Prev: Text Edit in Snow Leopard
Next: .djvu extension file type or app?
From: BreadWithSpam on 12 Apr 2010 15:04
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes:
> AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > That's the core question: Why has Apple crippled it's iPods, iPhones,
> > and now the iPad -- so that users MUST, as a practical reality, deal
> > with audio files ONLY through the massive, complex, bloated, iTunes
> > approach?
>
> quite the opposite. itunes adds a substantial amount of functionality,
> including smart playlists and browsing by many different tags,
> something that cannot be done with drag/drop.

Under the hood, of course, itunes keeps all your music files in a
normal filesystem. However, it organizes the interface to that
collection of files via the ID3 tags within them. For the most
part, this is a blessing - when viewing your collection of music
or audio as a collection, it's just great.

When dealing with moving, transferring, archiving, etc, sometimes
I find it annoying.

On the desktop, iTunes lets you right-click on a track and takes
you to the file within the Finder if you like. No such luck on
an iPhone (or iPad as far as I know).

On a desktop, you do deal with the filesystem as files and folders
and hierarchy. On an iPhone, you generally do not. Instead, the
iPhone presents an app-centric rather than a file-centric view of
the universe. There is no Finder per se. This is a mixed blessing.
You won't lose files, but neither will you be able to organize
other than by app.

I, for example, am working on a project which has several
spreadsheets, several Pages docs, a handful of text files, etc.
On my Mac, it's all in a project folder. On an iPad, there'd
be no really great way to organize all that.

> itunes is also extremely simple -- plug in an ipod and it syncs. do you
> really want to micromanage thousands of songs scattered across hundreds
> of different folders?

I don't know about you, but "plug in and it syncs" only works well
as long as the universe from which you're syncing is small enough
that it all fits on the iPhone/Pad/Pod. That's almost never been
the case for me, even when it was just audio, and now that there
is video involved, not even close. Nevertheless, dragging and
dropping within iTunes is at least as easy as doing so via the
Finder. Music, certainly, is better organized. I find video
usually isn't, and I don't keep almost any video in Itunes itself
anyway. I drag video files from the Finder and drop them on
the iPhone in iTunes.

> > Why can't I "just drag and drop audio files to an iPod [or iPad, and
> > simply] listen to them" without even knowing that iTunes exists? Why
> > can't I use an iPod (or at least an iPad) as an elementary MP3 audio
> > player, with no iTunes involvement, if that's all I want to do?!? (And,

> because it's more work for less functionality.

However, the iPhone and iPad recognize mp3 files no matter how they
end up on the iPhone and they can be played outside of iTunes if
you like. Stick mp3 files into your iDisk or sync them up via
Dropbox or the like, and you can certainly play the files. But
it really does stink compared to using the iPod interface.

> > I'd hoped the iPad would at least rise above and be free from this
> > approach -- that it would be, in some meaningful way, an open computer
> > device, like the ones Apple used to be devoted to. I'm still hoping --
> > but not very hopefully.
>
> the current approach is much better than what you propose, and it's
> also completely open too. you can load up an ipod with *any* music you
> want, from any source you want.

I don't know about "better". But it is different. It's an
app-centric and lower-maintenance view of the world. It's
meant to be simple, stable and consistent. There are certainly
tradeoffs for that (which is why "better" is not the right word),
but it may be an improvement for most non-technical users.
In exchange for "it just works and I don't have to do squat
to keep it so" you lose much of the lower-level access that
some of us have gotten used to. I don't miss the lower-level
access on my iPhone. And for an iPad, it may not annoy me much
if I limit my use of the thing -- it'll be fabulous for consuming
media, for example, in much the way that I find I use the iPhone
(but more so). For *me* it'd not be enough - I couldn't, say,
substitute an iPad for my laptop. For many folks, it may well
be enough. And for casual non-business travel, it may be more
than enough. If that's the case for enough people, Apple will
have created a vast new market.





--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
From: nospam on 12 Apr 2010 15:15
In article <yobaat8h4q4.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>,
<BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net> wrote:

> On the desktop, iTunes lets you right-click on a track and takes
> you to the file within the Finder if you like. No such luck on
> an iPhone (or iPad as far as I know).

that doesn't even make sense on an iphone or ipad because there is no
visible file system on them.

> On a desktop, you do deal with the filesystem as files and folders
> and hierarchy. On an iPhone, you generally do not. Instead, the
> iPhone presents an app-centric rather than a file-centric view of
> the universe. There is no Finder per se. This is a mixed blessing.
> You won't lose files, but neither will you be able to organize
> other than by app.

organize them any way you want in playlists. you can even make
on-the-go playlists on the device.

plus, playlists can be smart playlists and auto-update. try *that* with
a bunch of files and folders.

