iApps - good idea poorly executed

[Foocha]

Whilst iMovie is a fantastic application - pefectly conceived and executed, iTunes & iPhoto seem to be very poorly conceived.

Surely it's reasonable to expect that since Apple developed OS X and iTunes & iPhoto that there would be a reasonable consistency and integration between them (I don't mean commingling!)

Why is it that iPhoto does not store photos in /Users/username/Pictures?
Why is it that iTunes does not store music in /Users/username/Music?

Why is it that iPhoto's functionality is not integrated into the Finder?

I think Apple's iApp strategy is exactly right, it's just unfortunate it hasn't been better executed to more closely integrate with the operating system, which was surely the whole point in the first place. Maybe they'll get around to this eventually - I'd love to see iPhoto's zoom functionality in the Finder - currently Windows Explorer is much better at presenting thumbnails than the OS X Finder.

 

[Ensign Paris]

I think iPhoto and iTunes are fantastic products, it would be nice for them to store the files in the Pictures and Music folders (I guess this is coming with the next upgrade)

I think the plan is working out just as apple wanted it, or atleast its a big big Windoze puller.

Ensign

 

[Choppaface]

I havent used iPhoto, but from what I saw in the macworld sf stream, it prolly wouldnt be a tool I could really use anyways. you have to remember that iPhoto and iTunes aren't necessarily designed to be the main tools of pro or even advanced users. downloading iPhoto and thinking you'd be getting Photoshop is a no-no. as as to iTunes...well I still use SoundJam MP, even if i have to switch to 9 to use it!

 

[Wry Cooter]

I would want to be able to place the iPhotos library off onto another drive, as you can with iTunes. You can do it with iPhoto as well, but its a bit more work. And iPhoto needs a bit more work in several ways.

 

[Ensign Paris]

I really want to see a pro music editing app from Apple, I think they might buy ProTools some time.

Ensign

 

[kishba]

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I would want to be able to place the iPhotos library off onto another drive, as you can with iTunes. You can do it with iPhoto as well, but its a bit more work. And iPhoto needs a bit more work in several ways.

I think it'd be neat for iPhoto to be able to store the library on an iPod

 

[Beej]

Originally posted by Choppaface
as to iTunes...well I still use SoundJam MP, even if i have to switch to 9 to use it!

What can SoundJam do that iTunes can't?

 

[Ensign Paris]

As far as I am aware iTunes2 has all the features (par Skins) of SoundJam. I think SoundJam uses slightly less system resources to play in the background.

I can't wait till Applications are Cocoa and not Carbon, I dislike Carbon.

Ensign

 

[iapple]

I agree!

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
I really want to see a pro music editing app from Apple, I think they might buy ProTools some time.

Ensign

I REALLY want a good music aditing app from Apple too! They've done it great with movies (iMovie, the best video editing program for easy use!) why JUST organizing, why not letting the user create music themselves? Isn't that what Apple is for? ORGANIZING is not CREATIVITY. They should have some periferal that can hook up to any computer via USB/Firewire and provide pro audio quality recording, or add audio recording capabilities to the iPod!

I might start a thread on this and find out the demand...

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: iApps - good idea poorly executed

Originally posted by Foocha
Why is it that iPhoto does not store photos in /Users/username/Pictures?
Why is it that iTunes does not store music in /Users/username/Music?

Why is it that iPhoto's functionality is not integrated into the Finder?

I think Apple's iApp strategy is exactly right, it's just unfortunate it hasn't been better executed to more closely integrate with the operating system, which was surely the whole point in the first place. Maybe they'll get around to this eventually - I'd love to see iPhoto's zoom functionality in the Finder - currently Windows Explorer is much better at presenting thumbnails than the OS X Finder.

Hmmm...Users/username/Pictures/iPhoto Library...looks like it's in the Pictures folder to me

Change your preferences in iTunes...it's quite simple...

I disagree that Explorer handles thumbnails well. I've seen XP come to a screeching halt on fast machines trying to populate a window with thumbnails. What's even worse is that it defaults to "Filmstrip" view most of the time, which is a truly ineffective way to browse your files.

If you want a goof example of file browsing look at Photoshop 7...

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Re: I agree!

Originally posted by iapple


I REALLY want a good music aditing app from Apple too!

What would they call it - iComposer, iMusician, iSymphony?

I really would like to see something like Pro Tools as an iApp for macs. There is so much potential with developing an easy system of sound/music editing. Here in DC, XM Satellite Radio has a G4 (rackmounted) with a 22" Cinema Display in all their sound studios (they have more than 70) with the full version of ProTools on each one. They do most of their sound editing on the Macs, its an awesome set up. If you're ever in DC try and get a tour, if you can.

