Talk:iTunes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ITunes article.
Article policies
Good article ITunes has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Archive
Archives
Archive Index


Contents

[edit] Winamp

I saw in the history that someone said winamp can handle ipods. Is this not noteworthy since most people use itunes just because they think it only works with ipods?

[edit] Advertisement

This article reads more like a brochure than an non-biased encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybaker (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I know yet every objection I put of the product gets reverted. Are these guys sponsored by apple or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.169.231 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as a Linux user I find it hard to believe that despite constant complaints on forums, no-ones even mentioned Linux in the "free to edit" articles except for a small bit about reverse-engineering the protocol. Does no-one care or is it just being pruned out of the article by some fanboys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysmileman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. This is a puff piece, and viewing the discussion archives, it's clear there are some serious Apple apologists quashing any sort of criticisms of this product. Wikipedia is usually a very good start to look at a topic and find links that address a subject in more detail. This page is clearly useless in that regard if one is trying to learn about the number of issues (particularly extremely slow functioning in Windows). However, not here. Sombody from Wikipedia's higher ups should read this article, recognize it for the usless puff piece it is, and get it replaced with a balanced ENCYCLOPEDIC article. JimZDP 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.208.225 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, how can we flag it for review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrus1 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, either the only people who touched this article are fanboys or Apple itself is taking initiative. ENSSB (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and that makes some sense too seeing how Apple pushes its products. This is an article turned advertisement. - Redmess (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an infrequent editor on Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure of the procedures, but it seems that advertisements (which this is clearly an example) should be candidates for deletion. I've reviewed some of the more recent comments and there are clearly fanboys at work on this page. Could we nominate if for deletion because the content is really just Apple hype or spam? And on top of this it's a "good article"? Please. It fails miserably under the scope category even under the most generous of factual analysis. JimZDP (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I love Apple and iTunes, but you guys are right, this whole page needs to be scrapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.129.242 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms?

I agree with most of the discussion here. There are no criticisms of iTunes' closed nature or the locked-in feeling some people get (I'd have to find some sources for this claim) when they use their iPods.

I'd make these changes myself, but 1) I'm at work and 2) I'm feeling particularly lazy about it ;) Grayda (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is depressing when you have an article of this magnitude that has ACTUAL proper criticisms with proper sources YET whenever a section is added or anything negative is added the throng of Apple devotees come running and immediately delete the information. The problem I see with this article is it reads more like an advertisement for the Itunes software. Where is the information about it hogging up system resources for certain users, bloated nature, issues with seeing certain Ipods and so forth. I guess this will never change. If this continues I might ask for this to be reviewed based on neutralitySatanical Eve (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, this seems to be a recurring theme. I've added the Neutrality-Check tag. We'll see how long it lasts. 69.140.33.146 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it also be worthwhile to point out that iTunes won't install properly on XP64 without user tweaking, and even then has limited functionality? I am not sure if this is also the case with Vista 64, but it seems a worthwhile point to make as increasing numbers of people take up AMD64/EM64T computing? 57.67.17.100 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If that wasn't already mentioned in the article, that would be an excellent point to make. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I also added the advertisement tag. It reads more like an advert for the program then a general history of it. It has no criticism parts. No text about the faults with the program and all others pertaining. Satanical Eve (talk)

By all means, go read WP:RS and then edit the article to include criticisms that are well sourced. Well sourced criticisms won't be removed from the article. If you add your own personal criticisms, or ones that are sourced with anonymous postings on an internet forum, more than likely they are going to be quickly removed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add that iTunes very much installs like crapware these days when installed on x86: it installs a number of services and helpers, it installs Quicktime by default, and installs Apple Software Update which by default installs Safari on your machine, not to mention the Bonjour services on your computer.

By all means, if only what a user wants is to managing his or her iPod and to add some songs, are all these necessary? Eddypoon (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the problems people are having with the itunes updater forcing safari updates? Is this a valid criticism? Additionally, I was wondering if from a technical standpoint, does Itunes already have a safari-run browser in order to look at the itunes store? You are essentially loading a web link when you click on a link to music... and itunes just loads a web-page from apple's site, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.153.73 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The iTunes Store is not written in HTML. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patents

I changed the wording of the section to more precisely reflect the content of the sourced article. If you're going to seek an edit, change it word by word. There is too much relevant information in the section to just delete.

I also re-added the POV check tag. If you disagree with that, discuss it here. That's the whole point of the tag. 69.140.33.146 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Creative lawsuit was about the iPod user interface, not the iTunes user interface. So I've removed that from the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How exactly is Apple's media player patent similar to the Apple v Microsoft GUI lawsuit? I would say this is exactly the opposite. Songbird is obviously a direct clone of iTunes, Apple has a patent, but IIRC haven't challenged the Songbird developers. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the POV-check tag. If you want to discuss parts of the article that you think aren't neutral I'm afraid you have to actually state which parts specifically. How are we supposed to debate something with you, if you don't tell us exactly what you want to discuss? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iTunes Scripts for Mac and Windows

Presumably we should include citations where it says "iTunes can be scripted, using AppleScript for Mac OS X or using the Apple-provided SDK for iTunes on Windows..."

iTunes Scripts work for Windows and Mac OS.

Is this how I should create the citations? I can't work it out!

Windows:

Scripts at Everything iTunes [Windows Version]. Everything iTunes. Retrieved on 2008-03-18.

Mac:

Adams, Doug. Doug's Applescripts for iTunes. Retrieved on 2008-03-18.


Soapynebula (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

It's a minor issue, but I am not convinced that the release date listed in the article is correct. Looking through the history, that date has been listed for significant periods as January 8, 9, and 10. The first 2001 date I can find in the history is January 9 (see [1]). It was later changed to January 10 ([2]) and then back to January 9 again ([3]. Only recently do I see the January 8 ([4]). Note both the January 10 and January 8 dates were first introduced by anonymous users, and may have been subtle vandalism.

Currently I can't find a specific date mentioned in the cited reference: Macworld Expo San Francisco 2001. However, in Apple's own press release, they give the date as January 9. What evidence is there to support the January 8 date? -- Tcncv (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks like vandalism. Anons often target the lead, and yes, specific dates and other figures can be "corrupted" over time. I'll fix it and provide a cite.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View

This may just be my opinion but it appears the neutrality of this article is not neutral. Haysead talk 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As you weren't very specific in your accusations, please WP:Be Bold and correct the article. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licence

I know the page is probably going to be rewritten, but as it currently stands, iTunes is NOT open soruce(not a typo), nor open source. It is freeware. There is a very good chance(p=1.00,q=0.00 for you data management folks) that it will remain closed source for the lifetime of Apple. I didn't check to see who made that change and if I did it wouldn't really matter because i wouldn't be able to change it anyway.24.36.133.217 (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)