User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

Application convergence ... your thoughts


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Application convergence ... your thoughts
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-11, 18:10

So, I was looking at Mail and couldn't help but wonder ... why?

Why does Mail handle 'Notes' now? To Do lists - I sort of understand, since they can be pulled directly off a Mail message and integrate with iCal. But 'Notes' ... couldn't a note taking app have handled this? Is it just me, or are other people surprised by the connection with this thought process: "I'm in a lecture and I need to jot down some notes - I know, Mail is the app to handle it." What happened to the right tool for the right job?

On the same train of thought, why is Mail also the place for RSS feeds? Didn't Safari (or your browser of choice), or dedicated NewsReaders handle this functionality admirably already?

I'm still trying to get my head around this feature set and would welcome other opinions. (Let's leave the stationery feature set out of the discussion though, since it appears well suited to the Mail app.)

Btw, this isn't the only convergence that baffles me.

Most people know my "why still call it Tunes?" stance. But now that Finder has iTunes like navigation as well as the capability to play all types of media, why didn't Apple converge that somehow?

From another thread - couldn't tell whether Brad was being facetious or not - but this is relevant. link
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcgriz
For that matter, why could iTunes not integrate all three?
Hell, why not integrate them all along with Safari and iCal into the Finder?

Why bother using separate application at all?
The Quick Look/Preview distinction has me slightly perplexed too. Why didn't they give Preview the added Quick Look functionality instead of creating a new app? The distinction between these two seems minor at best.

I'd welcome some discussion on this topic. I find Apple's decision making with regard to when and when not to integrate a feature set baffling.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
rasmits
rams it
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
 
2007-06-11, 18:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+ View Post
So, I was looking at Mail and couldn't help but wonder ... why?

Why does Mail handle 'Notes' now? To Do lists - I sort of understand, since they can be pulled directly off a Mail message and integrate with iCal. But 'Notes' ... couldn't a note taking app have handled this? Is it just me, or are other people surprised by the connection with this thought process: "I'm in a lecture and I need to jot down some notes - I know, Mail is the app to handle it." What happened to the right tool for the right job?
Steve explained it as a solution for those who mail themselves notes - I know I've done that before. If I'm sitting in class and I need to jot down some notes, I'll still use TextEdit. But when I see something in an email that I need to keep for later, for example, making a note out of it in Mail seems like a good idea. At least to me.

Quote:
On the same train of thought, why is Mail also the place for RSS feeds? Didn't Safari (or your browser of choice), or dedicated NewsReaders handle this functionality admirably already?
This I can agree with. I know other mail apps like Thunderbird have RSS support, so maybe this is just their answer for that. I probably would rather have seen a dedicated RSS application like News Fire.

But then again, Maildotapp is an inbox. It makes sense to get 'messages' from the internet in the form of RSS feeds too. Remember that email clients have had 'news list' support for ages.
Quote:
Most people know my "why still call it Tunes?" stance. But now that Finder has iTunes like navigation as well as the capability to play all types of media, why didn't Apple converge that somehow?
Windows explorer, for example, has been adapted to change its interface according to what files you're browsing. If you're browsing folders of music, it'll play them. If you're browsing pictures, it'll go into "filmstrip" view.

The Finder has, for ages, been a very simple file browser and that's it. Apple created apps like iTunes and iPhoto to better organize your media in a dedicated environment made specifically for those tasks. I much prefer this approach.

I think of iTunes, and iPhoto, as compliments to the Finder - especially now that they share a common interface. You want music? Go to iTunes. Pictures? Go to iPhoto. Files? Go to the Finder. Each has an interface designed best for the management and organization of each of those things.
Quote:
The Quick Look/Preview distinction has me slightly perplexed too. Why didn't they give Preview the added Quick Look functionality instead of creating a new app? The distinction between these two seems minor at best.
Quick Look is a plugable process meant to, well, quickly look at files before you open them. Preview is, and will continue to be, a more robust viewing app that allows for minor edits and more advanced viewing features after you decide that it's the correct file to open.

That's just my 2 cents.

You had me at asl
.......
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-11, 18:43

Hi rasmits - thanks for replying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
Steve explained it as a solution for those who mail themselves notes - I know I've done that before. If I'm sitting in class and I need to jot down some notes, I'll still use TextEdit. But when I see something in an email that I need to keep for later, for example, making a note out of it in Mail seems like a good idea. At least to me.
I rememebr Steve mentioning that, but I've never sent myself an email before so *I* never considered this use a high priority. However, when the CEO wants it, the CEO gets it I guess.

That said, what about OS X services? Highlight the relevant text in the email and create a new note in TextEdit. Too easy. (At least I think it is, I'm not on my Mac so I haven't checked that this works - I know it works with a web browser though.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
This I can agree with. I know other mail apps like Thunderbird have RSS support, so maybe this is just their answer for that. I probably would rather have seen a dedicated RSS application like News Fire.
Me too. I prefer the dedicated app approach, such as the AddressBook, Mail and iCal separation, as opposed to Entourage, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
But then again, Maildotapp is an inbox. It makes sense to get 'messages' from the internet in the form of RSS feeds too. Remember that email clients have had 'news list' support for ages.
Conceded - fair point. Just seems to be doubling up. (What is Maildotapp, btw?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
Windows explorer, for example, has been adapted to change its interface according to what files you're browsing. If you're browsing folders of music, it'll play them. If you're browsing pictures, it'll go into "filmstrip" view.