 

[Taft]

iComposer.

Its would be incredible, but they'll probably not do it.

At this point, music creation isn't a home user kind of application. At least its not all the rage like home movie creation. I mean, the target audience for iMovie is the Dad type that shoots all of his kid's movements on his video camera and needs to edit them into something coherant. There is just no equivilant to this in the Music realm.

But maybe Apple will create a market for home computer music editing at a reasonable (free?) cost. They've innovated before, right?

 

[oldMac]

iTunes is an Excellent app, iPhoto needs work

I'm agreed with you on iPhoto, however I think iTunes is an excellent app.

I also agree that there's a bit of schizophrenia at Apple when the OS guys are putting folders called Music in the "/Users/..." folders and iTunes doesn't use it by default. However, this probably comes from the fact that iTunes development likely started on OS 9.

Of course, if your biggest complaint is that it doesn't use the Music folder... Then I think Apple can feel that they've made a pretty good app.

Looking forward to iPhoto 2.0.

 

[Foocha]

Fair response

Hi Rower_CPU,

You make some fair points... but...

Surely iTunes should use the Music folder by default? Otherwise why did Apple put it there in the first place! The kind of users iApps are targetted at are never going to change their preferences anyway - they'll just get confused that their music is not in their "Music" folder.

I might be missing something (not the first time!) but the iPhoto Library does not appear to contain the photos - it looks like some kind of proprietary data structure, & the photos are not accessible from the Finder. It would surely be *WAY* better if clicking on your Pictures folder in the Finder opens a Finder window with an iPhoto toolbar.

XP never ceases to amaze me - the way Windows Explorer identifies the contents of a directory and automatically adapts to present it's contents in an intelligent manner is so simple and elegant it's... well... Apple-like ;-) I do take your point that it takes a while to present thumbnails, but at least it's properly threaded, so it doesn't hold you up. The same cannot currently be said of the OS X Finder. Don't get me wrong, I love OS X and see a huge amount of potential in it, I just figure we should give credit where credit is due.

 

[kishba]

Re: Fair response

Originally posted by Foocha
XP never ceases to amaze me - the way Windows Explorer identifies the contents of a directory and automatically adapts to present it's contents in an intelligent manner is so simple and elegant it's... well... Apple-like ;-) I do take your point that it takes a while to present thumbnails, but at least it's properly threaded, so it doesn't hold you up. The same cannot currently be said of the OS X Finder. Don't get me wrong, I love OS X and see a huge amount of potential in it, I just figure we should give credit where credit is due.

I think XP does somethings better only because it is a mature Windows... They've been working with the GUI & NT for many years--Apple started basically from scratch with Aqua. As the major revisions of the OS debut I'm sure things will improve in leaps and bounds

 

[Rower_CPU]

Foocha,
Well put.

I agree that the iApps have some maturing to do. I'll parrot the responses others have made here. oldmac brings up two very good points: 1) the iTunes "schizophrenia" probably has to do with it's origination in OS 9; I would guess that subsequent updates would probably fix this problem, and 2) that a misplaced import directory is a very small complaint about the overall functionality and design of an application.

Now to iPhoto, as an initial effort I think that it's fantastic. They have made it a truly easy and seamless process to capture, edit and then export digital images in almost any format. In keeping with the idea that these iApps are targeted at the consumer-level users, I think Apple made the correct decision in hiding the actual image files within the iPhoto libraries. iPhoto was designed with the idea that rather than have people search through thousands of images through the Finder, it would be much easier to let iPhoto handle all of it. Do you recall Steve Jobs' "digital shoebox" metaphor? Honestly, what is an easier way to browse image files: with dynamic thumbnails grouped according to when you imported them and by "album", or one at a time through the Finder? They might try to include more of this type of functionality into the Finder at a later date, but for now I think they are quite happy letting iPhoto handle the workload of image organization and storage. And the beautiful thing is that you can open an image in an external editor if you choose, and go from there just as if you opened the file by itself.

XP has some strong points. As kishba said, it represents an evolution of pre-existing technology. Windows chose the easy road and just slapped a new GUI and some stability and feature enhancments onto what they had been working on since Windows NT.
I think OS X is a revolution in OS design, breaking completely with the previous versions and adopting an entirely new code base. There will be, or I should say there have been, growing pains but I find each new release adds more and more functionality and features. I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple has up their sleeves for 10.2. And who knows, maybe iPhoto's functionality will be integrated a little more into the FInder...but then again that's the type of thing that gets MS in trouble, so maybe not.

