Apple

I’ve been a Mac user since 1991, so it’s inevitable that I’d have this as a category.

'Recent Tunes' update

by

Utilizing the iTunes Music Store linking hint I found earlier, I’ve updated the ‘Recent Tunes’ section of my sidebar. Before each artist, track, and album listing you’ll now see icons for Amazon and the iTunes Music Store — clicking on those will perform a search on the respective service for whichever line you clicked on. Nifty!

Some of the Amazon links are being a bit tweaky, and I’m not sure why, though. Sometimes they work fine, other times they get passed through with ‘"’ on either end of the search term, which confuses Amazon. I don’t know where that’s coming from, either — I can’t find that entity in any of the code on my side of things.

All the iTunes links work fine, however. The only caveat there is that they’re still building their selection, so the majority of my music probably isn’t listed yet. All good things in time, however.

Linking to the iTunes Music Store

by

Excellent tip that I’m saving here for future use: how to create a website link that performs a search on the iTunes Music Store.

Link format (as a single line, broken here for clarity): itms://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/ com.apple.jingle.search.DirectAction/advancedSearchResults?

Immediately following the ending ? are any of four search terms, or a global search term:

  • songTerm= (song title)
  • artistTerm= (artist name)
  • albumTerm= (album title)
  • composerTerm= (composer name)
  • term= (global, search all fields)

Use & between query items if you are using more than one of the first four (non-global) querys, and replace any whitespace with %20.

Example: building a link to search for U2:

itms://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/ com.apple.jingle.search.DirectAction/advancedSearchResults?artistTerm=U2

Example: building a link to search for U2’s ‘The Joshua Tree’:

itms://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/ com.apple.jingle.search.DirectAction/ advancedSearchResults?artistTerm=U2&albumTerm=the%20joshua%20tree

Many thanks to Jim, Fuse, Erik, and Bill!

iTunes/www.applemusic.com

by

Just some initial thoughts after playing around with iTunes 4.0 and the iTunes Music Store for a bit.

  • AAC: I’m sold. Through some very non-scientific, non-mathematical experimenting, I seem to be getting about a 40% reduction in file size with 128kbps AAC .m4a’s as opposed to 160kbps VBR .mp3’s. With a \~14,000 song, 75GB music collection, a 40% reduction in size is beautiful. Plus, they do sound at least the same, if not better.
  • iTunes 4.0: Basic functionality is still the same as previous versions of iTunes, which I was already quite happy with. They’ve obviously done some under-the-hood work, though — where I used to get “spinning beach balls” almost anytime I clicked around in iTunes, now the only time I get a wait cursor is when I’m getting info on multiple tracks at once. Much snappier performance — and on an aging 350Mhz blue-and-white G3, that’s pretty impressive.
  • iTunes Music Store: Again, I’m sold. Very nicely and simply integrated directly into iTunes, finding stuff in the store is a breeze. I’ve already purchased one track to replace a corrupted .mp3 file created from a scratched CD, and once the iTMS is tied to my .mac account, single-click purchasing works flawlessly. Could be dangerous, though — talk about instant gratification! The selection of music available could use a little work, though I suffer a bit in having more esoteric music tastes — the majority of the “big artists” seem to be pretty well represented, and Apple says that they’re constantly working on expanding their library. Can’t complain too much, though — I’ve even found some pleasant surprises that I’m thinking about picking up (lots of Bill Cosby, and even a fair chunk of Spike Jones albums!).

Excellent work, all around. As far as I’m concerned, all of the whiners at MeFi and /. can jump off a cliff — Apple’s got a good thing going here. The only downside I can see is that to take advantage of AAC’s smaller file sizes, I’ve got about 1500 CD’s to rip all over again…

Apple turns up the volume

by

Well, today was the day that Apple finally made the announcments that rumor sites had been salivating over for the past few months. Lots of cool goodies…

  • QuickTime upgraded to v6.2, which includes support for AAC (more info on AAC here).
  • An iPod software update to v1.3, adding support for AAC, and longer battery life.
  • Redesigned and updated iPods, now in 10Gb, 15Gb, and 30Gb models, a slimmer design, software updates, and a price drop.
  • iTunes goes to v4.0, adding AAC support, Rendevouz local streaming (so you can stream audio from one Mac to others on the same local network), and support for the new…
  • …the long-rumored iTunes Music Store! Featuring 200,000 songs (and growing) from all the major music lables, previews of songs, one-click downloading, a 99 cent-per-song purchase price, and very reasonable DRM (unlimited listening time, unlimited CD burns, unlimited iPod support, purchased tracks can be copied to up to 3 other Macs), Apple looks to be making a good solid attempt to do the online-music experience well.

The new software just made it to my Mac — time to install and play!

iPod troubles

by

Well, this bites. I’m having problems with my iPod. Normally I’m pretty good with getting things fixed, but I think this is beyond my abilities. Bleah.

Problem one: every so often, when plugging in the remote to the jack on the iPod, or just bumping the connector, the iPod will “short out” and reset. It’s more or less a minor annoyance — the iPod will reboot and start right up again, and the only real lasting effect is that the date and time need to be set — but an annoyance nothenless.

Problem two: iTunes doesn’t know that my iPod exists anymore. As far as I can tell, this behavior started after I applied the Security Update 2003-03-03 system patch. The iPod mounts to the Finder just fine, but nothing I can do seems to clue iTunes into the existence of the iPod.

I’ve tried applying the 10.2.4 Combo Update (even though I’d already updated to 10.2.4 using incremental upgrades, rumor has it that using the combo updater will fix a number of issues), completely deleting and then reinstalling iTunes, and completely resetting the iPod as outlined in Apple’s iPod troubleshooting pages. Nothing’s worked.