> > itunes is also extremely simple -- plug in an ipod and it syncs. do you
> > really want to micromanage thousands of songs scattered across hundreds
> > of different folders?
>
> I don't know about you, but "plug in and it syncs" only works well
> as long as the universe from which you're syncing is small enough
> that it all fits on the iPhone/Pad/Pod.

nope. you can tell itunes to only copy a subset of the music.
From: AES on 12 Apr 2010 19:44
In article <yobaat8h4q4.fsf(a)panix2.panix.com>,
BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wr

> > quite the opposite. itunes adds a substantial amount of functionality,
> > including smart playlists and browsing by many different tags,
> > something that cannot be done with drag/drop.
>
> Under the hood, of course, itunes keeps all your music files in a
> normal filesystem. However, it organizes the interface to that
> collection of files via the ID3 tags within them. For the most
> part, this is a blessing - when viewing your collection of music
> or audio as a collection, it's just great.
>
> When dealing with moving, transferring, archiving, etc, sometimes
> I find it annoying.
>
> On the desktop, iTunes lets you right-click on a track and takes
> you to the file within the Finder if you like. No such luck on
> an iPhone (or iPad as far as I know).

Thanks very much for this reply: I find some parts of it very
instructive and helpful (see below) -- and other parts not so convincing
(e.g., some of the above).

For example:

* "itunes keeps all your music files in a normal filesystem"

-- but for no necessary reason _destroys_ the structure (i.e., the
organization and the naming) of your whole file structure -- which is a
key element of the whole system! This is a blessing?

* "On the desktop, iTunes lets you right-click on a track and
takes you to the file within the Finder if you like"

-- and in the Finder you can Cmd-click on the title of any file or
folder window, and view and instantly move to anywhere in the complete
path to that file or folder. So, what's been gained?

> On a desktop, you do deal with the filesystem as files and folders
> and hierarchy. On an iPhone, you generally do not. Instead, the
> iPhone presents an app-centric rather than a file-centric view of
> the universe. There is no Finder per se. This is a mixed blessing.
> You won't lose files, but neither will you be able to organize
> other than by app.

This is the part of your response I find really helpful -- that is,
the term "app-centric" as a very instructive way of naming or
characterizing (and understanding) what's going on.

Of course, the "app-centric" approach (combined with appropriate use
of app-specific (rather than open) file formats and various DRM controls
means that

* the device vendor is able to retain full and ultimate control
over, not only the app which they've provided, but over all the data and
associated files associated with that app which you may create with or
put into that app

* and likely retain control over whether any other third-party apps
can be used on those same files within that device (or can even be
loaded into the device)

* In other words the opposite of "open" computing

whereas the "file-centric" approach, combined with standardized data
file formats (standardized in the sense of being open formats that are
defined and accepted and agreed to by international standards
organizations or widely accepted professional or trade groups) means
that

* your data files can be created and exchanged and modified and used
on _many_ different devices, from _many_ different vendors, using _many_
different apps which are developed by many different authors

* with _you_ having the freedom to choose the best of those many
competing devices and apps.

(Funny . . . I thought that was how the whole data processing world
was supposed to operate . . . or at least, that was the way to get the
best for everyone.)


> > itunes is also extremely simple -- plug in an ipod and it syncs. do you
> > really want to micromanage thousands of songs scattered across hundreds
> > of different folders?

Except it's an odd conception of "sync". Maybe you can "sync" iPod A
to MacBook B -- except if some of stuff already on iPod A is not
properly known to MacBook B, or if you then plug iPod A into MacBook C,
all of the stuff on A that's not from B may get erased -- or if you
loose either A or B, or one of them fails, you may have to jump through
a lot of complex hoops to recover stuff that was on one but not the
other.



> > > Why can't I "just drag and drop audio files to an iPod [or iPad, and
> > > simply] listen to them" without even knowing that iTunes exists? Why
> > > can't I use an iPod (or at least an iPad) as an elementary MP3 audio
> > > player, with no iTunes involvement, if that's all I want to do?!? (And,
>
> > because it's more work for less functionality.

Huh?


> I don't know about "better". But it is different. It's an
> app-centric and lower-maintenance view of the world. It's
> meant to be simple, stable and consistent. There are certainly
> tradeoffs for that (which is why "better" is not the right word),
> but it may be an improvement for most non-technical users.
> In exchange for "it just works and I don't have to do squat
> to keep it so" you lose much of the lower-level access that
> some of us have gotten used to.