The Finder has, for ages, been a very simple file browser and that's it. Apple created apps like iTunes and iPhoto to better organize your media in a dedicated environment made specifically for those tasks. I much prefer this approach.
Me too - which is why the Mail bloat (doubling up in functionality with other apps) baffles me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
I think of iTunes, and iPhoto, as compliments to the Finder - especially now that they share a common interface. You want music? Go to iTunes. Pictures? Go to iPhoto. Files? Go to the Finder. Each has an interface designed best for the management and organization of each of those things.
Yes, but Finder will play the media now from within its own window too. I understand your distinciton, and I agree with it - but it is not watertight. Finder doesn't just handle files - it handles *all files*. iTunes doesn't just handle music, it handles, podcasts, movies, tv shows and (via the iPod) photos, calendars and address book syncing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
Quick Look is a plugable process meant to, well, quickly look at files before you open them. Preview is, and will continue to be, a more robust viewing app that allows for minor edits and more advanced viewing features after you decide that it's the correct file to open.

That's just my 2 cents.
Hmmm, I've read that too - but it seems a minimal distinction.

Thanks again for the post. I like dialogue about this type of stuff.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
rasmits
rams it
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
 
2007-06-11, 19:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+ View Post
That said, what about OS X services? Highlight the relevant text in the email and create a new note in TextEdit. Too easy. (At least I think it is, I'm not on my Mac so I haven't checked that this works - I know it works with a web browser though.)
I think OS X services are highly neglected, especially by new users. I never use services either, actually... Sad, I know, because they can be very useful.

I will say that Mail Notes is definitely a feature I will not be using very often. It seems like there are a dozen ways now to take notes - Stickies, Dashboard Stickies, TextEdit / Word, and now Mail. But - I can think of a lot of situations where someone may want to keep little clips from their emails right there in the Mail window.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+
Conceded - fair point. Just seems to be doubling up. (What is Maildotapp, btw?)
I meant it like Mail.app, which everyone seems to say for some reason. (Every app is '.app'). I think it's just leftover jargon from NextStep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+
Me too - which is why the Mail bloat (doubling up in functionality with other apps) baffles me.
It does share some functionality with other apps, but I can at least see a relation. When Mail starts organizing my photos or browsing web pages, then I'll really be worried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+
Yes, but Finder will play the media now from within its own window too. I understand your distinciton, and I agree with it - but it is not watertight. Finder doesn't just handle files - it handles *all files*. iTunes doesn't just handle music, it handles, podcasts, movies, tv shows and (via the iPod) photos, calendars and address book syncing.
True - iTunes has grown to be a repository for all personal media files; It's an iPod organizer. It's sad, but I think Windows compatibility is what made iTunes what it is today - a catch all for everything iPod. I remember thinking that the name should have been changed too, but the name 'iTunes' has remained simply because it's already backed by millions of marketing dollars. Changing the name at this point would be superfluous.

You do advocate the use of different apps for different tasks, so why do you think iTunes and the Finder should be merged?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+
Hmmm, I've read that too - but it seems a minimal distinction.
It sort of is really. Quick Look brings photo viewing, file previewing, and audio playback to the Finder in a fancy new package - but the Finder has always had these capabilities under column view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+
Thanks again for the post. I like dialogue about this type of stuff.
No prob! I do too.

You had me at asl
.......
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2007-06-11, 19:20

I don't like all this application convergence. I think that iTunes is a perfect example of why application convergence is a bad idea. iTunes is a great music player. I've been using it since 1.0. My core iTunes library file is a whopping six years old.

But iTunes is a shitty video player. More to the point, its a shitty video organizer. All Macs have that pretty little Movies folder just screaming to be used in their home directories. But where does iTunes store videos? In folders marked "TV Shows" and "Movies" within the fucking music folder.

The implications of this are nothing but negative. The Movies folder is there. Use it. More importantly, if iTunes could handle the separation of video and music files, us notebook users with teeny (comparatively) hard drives could separate the movies out onto an external HD. I have 15 GB of music but 80 GB of video. I'm not alone. Few had a problem with stuffed Music folders pre iTunes 6. Now its a common topic - "how do I move my iTunes folder and library onto an external drive?"

The solution? Well, the quick and dirty way is to simply add this functionality to iTunes. It really just can't be that hard.

But smarter thing, (or rather, would have been smart two years ago) would have been a new application. iWatch. Or whatever. I don't care about the name as long as it a) looks like iTunes, with perhaps a darker window to differentiate on the fly and b) gives you full control of syncing video with iPods, iPhones, and AppleTVs, full iTunes store access and c) has the ability to store its library, which is now correctly differentiated from your music as it should be in the first place, wherever the hell you want.

It's only getting worse. Apple has a perfectly good Syncing application just sitting in everyones Applications folder. But what is the iPhone using to sync? iTunes. Insanity, I tell you, insanity. iTunes is a great music application, but as it bleeds into other fields, it degrades the user experience.

Separating applications out is no longer feasible, as Apple of late seems to have jumped on the jack-of-all-trades application solution, and jumping back would confuse users even more than the current system. The first sign of this was the execution of the spatial finder, which, in my opinion, was much easier for the computer-illiterate to understand. A file browser certainly has its place in life, but as the primary storage mechanism? No. They should be separate. The "Finder" should be an application much like is coming in Leopard. But, the hard drive icon persists on the desktop, and all the folders inside of it always open the same way, and remember their position and view (list vs. icon) and size the last time they were closed. Classic Mac OS did this, and it was beautiful. Steve publicly said "the folder metaphor is no longer workable because people have too many files." Well, not everyone has too many files. Not everyone wants to browse their files, many want to store them, as it is.

