iTunes 5 - What would you like to see?
- Thread starter jonparadise
- Start date
I would like the ability to stream and listen to the playlist on other people's iTunes from across the net. You know, just with people your buddies with or something. Then if they say they are listening to a really cool song you should hear, you can stream and listen to it. Just like you would with internet radio.
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
you can make your own genre's, and there is a good all round set of 'starter' genres.
add sub-genres to ethnic, and you'll have to put things in like EmoCore and Hard Trance etc for all the anal emo kids and the rest of 'em
i only really use custom genre's, and once it's added, it's recognised like any other genre.
add sub-genres to ethnic, and you'll have to put things in like EmoCore and Hard Trance etc for all the anal emo kids and the rest of 'em
i only really use custom genre's, and once it's added, it's recognised like any other genre.
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
Oh God please don't start that whole "4.10!? THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE! ERROR! NUMBERS CANNOT GO PAST 9 DERKA DERKA!" It's like 10.3.9 all over again...
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
Lt Major Burns said:
::ha::::ha::::ha::::ha::::ha::::ha::
HomunQlus
Artifical Lifeform
Captain Code said:
Since when is 10 less than 9?
I did not mean 4.1.0, I meant 4.10
I just came across that thought because GNOME is doing this as well... When GNOME 2.8 came out, I thought the next version is 3.0, but they released 2.10. Which is still better than 2.1 (which was a Beta of 2.2).
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
because, from a mathematical POV, there is only one decimal. ever. all numbers after that are the fraction of. a zero at the end makes no difference, just like a zero before an integer before the decimal.
00100 is still one hundred, like 100 and 0100
3.765 is the same as 3.76500 and 3.76500000000000000000
so, in a calculator, 4.9 is a higher number than 4.10, which is actually just 4.1.
.10 is a daft number, made up by the kind of people who come up with the .dll - a really good, logical idea.
00100 is still one hundred, like 100 and 0100
3.765 is the same as 3.76500 and 3.76500000000000000000
so, in a calculator, 4.9 is a higher number than 4.10, which is actually just 4.1.
.10 is a daft number, made up by the kind of people who come up with the .dll - a really good, logical idea.
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
.....
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
I guess it depends on whether you consider each part of a version number to be its OWN number, or the entire version number as ONE number.
If it's supposed to be read as 2 or 3 different numbers, then 4.10 makes sense. But then they just shouldn't be using decimal points. Use slashes or dashes or colons or apostrophes or anything else. And it certainly shouldn't be pronounced as "x-point-y", which is the standard pronunciation. You also shouldn't jump over decimal numbers in that case, which is routinely done to show greater differences between versions. e.g., Apple went from 8.1 to 8.5. So then the next version of iTunes may as well be be version 7.
OTOH, if it's one solid number, then logically there should never be more than ONE decimal point, since that's redundant at best. 10.3.9 = 10.39. But I always thought the second point was there simply to improve readability. And I still think that makes the best sense, personally.
There are very well-established standards when it comes to counting. And these standards say that 4.10 = 4.1 = 4.10000000... < 4.9.
If it must be dragged beyond 4.9, then I'd rather they go the ultra-nerdy route, and call it 4.A. No reason the version numbers can't be read in hex. ::ha:: Realistically, 4.9.1 makes the best sense. Or maybe 4.91.0 (same thing!).
I remember having a little argument with my brother a decade or so ago, because he kept calling Glider 4.09 "Glider four-point-nine". He said it was the same thing. Being a crotchety old nitpicker even at such a young age, I just couldn't let it go.
So as not to be criticized TOO heavily for taking this thread wildly off topic, I have some more features I'd like to see in iTunes 5:
Full QT video support. While I still sort of feel that the integration of a video player in iTunes is an ill-conceived concept, it's there, so why should it be artificially crippled? Apple still offers no free full-screen media player, which is utterly ridiculous. There's no reason iTunes couldn't play all QT content. In fact, they must have gone out of their way to prevent it. Go figure.
Greater range of volume control. It's important to keep the volume of my music balanced properly with the volume of other apps. Usually I want my music to be the dominating sound. But iTunes' current max volume isn't high enough. I can use the equalizer's preamp feature to boost it a little, but even that doesn't give me quite the range I'd like. The only perfect solution I've found is to use Audio Hijack Pro to reduce other apps' (mainly Safari's) volumes. I guess the proper solution is to increase the range of the preamp rather than the main volume. Whatever, as long as it gets the job done.
A simple backup/restore method. I can burn MP3-CDs, which I've done, but then it renames all my files and loses my directory structure. It's amazing what a pain in the butt it is to do something so simple.
Speed adjusting controls. QuickTime has always had the ability to play any content at any speed, and QuickTime 7 takes this one step further by dynamically adjusting the audio so you don't get chipmunk-pitched voices when you play stuff at double or triple speed (note: for some reason, this doesn't work with MPEGs, although it does work with mp3 audio in other file wrappers, like AVIs). I'd love to see this feature added to iTunes. It should barely take any effort, really, since iTunes already uses QuickTime for playback, IINM.
