Vista - iPod Killer? 557
JMB wrote us with a dire warning, as reported by the San Jose Mercury News. Apple is cautioning its Windows-using iTunes customers to steer clear of Vista until the next iTunes update. The reason for this is a bit puzzling. Apparently, if you try to 'safely remove' your iPod from a Vista-installed PC, there's a chance you may corrupt the little music player. They also claim that songs may not play, and contacts may not sync with the device. Apple went so far as to release a detailed support document on the subject, which assures users that a new Vista-compatible version of the software will be available in a few weeks. Is this just some very creative FUD? If it is not who do you think is 'at fault' here, Microsoft or Apple?
Suits suits suits. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it turns out that MS is keeping true to form from past abuses - using its control over the OS to submerge and destroy the oposition (see netscape) then Apple should probably start digging for evidence to back a differnet kind of suit right now. This kind of deliberate destruction of property that just happens to be manufactured by the opposition company (OS v Os, and now MP3 player v. MP3 player) is text-book anti-trust case material.
-GiH
Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus doesn't run? (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it's USB handling; it's likely UAC and how everyone is a restricted user by default (even Administrators until they elevate). I got into this weird situation in XP where I was able to play and purchase music in iTunes under a restricted account until I mistakenly ran it under an administrator account one day. I was never able to purchase music again without logging on as administrator (it would fail to download the song).
Furthermore, I can't imagine them intentionally crippling iTunes. Apple has ~70-80% of the market of music devices. It would be suicide for Vista to intentionally block the software of the most popular music device out there. Regular users would blame Vista regardless of the underlying technical reasons.
Release version has been around for months (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course it is Apple's fault. (Score:3, Interesting)
History repeating itself (Score:4, Interesting)
Safari and hotmail (Score:5, Interesting)
Three days later, I could no longer download attachments... My version of Safari hadn't changed, but somehow, after three days, it didn't work as well as it did. Hmmm...
In a less anecdotal way, you might remember Microsoft "borking" Opera [opera.com], or the infamous Microsoft hack that screwed with Netscape back in the 90s.
If we're lucky, "leaked" memos will show up in a few years detailing how Microsoft purposefully decided to screw with their competition for their new zune.
Winamp USB (Score:4, Interesting)
If I have Winamp running and put in a USB CF reader with photos on it, I get a prompt about Winamp managing this possible media player. Of course I decline and copy off my photos, then remove the card. As soon as I remove the card, Winamp crashes.
So while I'm sure using iTunes will probably be fine, The USB media device management has some issues that ether Microsoft or the software makers need to handle. I would bet that is what Apple is talking about.
Re:If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't doubt that Apple might have some dirty hands here, if only because they seek to embarrass Microsoft at any opportunity, and may have deliberately withheld some updates specifically to cause the most possible bad publicity about Vista, but more likely than not Apple was given one set of APIs WRT the safe removal of iPods, only to have Microsoft change them without warning.
STOP the FUD Appl provided a fix already (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/itunesrepai rtoolforvista10.html [apple.com]
Re:It's apples fault (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is at fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect Microsoft's "security" model is to blame (Score:2, Interesting)
Instread of letting applications that deal with untrusted documents take responsibility for sandboxing them, Microsoft rejected sandboxing in he '90s as too inconvenient, and having too great a performance cost. Instead, they assume that applications will use COM objects (ActiveX, Office documents, etcetera) and build the whole security model around assigning "security zones" to COM objects. THEN (a) assuming all applications are compromised, and (b) setting up traps to catch out compromised applications.
So every time they hike security, they end up breaking some software or some hardware that was doing things that look fishy to Microsoft. They broke Palm two or three times, so it's no surprised Apple's falling afoul of their stupid design.
A design that, by the way, has caused users immensely more inconvenience than any sandbox possibly could.
Not necessarily. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a handful of likely reasons:
I suppose that makes sense for a small time company like Nortel, but not for a shop like Apple.
Nortel's market cap is around $10B, Apple's is around $6B.
Re:Microsoft is at fault (Score:5, Interesting)
You apparently know nothing, and I mean nothing about how software works in the Windows world. Software companies constantly have to "fix" their software because of bugs or changes in the underlying Windows systems they rely upon. This is simply the way things are done in the Windows world.
Re:It's apples fault (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I dunno.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the solution to those problems involves architectural changes.. replacing XP/ME-specific device i/o code with Vista-specific device i/o code.. it makes sense for Apple to wait and release a Vista-specific version shortly after Vista itself goes into public use. it doesn't make sense for them to load a bunch of Vista code into the versions of iTunes that were running on XP or ME just so the program would probably survive the OS upgrade seamlessly.
It also makes sense for Apple to wait a few weeks after Vista goes public before releasing its Vista-specific version of iTunes, just to see if any edge-cases crop up when umpty-zillion users start upgrading upmty-zillion different XP and ME configurations. Give it a couple of weeks to watch the radar for bugs, another two weeks to solve them, and one more for QA testing, and you have a good Vista-specific version of iTunes coming out five weeks after Vista itself hits the shelves of Wal-Mart.
That isn't bad, as far as timing goes. There's always some ramp-up in new product adoption, and Vista is hardly the 'must upgrade as soon as I can get my hands on a copy' product of the 21st century. Even most of the early adopters will still be waiting to upgrade by the time Apple's Vista-specific version of iTunes is released.
IMO, the real story here is that Vista's iPod compatability is a big enough issue to be getting attention at all.
Re:Dont' be a dumbass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of disconnected from reality, you really believe that an Apple today costs twice as much as a comparable Dell did two years ago? Aside from the Mac Pros, most Macs today sell for well below $2,000. The 24" inch iMac is an exception. But what you're telling me is that two years ago, you could have bought a Dell with a 24" LCD, 1GB RAM, 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, DVD burner, and 128MB video card, for $1,000? That must be what you're saying, because you claim the $2,000 Mac couldn't give you anything new.
I challenge you to configure a comparable Dell (or HP, etc.) today for $1,000 (Apple's are twice the price, remember?). Hell, I challenge you to find one for $2,000. I came up with a price of $2,308 at Dell's site. Granted, that was with a 256MB video card, which would bring the iMac up to $2,124. Far from being twice the price, the Apple is nearly $200 cheaper.
Re:It's apples fault (Score:4, Interesting)
That "fairly stable api" didn't help Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That "fairly stable api" didn't help Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Of course it is Apple's fault. (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't have iTunes without quicktime though.
Re:That "fairly stable api" didn't help Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's apples fault (Score:1, Interesting)
precisely (Score:4, Interesting)
Apart from iTunes - all my Audible stuff now fails the DRM check. Just to clarify, all the audiobooks I bought for my iPod now no longer play and whilst I have a subscription for two more books this month (£15 I've paid) I can't listen to them.
All iTunes has to do is to decode MP3, M4A, M4P and AA files on my Computer - and map them to my ipod. The fact I can no longer do this either indicates that Apple are inept, or (taking into account today's press releases) they're holding me hostage to make a point.
Re:Who to blame? (Score:2, Interesting)
It reminds me of a thing I used to do a little more recently with Diablo II. The game would only write updates to your character file every 5 minutes. So whenever I died, I would immediately alt+tab, make a copy of my character file, and quit the game. Then I'd copy my backup over the newly-flushed (dead) character file, to revert to a version pre-death.
Actually I had a massive folder of all my character versions dating way back
Re:It's apples fault (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an evil plot!
DOS ain't done til Lotus won't run. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not surprised a bit to see it updated for the 00's.