 

[Vector]

Pro Audio Editing

I do not think that Apple will come out with a Pro Audio app anytime soon. A while back they had a problem with Apple, an entirely different company which deals with music and audio. I believe Apple, the audio company, sued and both parties came to some sort of settlement whereas Apple Computer cannot make software allowing the editing of music or sound. Simplesound did not fall under this because of its very limited uses.
I heard that this is why the alert sound is called "sosumi" so sue me, but I am not sure.

Also iTunes was not in contradiction to this settlement since it only allows the conversion and storage of music and not the editing.

However, I could be wrong since I only have confirmation from secondary sources.

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: Pro Audio Editing

Originally posted by Vector
I do not think that Apple will come out with a Pro Audio app anytime soon. A while back they had a problem with Apple, an entirely different company which deals with music and audio. I believe Apple, the audio company, sued and both parties came to some sort of settlement whereas Apple Computer cannot make software allowing the editing of music or sound. Simplesound did not fall under this because of its very limited uses.
I heard that this is why the alert sound is called "sosumi" so sue me, but I am not sure.

I heard one of the principals was in this band called Wings. Wasn't that a TV show?

They will most likely leave the pro audio apps to the present vendors rather than compete, because there is no market advantage in them doing so. Much of that is better off being sold via musical instrument dealerships. What they will do is court them better, when they get all the Core Audio Midi bits of the system ironed out properly. As long as it fits in an iBook, TiBook or iMac or Tower, things will be swell, depending on the musicians needs.

There was a serious gap in the Video market not being terribly well served, which is why it made sense for them to step in, to tie things into the advantages of the altivec code of the G4, and firewire, in a way that natural market forces may not have supported.

But the iApps are aimed at the passive user, not the creator. The creator is the Pro market.

 

[Foocha]

Integration vs Commingling code

I think there's no problem with integrating an application's functionality with an operating system's GUI, provided it's done in the right way. The Microsoft approach seems to be to deliberately mix up Internet Explorer & Windows code such that you can't swap out IE for another app, and another application developer cannot integrate against Windows in the same way - so there's no level playing field.

Since Apple is bundling these apps with OS X already, the least they could do is integrate them properly.

 

[oldMac]

Bundling & comingling code

My understanding...

From a US legal standpoint, there is nothing illegal about bundling or integrating features if your company is in a competitive market.

Microsoft is in trouble for doing these things because they are a monopoly. IE, if you are ruled to be (or suspected to be) a monopoly, then bundling features for the specific reason of closing out competition is viewed as "exercising your monopoly". That, of course, is "anti-competitive practice" and will get you in a lot of trouble with the justice department.

Honestly, Apple could do the same things that Microsoft did and not get in trouble. (Except, of course, that they couldn't because they don't have the unlimited resources and overpowering leverage that come from being a monopoly. That's the whole point!)

 

[Foocha]

True, Apple is not a monopoly in the sense that Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such they're unlikely to come under the kind of scrutiny that MS have in the case with the DOJ & the unsettling States.

There's no excuse for bad software, however, and so I certainly hope that Apple does avoid blurring the boundries between OS and Apps in the way Microsoft has done with IE. It is not in Apple's interests to do this since it will discourage developers from adopting the platform - the last thing Apple should do.

It's also worth noting that whilst Apple are not a monopoly in the Microsoft sense, they do arguably occupy a monopolistic position in certain vertical sectors & markets - eg. Print Production.

 

[D0ct0rteeth]

iPhoto

I personally couldn't be more please with iTunes and iPhoto.

iTunes is great... could always use more visualizations and radio stations... but im not bitchin'

iPhoto is what finally persuadesd me to go with digital photography, the only improvements i am really "itching" for are:

1. Import > Scan feature in iPhoto (hmmm... OSX scanner support would also be nice )

2. ablility to save a slideshow w/ audio as a screensaver or export directly into iMovie or burn to iDVD...

3. I prefer to edit my photos in Photoshop.. converting to B&W in iPhoto obviously leaves a lot to be desired with the levels and contrast.... so I really can't critique their editing capabilities... maybe an "auto update" insted of "the red eye/undo recommendation on apple.com or better yet improve the B&W conversion....

I am sure these aren't too far off... probably next version or so...

Rock on apple... Can't beat free software, Baby!!!

C-

..................

 

[Wry Cooter]

iPhoto isn't there yet.

It needs to be closer to iTunes in the metadata handling concept.. many people want to give meaningful names to their files, or be able to search by keyword.

People want to be able to choose where the library rests. Or keep images where they already reside.

Beyond that, the audience should remember, its a digital shoebox, not a replacement for Photoshop. It isn't for editing, as much as it is for filing. (the most complex I could imagine it, would be as a yearbook or student directory layout automation tool, or plugging into a database, for ID card manufacture) But this would be via plug ins or export to other apps, its main function is a Finder for images.

I think most of these practical concerns, could easily be addressed in iPhoto 2.