Built-in remote controls. Currently you need to use third-party utilities to get system-wide control of iTunes. Some of them are quite good, but iTunes really ought to have beefier features built in. Global keyboard shortcuts, an ultra-mini control window, and maybe a menu extra would be good.
Skins. Maybe. I've never been crazy about the idea of skins, but a lot of people go wild for 'em.
And most of all, a single, unified, global iTMS. I know, never gonna happen. But I can dream, can't I?
If it's supposed to be read as 2 or 3 different numbers, then 4.10 makes sense. But then they just shouldn't be using decimal points. Use slashes or dashes or colons or apostrophes or anything else. And it certainly shouldn't be pronounced as "x-point-y", which is the standard pronunciation. You also shouldn't jump over decimal numbers in that case, which is routinely done to show greater differences between versions. e.g., Apple went from 8.1 to 8.5. So then the next version of iTunes may as well be be version 7.
OTOH, if it's one solid number, then logically there should never be more than ONE decimal point, since that's redundant at best. 10.3.9 = 10.39. But I always thought the second point was there simply to improve readability. And I still think that makes the best sense, personally.
There are very well-established standards when it comes to counting. And these standards say that 4.10 = 4.1 = 4.10000000... < 4.9.
If it must be dragged beyond 4.9, then I'd rather they go the ultra-nerdy route, and call it 4.A. No reason the version numbers can't be read in hex. ::ha:: Realistically, 4.9.1 makes the best sense. Or maybe 4.91.0 (same thing!).
I remember having a little argument with my brother a decade or so ago, because he kept calling Glider 4.09 "Glider four-point-nine". He said it was the same thing. Being a crotchety old nitpicker even at such a young age, I just couldn't let it go.
So as not to be criticized TOO heavily for taking this thread wildly off topic, I have some more features I'd like to see in iTunes 5:
Full QT video support. While I still sort of feel that the integration of a video player in iTunes is an ill-conceived concept, it's there, so why should it be artificially crippled? Apple still offers no free full-screen media player, which is utterly ridiculous. There's no reason iTunes couldn't play all QT content. In fact, they must have gone out of their way to prevent it. Go figure.
Greater range of volume control. It's important to keep the volume of my music balanced properly with the volume of other apps. Usually I want my music to be the dominating sound. But iTunes' current max volume isn't high enough. I can use the equalizer's preamp feature to boost it a little, but even that doesn't give me quite the range I'd like. The only perfect solution I've found is to use Audio Hijack Pro to reduce other apps' (mainly Safari's) volumes. I guess the proper solution is to increase the range of the preamp rather than the main volume. Whatever, as long as it gets the job done.
A simple backup/restore method. I can burn MP3-CDs, which I've done, but then it renames all my files and loses my directory structure. It's amazing what a pain in the butt it is to do something so simple.
Speed adjusting controls. QuickTime has always had the ability to play any content at any speed, and QuickTime 7 takes this one step further by dynamically adjusting the audio so you don't get chipmunk-pitched voices when you play stuff at double or triple speed (note: for some reason, this doesn't work with MPEGs, although it does work with mp3 audio in other file wrappers, like AVIs). I'd love to see this feature added to iTunes. It should barely take any effort, really, since iTunes already uses QuickTime for playback, IINM.
Built-in remote controls. Currently you need to use third-party utilities to get system-wide control of iTunes. Some of them are quite good, but iTunes really ought to have beefier features built in. Global keyboard shortcuts, an ultra-mini control window, and maybe a menu extra would be good.
Skins. Maybe. I've never been crazy about the idea of skins, but a lot of people go wild for 'em.
And most of all, a single, unified, global iTMS. I know, never gonna happen. But I can dream, can't I?
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
an immense tanget, considering the title, unless we would all like to see 4.10.11.67
i want NO new features - my view is, with video, podcasts, iTMS, party shuffle, radio etc it;s is already FAR too bloated.
instead, i want existing features improved and expanded.
tagging, for example, Visualisations, browsing options, quicker code, more intelligent organising (both folder and interface), quicker encoding into more formats,
i want NO new features - my view is, with video, podcasts, iTMS, party shuffle, radio etc it;s is already FAR too bloated.
instead, i want existing features improved and expanded.
tagging, for example, Visualisations, browsing options, quicker code, more intelligent organising (both folder and interface), quicker encoding into more formats,
Browni
Registered
Major, I disagree, iTMS was arguably the best thing that has happened to Apple in quite a while, it was best to integrate it with iTunes, if you don't like it turn it off, as for Radio, it may not be used by every one, i know i use it quite a lot. Video in the iTMS, well its another enhancement. of iTMS. Plus the only reason it is in there is because it is not possible to play a quick time movie full screen unless you have pro, silly idea personally. Podcasts, are in my view just and extension of RSS for audio, plus its a thing that is going around the world right now, so it made sense for Apple to go with the flow. I agree that a major part of software development is the advancement of existing features as well as adding new ones, but there is only so far you can go on your own. Thats what the software is open source. If you want to add a new browsing feature, I'm sure that it can be done in either code or script, just a matter of seeing how.