Don't get me wrong, the new Finder is amazing. But it's only half the equation. Many people are a lot more comfortable maintaining the physical metaphor of files within folders. Especially computer newbies. It's easier to understand because its analogous to how things work in the real, physical 3D world we all are born into.

I absolutely loathe the way iTunes handles video. If I had no need to stream to an AppleTV or sync to an iPod, I would remove my videos from iTunes and use good-ol-fashioned folders on my external drive. Then I don't have to dick around with keeping my entire library on an external drive, making sure my iPod is synced and working before I hit the road, which is often. And I don't have to converge my libraries and hope for the best when I buy stuff on the road, or rip stuff on the road. It's just a pain in the ass, and I know I'm not alone on this. Apple sells more notebooks than desktops, and most people don't even bother upgrading past the standard hard drive, which is 60, 80, or 120. Do you know how fast you can fill up an 80 GB drive with TV shows? Fast. Very fast. If Apple is going to convince me that I should use iTunes to buy all my media, they are going to have to make it easier for me to manage it. And iTunes doesn't even offer HD content yet, which will only exacerbate the problem.

Do one thing. Do it well. It's the Linux philosophy, and it's right. When you make separate applications to handle separate tasks, the end result is:

- Applications are easier to use because they focus on a single task.
- Applications work better because they only contain what is necessary for the task at hand.
- Applications do not bloat and therefore consume unnecessary system resources.

No no, I do not like where this is going. The new Finder is great looking, but it shouldn't be your only option, especially considering that reviving the spatial finder would in no way degrade the user experience.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2007-06-11, 19:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
I meant it like Mail.app, which everyone seems to say for some reason. (Every app is '.app'). I think it's just leftover jargon from NextStep.
We call it Mail.app because Mail is ambiguous. Safari? Web browser. iTunes? Media player... sorta. See above rant. Mail? Huh? What do you mean mail?

PS. was Post Merge shot along with brushed metal and the 10.1 style tabs from the old Apple site?

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2007-06-11, 20:16

I think if you make a post between your two posts in a particular thread, it doesn't merge.

Kraetos, you're preaching to the choir on all your rants, believe me. I'm thoroughly disenchanted with Apple's UI strategies of late. And now this? Mail.app isn't Entourage and I don't want it to be. "Mail myself a note"? What the fuck is that about?

People put stickies with their passwords on their computers. Doesn't mean that it's smart...
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2007-06-11, 23:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
I think if you make a post between your two posts in a particular thread, it doesn't merge.

Kraetos, you're preaching to the choir on all your rants, believe me. I'm thoroughly disenchanted with Apple's UI strategies of late. And now this? Mail.app isn't Entourage and I don't want it to be. "Mail myself a note"? What the fuck is that about?

People put stickies with their passwords on their computers. Doesn't mean that it's smart...
Apple should probably focusing on fixing Mail.app's core flaws before they start adding superfluous features.

Nobody's perfect. I'm just glad that Apple hasn't made a Cube or Newton-caliber mistake in more than five years.

And, they definitely get many things right! The revamped Finder looks like a great navigational file browser, possibly the best one out there. But there's no reason we can't have a spatial file browser alongside a navigational file browser.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
BuonRotto
Not sayin', just sayin'
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to BuonRotto Send a message via Yahoo to BuonRotto  
2007-06-12, 08:38

Dammit, I wrote this long-winded reply last night, but lost it when Applenova said I wasn't logged in. (This was on my gf's computer, so I blame it.)

Back when Apple "purchased" NeXT, I got excited about the new OS when I read this article about services (remember those?) in the OpenStep OS:

"One of the OPENSTEP philosophies is that users want small tools that do a particular task very well. They don't want a monolithic Swiss Army Knife that tries to do everything and yet doesn't really do anything particularly well. ...The OPENSTEP approach is to launch an armada of applications and have them all working on the document together, with the user jumping from one application to the next."

This was the approach of those few remaining third party developers from the NeXT platform, like Andrew Stone. I was totally behind this approach. I was disappointed when Services did not advance in Mac OS X, and have now fallen off the radar for the mostpart. (I wonder if Leopard will even have a Services menu item under the App menu?)

iTunes, of course, is the easiest example of how a new approach came to be. Apple had to piggyback a lot of discrete functionality on it in order to get users in the fold so to speak with these other offerings for TV, movies, etc. ...even photo syncing! I might be fair to say that the software bundle that is iTunes is a reflection of the iPod, where we speculated early on that the "Pod" part of iPod was indicative of a convergence idea of portable technology. We also pointed to the fact that you were browsing the (specific subset of the) internet in iTunes rather than using a browser, and that this would increasingly be the case. Mail was already doing that kind of thing really.

Apps like Mail and iTunes -- even iChat -- are less about having a specific procedural role at this point, and more about being these kinds of sub-hubs if you will. If that is the case, then Mail would become almost like its own Space, absorbing apps like Address Book and iCal entirely, maybe even iChat.

I don't think that's really going on, but somehow there needs to be a clarification about what applications are, what and how they deliver or create content.