Luckily, my iPod is still under warranty, so I went ahead and placed a service request through Apple. I’ve never had to do this before, but I’ve read good reports on Apple’s turnaround time for service, but for the moment I’m without music when I’m not at home.

For some people, this might not be that big of a deal. For me? This bites. Hard.

Especially when some of the people at work insist on listening to “smooth jazz” — one of the few genres of music that I would gladly wipe from the face of the planet. Ugh. I want my iPod back!

Catching up, part two

by

This time, the focus is on Macintosh goodies. All you PC-using heathens can read on in wistful fantasyland, or just find something else to do — like reinstall Windows again. ;)

  • Enough people linked to PerversionTracker that I finally had to take a look. Looks like I’ve got another regular read! Any site that the Opera webbrowser has “taken the cake, and it is filled with plague and cottage cheese,” and that it is “slower than a squashed waterbear” defintely gets my approval. (Via Brent Simmons, along with many other Mac-based weblogs)

  • I’m probably the last Mac afficionado to find out about this, but it looks like Safari is actually going to get tabs. Nifty! (Via MacSlash, MacRumors and others)

  • This could be a fun toy to play with: VoiceBox, a tiny app that will take text files and convert them to audio files using the Mac’s speech synthesis. It will even ‘read’ RSS feeds, so I could listen to websites on my iPod while going to work! Useful? Dunno yet. Cool, though. (Via Rael Dornfest)

Apple bloggers?

by

There’s been much discussion recently regarding Microsoft bloggers, i.e., people who work at Microsoft and blog. I read a few of them (both because they’re good blogs, and because of the whole “know your enemy” philosophy [grin]).

Got me thinking, though — what about ‘Apple bloggers’? The only one I know of off the top of my head is Dave Hyatt, who works on the rendering engine for Safari. Any others out there I should know about?

Surfin' Safari

by

Dave Hyatt has got to be one of the bravest people on the ‘net I’ve seen. Consider…

  1. He’s a developer for Apple, working on their Safari web browser…
  2. He keeps a weblog where he…
    1. Tracks and responds to what people are saying about Safari, good and bad…
    2. Reports on which bugs have been fixed and which are being worked on…
  3. …and on top of all that, he’s actually soliciting requests from readers as for what they’d like to see in Safari!

Kudos to Dave for being crazy enough to do this, and to Apple for allowing him to do this. More companies need to realize that this is a real, effective way to encourage their users. We know that Safari is being worked on, we know that it’s being worked on by someone who genuinely cares about the project, and we know that they care about and listen to what their customers want to see in the product. I can’t think of a better way to build and keep customer loyalty than that.

R.I.P. Opera

by

While there had been rumors of an Apple-branded web browser for a while, Safari‘s introduction at this most recent MacWorld took a lot of people by surprise, and watching the reaction has been quite interesting. Yesterday, Opera Software (makers of the Opera webbrowser) announced that they may stop development on the Mac version of their browser.

I’d say bummer — except that every time I tried Opera on my Mac, I was severely unimpressed.

The C|Net article, however, made me raise my eyebrows quite a few times as I read it over.

Specifically, [Opera CEO] Tetzchner said that he had asked Apple whether it would be willing to license Opera either to replace KHTML, or to supplement the current Safari version, which Apple said is a stripped-down affair with a minimalist interface and limited feature set.

“We have contacted Apple and asked them if they want a third-party browser, and we’ll see what the answer is,” Tetzchner said. “They could say we want to use Opera as the core engine. If they want KHTML as a simple little browser, and also something more advanced, we would be happy to provide it. Obviously, if we don’t get any positive signs from Apple, then we have to think about it.”

You’re kidding, right? After Apple has taken the time to create Safari, which has been getting good reviews all across the web, does Opera really think that they’ll suddenly decide to reverse direction, tear Safari down and rebuild it with an entirely different rendering engine? One that isn’t open source, and isn’t nearly as solid as the KHTML engine that Safari is currently using? I just don’t see that happening. And, apparently Apple doesn’t either:

“We think Safari is one of the best and most innovative browsers in the world, and it seems our customers do too,” the Mac maker said in a statement. “No one is making Mac users choose Safari over Opera — they’re doing it of their own free will — and Opera’s trashing of Safari sounds like sour grapes to us.”

Later in the article, C|Net gives us this:

Last quarter the online music service MusicMatch decided to drop its service for the Mac, following Apple’s release of the competing iTunes application.

At the time, MusicMatch reasoned that with Apple directly competing with it for an already small pool of users, maintaining development on a Mac version no longer made business sense.

Now, the PC version of the iPod uses a custom version of MusicMatch Jukebox on the PC for all the features that iTunes provides on the Mac! Sounds to me like even if MusicMatch did decide to drop their native Mac support, they didn’t exactly end up entirely on the losing end of the deal. While quite possibly a technically correct few sentences in the article, C|Net sure makes it sound like Apple did MusicMatch far worse than is actually the case. Anyway…

“It’s not a platform where we’ve earned a lot of money,” said Tetzchner. “It’s a business decision. We have been putting a lot of resources into the Apple version and think we have a much better product, but it’s still a question whether it’s worth it.”

Well, y’know, if you’d made a better browser, maybe you would have fared better. The times I tried Opera, it was slow, kludgy, had some very odd rendering issues, and had a huge, obnoxious ad banner embedded into the free version. When there are other free browsers available, even pre-Safari, that were smaller, faster, more accurate, and less intrusive, why would I choose Opera? Sour grapes, indeed.

(Via Safari developer Dave Hyatt)