only fires up a single app, so you don't have multiple-sync problems. And it keeps choice in the hands of the user. A couple of clicks and they never see it again if they don't want to, anyway. Not following well established standards like this just makes iTunes look like they can't compete on a level playing field.

-Richard

 

[DarkPhoenixCA]

Originally posted by iPost
I'm one who prefers MusicMatch. While iTunes has a nice, consistent design, it's not a very feature-rich app. iTunes doesn't automatically tag my MP3's like MusicMatch's super-tagging does. I often rip CDs on my laptop when I'm not connected to the Internet. When I get back online, I can just use MusicMatch's super-tagging to automatically go look up the tagging information and fix up everything in my library. iTunes doesn't do that and I miss that feature. Also, iTunes' radio stations are pretty poor in my opinion. MusicMatch's artist-on-demand radio is so much better.

Also, I don't like the idea that I have to create a new playlist every time I want to play some songs while browsing the library. In iTunes, if I start playing something in the library and then do a search, the search results can actually affect what gets played next. This is my biggest frustration with iTunes. Why don't they offer a separate playlist window? I realize that you can double-click on a playlist name to fire another window off, but then it looks like you have two versions of iTunes running and it's confusing what's what and it takes up too much screen real estate.

In addition, I hate that three-pane Browse view that iTunes uses to display Genre, Artist, and Album. I like seeing the songs under each artist or album like MusicMatch displays them.

I realize that some people seem to like iTunes, but I'm not a big fan. The PC is all about choice (well, if the DOJ can keep MS in line), and it would be great if the PC offered a number of different programs to interact with the iPod. If Apple wants this to be the most popular player out there, it's a mistake to offer only one app to support it. In software, one size does not fit all. I wish Apple would learn that lesson.

Please. MMJB has one of the worst UI's I've seen on Windows. I've been using it since Apple started shipping it with 2G iPods, then would look longingly at those shiny new PowerBooks and iTunes.

First: In MM, you can only display one playlist at a time (as of 7.5, when I finally ditched Windows for the Mac). This was a major hassle to have to open and re-open different playlist windows.

Second: Whenever you changed a skin, MM would re-size the windows. I typically would have the little player window, the playlist window, and the library windows open and "maximixed" (MM doesn't have true maximize buttons like most Windows apps). Switching skins would re-size the windows to their small size, and I'd have to re-size and re-arrange everything again. (MM also uses separate, "floating" windows for the player controls, the current playlist, and the entire library.)

Third: Each time I would make a change to the tag of an MP3 then sync, MM would make a COPY of the file on the iPod. I didn't realize this until I synced and found 4 copies of the same song on my iPod.

And finally...MM's support is HORRIBLE. There is no phone support - only email - and their answers are generally pre-canned responses you get 24-48 hours after sending it in.

I know some of these gripes are just that - gripes - but iTunes is such a vastly superior jukebox I don't know why any PC user would continue to use MM. I kept hoping RealPlayer would have an iPod plug-in, since I was just so sick of MM's behavior. (No need to worry about it now...)

 

[solvs]

Man it's so funny reading through these posts. I didn't really notice, but did any of you who are kinda overreacting have this happen to you? You have an iPod, installed iTunes, now want to use MM to sync you iPod? You know, MM still works just fine. Re-read the first post, it just broke iPod syncing. Once again, it still works, and so does iPod syncing if you don't install iTunes. If you do install iTunes, it now includes updated iPod syncing software. MM will still work with music files. There's even an option when you install iTunes that asks you if you want it to be the default player, or not.

Funny, didn't someone already say this? Ah well, I guess we all better start making Apple out to be evil because they've updated their own products to work with each other.

<sarcasm>Just like M$. <sarcasm>

 

[zync]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
This could be changed with a "Now Playing..." item in the source list. However, I find it useful to be able to do a search to dictate what will play next. If you prefer to use playlists, by all means use them. Playlists do not work any differently because you are able to play from the library.

Yes, but it would be useless to have a now playing item, which would be in effect a playlist, of your entire library (that's what he said he wanted which also seems useless) just so you'd hear it the way it was originally. Besides that's boring most of the time. I actually dislike playlists for the most part, i.e. I avoid them if I can. I have rleatively few ones and they're really only for specific tone or whatever. When I create a CD or playlist I try to make a logical flow within it or with something that connects each song....it's my DJ complex I guess. Everyone seems to like my mixes, too bad I'm so busy that I rarely see anyone to hear them Also, I like the way search works, I wasn't the one complaining about that

 

[jonapete2001]

I think this is a non issue. Everyone who has an ipod knew what they were downloading the new apple software to sync with the ipod. There was no mystery in what apple did, they replaced the buggy, broke, music match.
Who in their right mind kept music match installed after itunes came out anyway. If you have an ipod with itunes why would anyone want to use a sucky program like MM.

 

[coolsoldier]

I see a parallel here to AOL's acquisition of CompuServe. Before AOL bought Compuserve, windows users used CompuServe's WinCim client to connect to the CS network. When AOL took over, they released the new cs2000 client, which replaced the winsock so that WinCim wouldn't work after installing cs2000. Several of the Compuserve users I spoke to prefered the "cleaner" interface of the old client, and of course, for those who didn't install AOL's new client, WinCim kept working in the short term, but since the network was evolving and WinCim wasn't, any new features that were added or changed on the network stopped working with WinCim, and eventually WinCim stopped working altogether.

This is potentially a similar issue. Consider:
•MusicMatch for the iPod was originally commissioned and distributed by apple as the official iPod software.
•The iPod version of MM isn't being updated anymore, as Apple and MM no longer have a business relationship.
•Any existing bugs in MM's iPod connectivity, problems caused by system upgrades, or problems with updates to iPod firmware will cause problems with MM that, because Apple and MM are no longer working together, will likely never be resolved.
•MusicMatch and the iPod are diverging. MM is using their software to promote a format that the iPod doesn't play, and the iPod is promoting a format that MM doesn't play. This adds another usability barrier to iPod <=> MusicMatch connectivity.
•Apple has to support any software that they endorse for iPod use. It would be a plain and simple waste of resources for them to try and support the use of older software that, at least for the purposes of iPod use, is no longer being updated.

 

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
•Apple has to support any software that they endorse for iPod use.

You mean, like, the MusicMatch product that they sold along with the iPod to many, many Windows users?

-Richard

 

[zync]

Originally posted by rjstanford
You mean, like, the MusicMatch product that they sold along with the iPod to many, many Windows users?

-Richard

Yeah and things DO change, and Apple no longer endorses that product. It's not like they screwed you and you're at a loss either because iTunes is free and so was MM techinically because you didn't buy it. If you did newer iPods would cost slightly less. In fact Apple and Music Match probably had an agreement that MM would bundle the software nearly for free because it was a market that they could get recognition in and hopefully sell their upgraded programs to. Think about it. How many iPod users do you know that would use MM if they didn't have to? Why do you think EphPod developed? How many windows users do you think would ever use it? It's all about marketing and by riding the iPod bandwagon, MM bought into the product recognition of iPod along with getting it's own product on your computer and that's powerful because you're forced to use it unless you find an alternative, which was especially difficult around the initial release of the windows iPod. Also alternatives weren't backed by Apple which, I'm sure, made a lot of people decide against them in favor of Music Match. Anyway I've talked far too long now. Time to go to sleep...