The biggest downside to having things like To-dos, notes, etc. in Mail is that it potentially locks out third parties, and by extension possible innovative or better solutions for particular users. going back to that quote from the Yacktman article, "...users want small tools that do a particular task very well." What those tasks are, and what qualifies as particularly well with individuals can vary. The downside to this convergent style of app development is that it becomes less flexible in that respect.

What I hope the good news is out of this is that Apple, like so many other areas of the OS, can codify how one accesses this info in the notes and to-dos, so that the info can be shared with any application or set of applications. This is what is possible now with apps like Address Book and iCal. hopefully, while Apple is making these uber-front-ends for various functions, third parties can continue to plug into that info as well. It's just harder to get to users to adopt your app in this environment.

Given this scenario, the best chance would be for third parties to be allowed to enhance aspects of these functions within a given uber-app, but I can understand why Apple wouldn't want anyone tinkering inside Mail or iChat.
  quote
dfiler
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
 
2007-06-12, 15:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+ View Post
So, I was looking at Mail and couldn't help but wonder ... why?

Why does Mail handle 'Notes' now
When you write a note to someone on a computer, it is typically in the form of an email.

Likewise, writing an email to yourself is like writing a note to yourself. Even better, it gets time stamped, is accessible from any computer, and is searchable in the same context as notes received from other people.

It make perfect sense to me. Although, that's probably because I already use mail for note taking. Then again, I don't see notes as a seperate "feature" from email so I too am baffled by making an interface for it in mail.app.
  quote
dfiler
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
 
2007-06-12, 15:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
I don't like all this application convergence. I think that iTunes is a perfect example of why application convergence is a bad idea. iTunes is a great music player. I've been using it since 1.0. My core iTunes library file is a whopping six years old.

But iTunes is a shitty video player. More to the point, its a shitty video organizer. All Macs have that pretty little Movies folder just screaming to be used in their home directories. But where does iTunes store videos? In folders marked "TV Shows" and "Movies" within the fucking music folder.
I view this as an implementation problem rather than an application-scope problem.

iTunes makes perfect sense as a media player and library organizer. The problem isn't that video doesn't belong, but rather that iTunes handles video horribly.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2007-06-12, 22:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
I view this as an implementation problem rather than an application-scope problem.

iTunes makes perfect sense as a media player and library organizer. The problem isn't that video doesn't belong, but rather that iTunes handles video horribly.
Yes, but as iTunes continues to absorb more functions - video organizer, photo syncer, contact and calendar syncer - it will inevitably become worse at each one. That's the whole point of the anti-swiss-army-knife approach; it's pretty much gets impossible to have one application take on so many tasks without degrading the quality of the application as a whole.

As you improve the applications handling of one task, you degrade it's handling of it's original task. Even if there's no obvious loss, the hit to system resources alone is enough incentive to avoid the jack-of-all-trades application philosophy.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
admactanium
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-06-13, 01:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+ View Post
Hi rasmits - thanks for replying.I rememebr Steve mentioning that, but I've never sent myself an email before so *I* never considered this use a high priority. However, when the CEO wants it, the CEO gets it I guess.
i've done it a few times and it actually makes a lot of sense. sending it via email means it's distributed to all your touchpoints. if i write something on the stickies widget, it's only on that one computer. if i email it to myself, it gets sent to all my computers and my phone. plus it had more permanence. i've messed up stickies before by deleting too much information and stickies don't have, infuriately enough, undo.

it's sort of like the more polite version of leaving yourself a voicemail message.
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2007-06-13, 04:48

That's what something like google notebook is for.
  quote
Doxxic
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Amsterdam
 
2007-06-13, 07:16

Although I was very happy with the move from Entourage to different mail, calendar and addressbook apps, I don't think a little convergence is bad by definition. I don't think adding to-do functionality to Mail is a bad idea.

People will differ greatly in terms of time, frequency and focus by which they use Mail, versus iCal.
That's a good reason to split up their user interfaces.

But I think that people are bound to differ about where to-dos belong in this case.
Some like their tasks sitting and waiting in the context of an agenda, (less organized) others like to be reminded of them every time they check what's got into their inbox. I, for one, belong to the latter...
  quote
dfiler
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
 
2007-06-13, 07:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Yes, but as iTunes continues to absorb more functions - video organizer, photo syncer, contact and calendar syncer - it will inevitably become worse at each one.
While I agree to a certain extent, this is probably overstating the case. It isn't inevitable that multi-purpose programs turn out badly.

If I were to preach a method of design, it would certainly highlight the advantages of small, specialized apps. However, that is just a general guideline and shouldn't be taken as dogma. In real world usage, it sometimes makes sense to combine relatively unrelated functionality into a single interface.

While I don't use any non-music features of the iPod, I am guessing that having to use multiple apps, to sync a single device, would be a non-optimal interface.
  quote
evan
Formerly CoachKrzyzewski
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Send a message via AIM to evan  
2007-06-13, 08:57

agreed. iTunes still really only deals with media files. It just syncs all the other stuff on the iphone, making it so that one program can handle that part. You still open iCal to get to your calender, iPhoto to get to your pictures, and addressbook to get to your contacts. iTunes is not really taking in new features at this point, it's just making syncing the iPhone much more convenient.
  quote
admactanium
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
 
2007-06-13, 11:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
That's what something like google notebook is for.
right, but i don't use firefox. and i can access my mail client faster than i can invoke google notes on firefox.
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-14, 22:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
I think OS X services are highly neglected, especially by new users. I never use services either, actually... Sad, I know, because they can be very useful.
I agree with you with respect to new users not taking advantage of them. It took me a while before I began to explore them and discover the potential that just lurked there. I'm disappointed that more people aren't aware (or don't seem to care) about this functionality. That said, the services sub menu can mushroom to become quite unweildy though. Mine needs some "neatification".