(sorry if this seems like a rant, just voicing my point of view)
(sorry if this seems like a rant, just voicing my point of view)
Mikuro
Crotchety UI Nitpicker
Still more changes I'd like to see:
A rewrite in Cocoa. As it stands, iTunes has a few "unnatural" little quirks that come from it's Carbon/Classic heritage. For example, click-through on the close/minimize/maximize buttons often doesn't work (instead, it just activates the window). Now, I hate click-through with a fiery vengeance, and wish it were done away with all across the board, but since Apple decided to go with it, it should be consistently implemented.
Less glitz, more performance. The little scrolling marquee does nothing but steal processor cycles, especially since iTunes is going to be operating in the background most of the time. iTunes uses far more processor time than an mp3 player really needs to. Some display options would be nice.
Better skip protection. I don't know why, but iTunes skips in OS X now and then. It's not as bad as QuickTime Player, but it's still a problem. The strange thing is that in OS 9, this NEVER happened even when the entire system crashed, iTunes would continue playing like a champ (until the end of the current song). The OS 9 version also used less CPU time. Why can't the OS X version be like that? This would probably require some pretty fundamental tweaking, but darnit, it's worth it.
Visualizer presets. You can currently set equalizer presets on a track-by-track basis, so why not visualizers, too? I like lots of different kinds of music, and no visualizer is really good with ALL of them. For piano and jazz, I like Fountain Music (try it! It's great!), but for pop, Fountain's not so great. It'd also be nice to have iTunes optionally automatically change visualizers randomly at each track (or maybe even at random intervals during tracks).
Which reminds me: I want better visualizers! The funkadelic iTunes visualizer is so 90s. Let's see some fancy visualizers that match the coolness of the latest screensavers.
Better-quality iTMS downloads. 128kbps AAC is pretty darn good, don't get me wrong, but currently they're still only putting out stereo tracks (unless they changed this since the introduction of the iTMS). 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound would be nice, and it's definitely within the capabilities of the AAC file format. An option to download lossless files would be cool, too. After all, Apple designed their own lossless codec for iTunes; why not USE it?
)
A rewrite in Cocoa. As it stands, iTunes has a few "unnatural" little quirks that come from it's Carbon/Classic heritage. For example, click-through on the close/minimize/maximize buttons often doesn't work (instead, it just activates the window). Now, I hate click-through with a fiery vengeance, and wish it were done away with all across the board, but since Apple decided to go with it, it should be consistently implemented.
Less glitz, more performance. The little scrolling marquee does nothing but steal processor cycles, especially since iTunes is going to be operating in the background most of the time. iTunes uses far more processor time than an mp3 player really needs to. Some display options would be nice.
Better skip protection. I don't know why, but iTunes skips in OS X now and then. It's not as bad as QuickTime Player, but it's still a problem. The strange thing is that in OS 9, this NEVER happened even when the entire system crashed, iTunes would continue playing like a champ (until the end of the current song). The OS 9 version also used less CPU time. Why can't the OS X version be like that? This would probably require some pretty fundamental tweaking, but darnit, it's worth it.
Visualizer presets. You can currently set equalizer presets on a track-by-track basis, so why not visualizers, too? I like lots of different kinds of music, and no visualizer is really good with ALL of them. For piano and jazz, I like Fountain Music (try it! It's great!), but for pop, Fountain's not so great. It'd also be nice to have iTunes optionally automatically change visualizers randomly at each track (or maybe even at random intervals during tracks).
Which reminds me: I want better visualizers! The funkadelic iTunes visualizer is so 90s.
Let's see some fancy visualizers that match the coolness of the latest screensavers. Better-quality iTMS downloads. 128kbps AAC is pretty darn good, don't get me wrong, but currently they're still only putting out stereo tracks (unless they changed this since the introduction of the iTMS). 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound would be nice, and it's definitely within the capabilities of the AAC file format. An option to download lossless files would be cool, too. After all, Apple designed their own lossless codec for iTunes; why not USE it?
And...there's a difference? Says who? Where did this numbering convention come from if not math? It looks like a number and it sounds like a number, so I say it's a number! Not two or three. And that's the last I'm going to say on the matter (promise!Pengu said:
)
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
Browni said:
i'm not saying i don't like the iTMS, merely stating that, IMO the basic MP3 playing and organising capabilities are being shunned from improvement by all this adding of major new, almost unrelated features. the video thing needs to be seperate from iTunes. you wouldn't use your dvd player for playing cds - you'd use your cd player, so why use itunes for video - i want, in iLife '06, an app, like iPhoto and iTunes, dedicated to video. it's the massively lacking element in MacOS. sure you can use VLC or similar, but it's not apple is it? if there was a way of effectivley ripping my dvd library to my computer (decent image quality, multichannel encoding and tagging), then maybe i wouldn't use my dvds any more, like my cd library has become sort of redundant since adopting itunes. i'd use iVideo or whatever. it shouldn't be part of my music library. it has always felt awkward.