> For *me* it [the app-centric approach is ] not be enough - I couldn't
> , say,substitute an iPad for my laptop.

I'll fully agree with the above characterization of the iPod and
iPhone app-centric worlds, and even to this approach being "better" for
a very large fraction of the population. But for me also, I certainly
want to stay in the open, competitive, innovative file-centric world,
thanks, for all the data and computer-centered things I do.

I was really hoping that the iPad would be file-centric (or "open")
enough to at least interface nicely with the file-centric world of my
primary MacBook, at least for some simple purposes. If not, I'll just
have to forget about it, and go looking for a netbook or tablet as the
mobile accessory for my MacBook.
From: nospam on 12 Apr 2010 20:28
In article
<siegman-C1A4D9.16443712042010(a)bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES
<siegman(a)stanford.edu> wrote:

> * "itunes keeps all your music files in a normal filesystem"
>
> -- but for no necessary reason _destroys_ the structure (i.e., the
> organization and the naming) of your whole file structure -- which is a
> key element of the whole system! This is a blessing?

it doesn't destroy anything. you can optionally have it organize it but
that's not required.
From: BreadWithSpam on 12 Apr 2010 21:03
AES <siegman(a)stanford.edu> writes:
> BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wr

> > Under the hood, of course, itunes keeps all your music files in a
> > normal filesystem. However, it organizes the interface to that
> > collection of files via the ID3 tags within them. For the most
> > part, this is a blessing - when viewing your collection of music
> > or audio as a collection, it's just great.
>
> * "itunes keeps all your music files in a normal filesystem"
>
> -- but for no necessary reason _destroys_ the structure (i.e., the
> organization and the naming) of your whole file structure -- which is a
> key element of the whole system! This is a blessing?

Actually, it does no such thing. You have the choice to have
iTunes manage where in your filesystem it keeps the files --
or you may tell iTunes *not* to copy media files into iTunes
subdirectories, in which case the files stay wherever you
left them in the first place.

For music, I find it convenient to have iTunes manage the
files (copy them into iTunes-managed folders and subfolders).

For video, I find it useless, as I have way more video
than I leave on my computer's main drive at any time.

> Of course, the "app-centric" approach (combined with appropriate use
> of app-specific (rather than open) file formats and various DRM controls
> means that
>
> * the device vendor is able to retain full and ultimate control
> over, not only the app which they've provided, but over all the data and
> associated files associated with that app which you may create with or
> put into that app

If you have files which live exclusively on your iPhone or iPad,
this makes it harder to manage. You don't lose "control" --
there's no requirement, for example, for DRM. But you do lose
some management flexibility.

Of course, anything you have on your iPhone or iPad, you should
hopefully have a copy separate somewhere on your desktop machine.
And in the case of media files, as indicated above, you then lose
absolutely no control over where they are. The only thing is that
you do have to use iTunes to move the media files onto your iPhone.
No big deal.

> * and likely retain control over whether any other third-party apps
> can be used on those same files within that device (or can even be
> loaded into the device)

I can't speak to the iPad's flexibility in letting apps share
access to data files, as I don't have one.

On the iPhone, there pretty much isn't any except that third-party
apps may access and use the common media storage areas - photos, for
example.

> * your data files can be created and exchanged and modified and used
> on _many_ different devices, from _many_ different vendors, using _many_
> different apps which are developed by many different authors

That doesn't change unless you buy DRM controlled media. Generally
easy enough to avoid.

> I'll fully agree with the above characterization of the iPod and
> iPhone app-centric worlds, and even to this approach being "better" for
> a very large fraction of the population. But for me also, I certainly
> want to stay in the open, competitive, innovative file-centric world,
> thanks, for all the data and computer-centered things I do.

I think you're mischaracterising the tradeoffs. It's not about
open/standard versus proprietary. The iPad/iPhone play standard
media files -- EPUB, mp3, aac, mp4 h.264. The DRM layer may be
there if you buy media which has it, but that's your choice and
no different here than anywhere else.

I do wish that the iPhone was a bit more flexible about video
formats.

> I was really hoping that the iPad would be file-centric (or "open")
> enough to at least interface nicely with the file-centric world of my
> primary MacBook, at least for some simple purposes. If not, I'll just
> have to forget about it, and go looking for a netbook or tablet as the
> mobile accessory for my MacBook.

It depends entirely on what you plan on doing with the iPad.

I've got a netbook and it's pretty useless. I go to my iPhone
more often than I go to the netbook. And the iPhone plays
videos smoother and cleaner, though, of course, a smaller subset
of the video formats out there.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Text Edit in Snow Leopard
Next: .djvu extension file type or app?