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
I meant it like Mail.app, which everyone seems to say for some reason. (Every app is '.app'). I think it's just leftover jargon from NextStep.
Yep. I just say Mail.app. (I thought you were referring to Mail via the dotmac web interface.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
True - iTunes has grown to be a repository for all personal media files; It's an iPod organizer. It's sad, but I think Windows compatibility is what made iTunes what it is today - a catch all for everything iPod. I remember thinking that the name should have been changed too, but the name 'iTunes' has remained simply because it's already backed by millions of marketing dollars. Changing the name at this point would be superfluous.
It is the contradiction that bothers me. In one respect, Apple pays great attention to detail and creates great design metaphors. On the other hand, they are content to make iTunes the catch all for everything iPod, as you say, and not even bother about the "affordance" of the name. The lack of consistency in this regard is frustrating to observe. (I fully understand the marketing implications, but if you continue to be guided by marketeers, you run the risk of turning out like Adobe. That place is a mess imho.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
You do advocate the use of different apps for different tasks, so why do you think iTunes and the Finder should be merged?
I don't - I was just making the point that this convergence lacks consistency. It was a tongue in cheek way of backing up Brad's quote. Why stop with iTunes handling all media, contacts, calendars, notes and now iPhone. Why not make it the Finder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasmits View Post
It sort of is really. Quick Look brings photo viewing, file previewing, and audio playback to the Finder in a fancy new package - but the Finder has always had these capabilities under column view.
Re: Quick Look - great technology that I hope a lot of developers take advantage of. But couldn't these frameworks have been built into Preview and let Preview render this stuff behind the scenes instead of creating a dedicated and newly named technology? Again, the doubling up seems unnecessary.

Obviously, I have no beef with your opinions, or anyone's so far, in this thread. I understand that people use their computers in different ways. It is the inconsistency on Apple's part and not knowing the how or why these decisions came to be that I find frustrating. But, then again, even if I worked for Apple, there is no guarantee that I would be any the wiser.

All I want is a simple life
twitter

Last edited by Mac+ : 2007-06-14 at 23:30. Reason: typos
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-14, 23:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
But iTunes is a shitty video player. More to the point, its a shitty video organizer. All Macs have that pretty little Movies folder just screaming to be used in their home directories. But where does iTunes store videos? In folders marked "TV Shows" and "Movies" within the fucking music folder.

The implications of this are nothing but negative. The Movies folder is there. Use it.
Excellent point. Bugs the hell out of me. What were they thinking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
But smarter thing, (or rather, would have been smart two years ago) would have been a new application. iWatch. Or whatever. I don't care about the name as long as it a) looks like iTunes, with perhaps a darker window to differentiate on the fly and b) gives you full control of syncing video with iPods, iPhones, and AppleTVs, full iTunes store access and c) has the ability to store its library, which is now correctly differentiated from your music as it should be in the first place, wherever the hell you want.
Agreed. I remember talking about this years ago: a dedicated syncing app. (Not sure about the iTS integration though as that seems perfectly suited to iTunes - or whatever it should be renamed.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
It's only getting worse. Apple has a perfectly good Syncing application just sitting in everyones Applications folder. But what is the iPhone using to sync? iTunes. Insanity, I tell you, insanity. iTunes is a great music application, but as it bleeds into other fields, it degrades the user experience.
With the iTunes port, and this recent Safari port, it really shouldn't be that hard to justify the port of a syncing app for Windows users. I understand that it adds a level of complexity for them (and us) to grapple with. The thinking may have been, initially, part of an effort to coax Windows users to download *only* one app (QT was thrown in as a trojan horse obviously) to minimise their reticence over requiring a multitude of downloads to work with the iPod. Now, however, in light of recent development trends within Apple vis-a-vis Windows, there could be an argument made for cleaning up this inconsistent job description that falls upon iTunes. And, damn, if I can just say it again - what does "iTunes" as a name have to do with any of this? If Apple intends to keep it this way, then bite the bullet and change the name. You changed your corporate name to be more befitting, do the same for this, your poster-child, app. (rant over)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Separating applications out is no longer feasible, as Apple of late seems to have jumped on the jack-of-all-trades application solution, and jumping back would confuse users even more than the current system. The first sign of this was the execution of the spatial finder, which, in my opinion, was much easier for the computer-illiterate to understand. A file browser certainly has its place in life, but as the primary storage mechanism? No. They should be separate. The "Finder" should be an application much like is coming in Leopard. But, the hard drive icon persists on the desktop, and all the folders inside of it always open the same way, and remember their position and view (list vs. icon) and size the last time they were closed. Classic Mac OS did this, and it was beautiful. Steve publicly said "the folder metaphor is no longer workable because people have too many files." Well, not everyone has too many files. Not everyone wants to browse their files, many want to store them, as it is.
I'm not a fan of the HD persisting on the desktop - but this is just personal taste. I understand the relevance of the spatial finder though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Don't get me wrong, the new Finder is amazing. But it's only half the equation. Many people are a lot more comfortable maintaining the physical metaphor of files within folders. Especially computer newbies. It's easier to understand because its analogous to how things work in the real, physical 3D world we all are born into.
Not 100% convinced of this. As we evlove in our work place habits, the new borns will be introduced to a world where their work experience is not the same as our parents'. The use of physical desktop workspaces, files and folders won't be as prevalent as twin screen displays, electronic sharing of documents and other CMC techniques. They'll be exposed to modern computer GUI conventions. I think it is a good move to progress beyond a menu driven system. Heck, some users still grapple with a mouse. If the multi-touch interface is the way forward, then this is a promising development imho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
I absolutely loathe the way iTunes handles video. ... [snip] ... And iTunes doesn't even offer HD content yet, which will only exacerbate the problem.
True - so true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Do one thing. Do it well. It's the Linux philosophy, and it's right.
It used to be the NeXTSTEP/Apple philosophy and this is what I'm bemoaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
When you make separate applications to handle separate tasks, the end result is:

- Applications are easier to use because they focus on a single task.
- Applications work better because they only contain what is necessary for the task at hand.
- Applications do not bloat and therefore consume unnecessary system resources.
QFT.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2007-06-14, 23:21

By the way, in case there was any doubt, my comment that was quoted in the first post of this thread was dripping with sarcasm. I abhor the Frankenstein's monster that iTunes has become and strongly question any time a major vendor merges loosely-related (or wholly unrelated) functionality into a single application.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2007-06-14, 23:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
I don't like all this application convergence. I think that iTunes is a perfect example of why application convergence is a bad idea. iTunes is a great music player. I've been using it since 1.0. My core iTunes library file is a whopping six years old.

But iTunes is a shitty video player. More to the point, its a shitty video organizer. All Macs have that pretty little Movies folder just screaming to be used in their home directories. But where does iTunes store videos? In folders marked "TV Shows" and "Movies" within the fucking music folder.

The implications of this are nothing but negative. The Movies folder is there. Use it. More importantly, if iTunes could handle the separation of video and music files, us notebook users with teeny (comparatively) hard drives could separate the movies out onto an external HD. I have 15 GB of music but 80 GB of video. I'm not alone. Few had a problem with stuffed Music folders pre iTunes 6. Now its a common topic - "how do I move my iTunes folder and library onto an external drive?"

The solution? Well, the quick and dirty way is to simply add this functionality to iTunes. It really just can't be that hard.

But smarter thing, (or rather, would have been smart two years ago) would have been a new application. iWatch. Or whatever. I don't care about the name as long as it a) looks like iTunes, with perhaps a darker window to differentiate on the fly and b) gives you full control of syncing video with iPods, iPhones, and AppleTVs, full iTunes store access and c) has the ability to store its library, which is now correctly differentiated from your music as it should be in the first place, wherever the hell you want.

It's only getting worse. Apple has a perfectly good Syncing application just sitting in everyones Applications folder. But what is the iPhone using to sync? iTunes. Insanity, I tell you, insanity. iTunes is a great music application, but as it bleeds into other fields, it degrades the user experience.

Separating applications out is no longer feasible, as Apple of late seems to have jumped on the jack-of-all-trades application solution, and jumping back would confuse users even more than the current system. The first sign of this was the execution of the spatial finder, which, in my opinion, was much easier for the computer-illiterate to understand. A file browser certainly has its place in life, but as the primary storage mechanism? No. They should be separate. The "Finder" should be an application much like is coming in Leopard. But, the hard drive icon persists on the desktop, and all the folders inside of it always open the same way, and remember their position and view (list vs. icon) and size the last time they were closed. Classic Mac OS did this, and it was beautiful. Steve publicly said "the folder metaphor is no longer workable because people have too many files." Well, not everyone has too many files. Not everyone wants to browse their files, many want to store them, as it is.

Don't get me wrong, the new Finder is amazing. But it's only half the equation. Many people are a lot more comfortable maintaining the physical metaphor of files within folders. Especially computer newbies. It's easier to understand because its analogous to how things work in the real, physical 3D world we all are born into.

I absolutely loathe the way iTunes handles video. If I had no need to stream to an AppleTV or sync to an iPod, I would remove my videos from iTunes and use good-ol-fashioned folders on my external drive. Then I don't have to dick around with keeping my entire library on an external drive, making sure my iPod is synced and working before I hit the road, which is often. And I don't have to converge my libraries and hope for the best when I buy stuff on the road, or rip stuff on the road. It's just a pain in the ass, and I know I'm not alone on this. Apple sells more notebooks than desktops, and most people don't even bother upgrading past the standard hard drive, which is 60, 80, or 120. Do you know how fast you can fill up an 80 GB drive with TV shows? Fast. Very fast. If Apple is going to convince me that I should use iTunes to buy all my media, they are going to have to make it easier for me to manage it. And iTunes doesn't even offer HD content yet, which will only exacerbate the problem.

Do one thing. Do it well. It's the Linux philosophy, and it's right. When you make separate applications to handle separate tasks, the end result is:

- Applications are easier to use because they focus on a single task.
- Applications work better because they only contain what is necessary for the task at hand.
- Applications do not bloat and therefore consume unnecessary system resources.

No no, I do not like where this is going. The new Finder is great looking, but it shouldn't be your only option, especially considering that reviving the spatial finder would in no way degrade the user experience.
Excellent post filled with great content. I am going to give you some "reputation" points for this. I feel 100% the same way.
  quote
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2007-06-14, 23:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Yes, but as iTunes continues to absorb more functions - video organizer, photo syncer, contact and calendar syncer - it will inevitably become worse at each one. That's the whole point of the anti-swiss-army-knife approach; it's pretty much gets impossible to have one application take on so many tasks without degrading the quality of the application as a whole.

As you improve the applications handling of one task, you degrade it's handling of it's original task. Even if there's no obvious loss, the hit to system resources alone is enough incentive to avoid the jack-of-all-trades application philosophy.
I don't think it will inevitably get worse. Potentially, they could revamp iTunes and fix the functionality. The thing is that it doesn't make sense and is not very intuitive to have iTunes do all this.

Personally, I think the iPod and iPhone should both be synchronized through iSync. What that application should do is bring up a window with your contacts sorted, your songs sorted, your music sorted, your photos in thumbnail form sorted, and your videos. Then you can check mark which ones to sync(which happens in real-time to keep constant tabs on available space).

iTunes should simply deal with music and nothing else. iPhoto should work with photos and only photos. iWatch should only deal with videos(perhaps give it an mplayer back-end to give open-source software some loving). iMail(get it, I mail (ba dum, ching!)) should deal with emails and should sync with iCal and Address Book.

As you can see, I am all about 1 app doing 1 thing and doing it well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mac+
With the iTunes port, and this recent Safari port, it really shouldn't be that hard to justify the port of a syncing app for Windows users. I understand that it adds a level of complexity for them (and us) to grapple with. The thinking may have been, initially, part of an effort to coax Windows users to download *only* one app (QT was thrown in as a trojan horse obviously) to minimise their reticence over requiring a multitude of downloads to work with the iPod. Now, however, in light of recent development trends within Apple vis-a-vis Windows, there could be an argument made for cleaning up this inconsistent job description that falls upon iTunes. And, damn, if I can just say it again - what does "iTunes" as a name have to do with any of this? If Apple intends to keep it this way, then bite the bullet and change the name. You changed your corporate name to be more befitting, do the same for this, your poster-child, app. (rant over)
With them adding software update to windows, etc. I feel like they could easily implement a specific synching app. Once you plug in your iPod/iPhone, this app would launch much like iTunes is now.

I suspect they keep using iTunes for all of this new functionality is to get people into the iTunes store. They really should make the iWatch app with the iWatch store!!
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-14, 23:42

I've seriously gotta to get some Uni work done, but I'll post some more over the weekend.

Btw, BR - thanks for the services link. Great read. Wish I was more clued up about NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP in those days.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-15, 00:40

(OK - I saw tensdanny38's post and decided to comment.)

I understand the bait and switch tactic of iTunes and the iTS. However, it is the piecing together of additonal functions to iTunes that is sullying what was once Apple's strongest suit - excellence in interface design. It seems they are happy to contravene their own guidelines in an effort to woo users in the short term. This will have to be undone at some point I think.

Re: the iWatch store. I don't think they should create separate stores. However, I like the idea that whatever media browsing app you have open, then *that* provides the online store experience.

Apple could have one store - call it the iShop or simply the iStore (sans the word "Tunes").

Open "iListen" (renamed and pared back iTunes app), browse your library, see recommendations, shop from within it at the iShop, or iStore, and the downloaded music content, podcasts, audio books or language lessons are filed appropriately in your Music folder as part of the iTunes library structure.

Open "iWatch" (for movies, TV shows, downloaded YouTube content, whatever) and it has an online connection that enables you to browse the viewable media on offer. The purchased downloads are filed in your Movies folder with the iWatch app doing the library maintenance.

iPhoto and Aperture - same thing. It doesn't exist now, but imagine being able to order some prints of world class photographers from Apple's iShop, or iStore. Perhaps rename iPhoto to "iLook" ... or don't. All downloaded content is managed by iPhoto or Aperture as appropriate. Data resides in the - you guessed it - Pictures folder in your home directory.

Then we can talk about iSync. .Mac now handles the syncing between computers and iTunes handles the transfer of data between Address Book, iCal, iPhoto and iTunes itself with the iPod, TV and the iPhone. Ridiculous.

Re-engineer iSync to know each media library iApp as well as Address Book and iCal. Then it can handle the synchronisation of computer to iPod, TV and the iPhone. As well as any 3rd party peripheral that requires it. It makes sense to me. Am I alone here?

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
dfiler
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
 
2007-06-15, 07:16

I don't think users would be better served by needing multiple apps to sync their iPod. Nor do I think they'd be better served by having to use an app other than iTunes to sync music to an iPod.

The iPod is primarily a media player with a couple auxilary functions. The simplest and most intuitive solution is for iTunes and the iPod to have a similar scope of functionality.

It seems that arguments to the contrary are based more upon dogma than upon real world usability concerns for this particular app/device combination.
  quote
BuonRotto
Not sayin', just sayin'
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to BuonRotto Send a message via Yahoo to BuonRotto  
2007-06-15, 08:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac+ View Post
Re: the iWatch store. I don't think they should create separate stores. However, I like the idea that whatever media browsing app you have open, then *that* provides the online store experience.
Indeed, the nice thing about all these plug-in architectures and APIs is that the pieces can be used interchangeably, and this is obviously even more true when your UI is web-based like the iTunes Store. There's no reason why, for example, you couldn't have 2 applications -- one for organizing video content (sorely missing!) and one for music content, that each access the same iStore or whatever you call it. for that matter, I have no objection if iTunes has basic video features pilfered from QT/iVideo, allows you to see/preview your video library, but has an easy way to switch over to the application that does the heavy lifting of organization and more advanced playback. That, to me, is the essence of having shared libraries: to share content amongst apps. That is distinct from saying that any app can be the primary mechanism for viewing, editing or organizing though.

[quote]]Then we can talk about iSync.[/i]

Yes, why iSync isn't a hub is perfectly curious, especially since it's been (rightly) mostly implemented as a background/shared process. All apps can interface with the sync service, the sync service should be able to speak to multiple apps and sync to anywhere, even multiple places.

I don't have a problem with someone going into itunes and saying "sync everything with my iPod." They should be able to do the same from that hypothetical iVideo app, iPhoto for pictures or whatever. It's just a front-end. There's no reason why the content can't be put in distinct, logical places with each doing its appropriate job even in that scenario.

Dammit, the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. It bothers me to no end that iPods and iPhones sync photos in iTunes. Surely, they could just say "hey Google, how 'bout we have Picasa be our buddy on the Windows side and we'l let iPhoto do its part on the Mac side?" For that matter, considering they've ported iTunes and Safari, perhaps iPhoto to windows isn't out of the question, just as the iVids type of client would need to be brought to Windows. I think we can see where this is going, but at this point, given that I'm no so worried about people skipping out on Mac hardware if they have Apple apps on their PC (just the opposite has happened thus far), I say Apple needs to rethink their iLife/OS software direction.
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-15, 08:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
I don't think users would be better served by needing multiple apps to sync their iPod. Nor do I think they'd be better served by having to use an app other than iTunes to sync music to an iPod.
Not advocating multiple apps to sync an iPod. Just use the one sync app that knows the media cataloging iApps as well as Address Book and iCal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
The iPod is primarily a media player with a couple auxilary functions. The simplest and most intuitive solution is for iTunes and the iPod to have a similar scope of functionality.
Granted the iPod is a media player but iTunes was not primarily designed as a media player originally and it is showing now. Movie handling is pitiful, the classification of viewable content forms seems odd (QuickTime movie previews as podcasts?) and what is the logic in syncing your photos, Address Book and Calendar events via iTunes? Whether this is a result of the Windows port, or poor design on Apple's part, it has clearly been a point of contention for some users. I don't think the convergence of all these features into iTunes has been a good move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
It seems that arguments to the contrary are based more upon dogma than upon real world usability concerns for this particular app/device combination.
I don't agree. I think the usability of iTunes suffers because it has become a "kitchen sink" app.

Part of the reason for this is because I know that my conceptual model (and judging by comments in this thread, that of a few others) is different to the conceptual model of the developers and this is a key cause for confusion in terms of usability. Clearly the information architecture has not been successfully conveyed to the public via the product. I can only guess that design choices in the development process have been compromised by Apple's desire to have one app handle it all. In this sense, I think they have chosen the wrong app to handle it all. It was fine when the iPod just accepted music files; iTunes was a logical choice *then*. However, with the evolution of the iPod into a fully fledged media player, and future hooks-ups with TV and the iPhone, the syncing portion of this relationship needs to be rethought.

In short, I don't like the app convergence that has been going on in iTunes and I wonder whether the inclusion of Notes, To Do lists and, to a lesser extent, RSS feeds in Mail is a harbinger of things to come for this app too.*

* Actually, RSS inclusion in Mail doesn't phase me. This will be good for Spotlight indexing. However, the doubling up and encroaching on Safari's territory is odd and flies in the face of the one app doing it well convention.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2007-06-15, 09:03

BR - Been meaning to reply to you, but I still have a chapter to read before I immerse myself in this essay. However, briefly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuonRotto View Post
Indeed, the nice thing about all these plug-in architectures and APIs is that the pieces can be used interchangeably, ... [snip] ...
Yes. This is the key to it all. Dedicated apps sharing their data. It happens with Mail, iCal and Address Book. It happens with the iLife Media browser. But why doesn't it happen with iPod syncing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuonRotto View Post
Yes, why iSync isn't a hub is perfectly curious, especially since it's been (rightly) mostly implemented as a background/shared process. All apps can interface with the sync service, the sync service should be able to speak to multiple apps and sync to anywhere, even multiple places.

... [snip] ... Dammit, the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. It bothers me to no end that iPods and iPhones sync photos in iTunes.
Amen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuonRotto View Post
I think we can see where this is going, but at this point, given that I'm no so worried about people skipping out on Mac hardware if they have Apple apps on their PC (just the opposite has happened thus far), I say Apple needs to rethink their iLife/OS software direction.
Yes. Interesting times ahead. I hope they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in their efforts to woo Windows users.

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
doublem9876
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In Seine
Send a message via AIM to doublem9876  
2007-06-15, 23:44

I'm not gonna lie - the apps are all looking a little bit too similar.

For example, on the apple website:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/...memachine.html
The biggest picture shows the Finder. However, it took me a good couple of seconds to figure out that this was, in fact, the Finder. I definitely thought it was iTunes at first glance.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharing our deepest thoughts and dreams (diary entries) murbot AppleOutsider 17 2021-10-10 16:06
Automater Application Launch Question osuchris Genius Bar 1 2006-08-28 11:24
Why does software crash, freeze and hang? dahacouk General Discussion 32 2005-11-15 14:48
OS 10.5 - any thoughts? kmac Speculation and Rumors 37 2005-06-09 17:11
Thoughts on Apple super "iApp" AIO application? thedustin General Discussion 18 2004-08-15 00:05


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:18.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova