PDA

View Full Version : Why Apple doesn't want to release iTunes for Linux



PryGuy
July 21st, 2006, 07:34 AM
Good Day everybody!
Why do you think Apple has officially refused to release iTunes for Linux? Thank you!

aysiu
July 21st, 2006, 07:36 AM
Why no iTunes for Linux? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=211883)

PryGuy
July 21st, 2006, 07:38 AM
Sorry for a double post but my topic has a poll... :)

Skia_42
July 21st, 2006, 07:47 AM
Thanks for posting the link asiyu, I don't really see what the big deal is with iTunes in comparison to other Music Players such as amaroK. I used to be a big iTunes fan but once I switched to linux I became addicted to amaroK. iTunes needs to do some major upgrading before I consider using it agan.

nalmeth
July 21st, 2006, 10:11 AM
I'd agree with aysiu's first post in the last thread.

TecnoVM64
July 21st, 2006, 11:39 AM
Because Amarok owns iTunes and many users would be like "Oh, iTunes for linux?, no thanks I have Amarok already"

Engnome
July 21st, 2006, 11:43 AM
I'd never buy from iTunes. I will not acceept DRM damaged songs that will only play the way apple wants them to, over my cold dead body! :mad:

Edit: That doesn't sound right in english...?

PryGuy
July 21st, 2006, 12:16 PM
Yeah, the DRM thing probably explains it...
And by the way, I've just remembered that old Apple's 1984 ad. The funny thing is that both Apple and Microsoft with all their DRM and Trusted Computing are now the Big Brothers. :D

monkieie
July 21st, 2006, 12:23 PM
Edit: That doesn't sound right in english...?

it sounds a lot better than my Swedish, my friend 8)

Castar
July 21st, 2006, 12:25 PM
It has to be the DRM. Apple cannot control the Linux market and it doesn't fit to the closed-source-keep-everything-a-secret-so-that-we-make-more-money logic of the company. I don't think they want Linux to succeed as it is all that Apple is not.

FISHERMAN
July 21st, 2006, 01:02 PM
I would have no problems with buying something from the iTunes store, since the DRM,unlike some other stores, isn't that hard to bypass. You can burn it to a CD without DRM(Yeah I know there is a quality loss compared to direct ripping from an original CD, but at 192kbs/vorbis I can't hear it).

On-topic: My common sense tells me that it would be easier to temp a Windows user to switch to Mac. It would be much harder to convince a GNU/Linux user, to switch to Mac.
And I think Apple thinks the same: iTunes, iPods, MacMini, ads, Product Placement on TV,... they clearly target the Windows-users.

RAV TUX
July 21st, 2006, 01:16 PM
I thought we could use iTunes on Linux using crossover?

(atleast in the book "Ubuntu Hacks" they explain how to do this.)

Stormy Eyes
July 21st, 2006, 02:06 PM
Good Day everybody!
Why do you think Apple has officially refused to release iTunes for Linux? Thank you!

I've got a Mac. I don't care if Apple releases iTunes for Linux. In fact, if iTunes for Windows is any indication, iTunes is likely to suck on any non-Mac operating system.

tseliot
July 21st, 2006, 02:21 PM
I thought we could use iTunes on Linux using crossover?

(atleast in the book "Ubuntu Hacks" they explain how to do this.)

I tried it and it works. It's not that usable though.

tseliot
July 21st, 2006, 02:22 PM
I've got a Mac. I don't care if Apple releases iTunes for Linux. In fact, if iTunes for Windows is any indication, iTunes is likely to suck on any non-Mac operating system.

What's wrong with the version for Windows (I don't use Windows)

PryGuy
July 21st, 2006, 02:44 PM
On-topic: My common sense tells me that it would be easier to temp a Windows user to switch to Mac. It would be much harder to convince a GNU/Linux user, to switch to Mac.Yeah, I think the same... That's why I put the :) smile after the third option in my poll...

Stormy Eyes
July 21st, 2006, 02:53 PM
What's wrong with the version for Windows (I don't use Windows)

On my Windows 2000 machine at work (AMD Athlon 3000, 512MB RAM), iTunes slows my machine to a crawl.

Luggy
July 21st, 2006, 03:39 PM
You wont see iTunes for Linux because Linux wont support the DRM attached with iTunes.

Lord Illidan
July 21st, 2006, 03:43 PM
The only possible advantage of having Itunes might be being able to download mp3s from the music store. But, these will be DRM laden mp3s..so why bother?

Amarok 1.41 can connect with Ipod (checked it on my sister's nano, works great, even exports cover images!), and plays music like a...rock god or something...

BWF89
July 21st, 2006, 03:43 PM
I don't think many Linux users would use it, especially consitering all their songs are defective by design (http://defectivebydesign.org/) and Linux users wouldn't want to be tied down to those kind of restrictions.

Boomy
July 21st, 2006, 03:44 PM
Amarok>iTunes. By far.

BWF89
July 21st, 2006, 03:46 PM
With this new Songbird player that's going to be coming out of beta someday their saying you'll be able to buy songs off of all the major music stores with it. Atleast that's what their saying, I dont know how their going to get the music companies to agree to that.

tseliot
July 21st, 2006, 03:47 PM
On my Windows 2000 machine at work (AMD Athlon 3000, 512MB RAM), iTunes slows my machine to a crawl.

I thought that was caused by Crossover Office when I tried the Windows version on Ubuntu :???:

FISHERMAN
July 21st, 2006, 04:00 PM
With this new Songbird player that's going to be coming out of beta someday their saying you'll be able to buy songs off of all the major music stores with it. Atleast that's what their saying, I dont know how their going to get the music companies to agree to that.

A lot of stores sell music without DRM (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=219500)(though this useally means less choice, especially when you music from world stars), AFAIK Songbird will only use to these stores.

bruce89
July 21st, 2006, 04:04 PM
I would have said the top two, and DRM.

Different GUI's (GTK+/QT).
Users might shun it.
Nobody likes DRM.

ubuntu_demon
July 21st, 2006, 06:00 PM
I voted other because I think they don't do it because
I think they are afraid of losing some (not much) people to Linux.

Some blog entries of mine about some people switching from mac to linux :

http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/15/some-interesting-ex-mac-users-are-switching-to-ubuntu3/
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/03/some-interesting-ex-mac-users-are-switching-to-ubuntu2/
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/some-interesting-ex-mac-users-are-switching-to-ubuntu/

prizrak
July 21st, 2006, 08:30 PM
Thanks for posting the link asiyu, I don't really see what the big deal is with iTunes in comparison to other Music Players such as amaroK. I used to be a big iTunes fan but once I switched to linux I became addicted to amaroK. iTunes needs to do some major upgrading before I consider using it agan.

It works natively with iPods that is the big thing about it. There is GTKpod and all and some other stuff I believe but it's nto as nice as native iTunes.

RAV TUX
July 21st, 2006, 09:57 PM
I voted other because I think they don't do it because
I think they are afraid of losing some (not much) people to Linux.

Some blog entries of mine about some people switching from mac to linux :

http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/15/some-interesting-ex-mac-users-are-switching-to-ubuntu3/
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/03/some-interesting-ex-mac-users-are-switching-to-ubuntu2/
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/some-interesting-ex-mac-users-are-switching-to-ubuntu/

I think they would lose a lot of people to Linux. Especially when they figure out Apple has been selling them low quality product.

PryGuy
July 21st, 2006, 10:00 PM
Yeah, Apple is crap these days... :-\"

slimdog360
December 25th, 2007, 08:52 AM
I dare say the reason behind why apple released iTunes for windows was that:
a) they have ties with microsoft
b) the large user base windows has

I recon that if Windows didn't dominate most tf the market apple wouldnt release iTunes for windows either.

MetalheadGautham
May 25th, 2008, 01:09 PM
the real reason is this::popcorn:

The moment apple ports a software like iTunes that steals every setting of yours to itself, people WONT try to install it.

Look at what happened to real player. People asked real to port real player to linux, once real obliged, people got pissed off that their beautiful looking Crystal icons were being replaced with ugly real icons and all file associations handed over to real. So they just grabbed the real linux-native codecs and coded some stuff into xine to make it use them. There are even workarounds for Real Mozilla plugin.

Then imagine what would happen to iTunes. The nessassary features and ipod sync tools, etc will be extracted from the iTunes install, and used to power a mod for AmaroK, Banshee or some other better media player and iTunes removed and purged.

Its a simple fact that linux requires more knowledge before hand to be operated upon than macintosh and windows. I don't want to go in depth here, but a summary is this: The OS tells you about reality. You are told about packages, and files are identified by their internal structure, compared to windows speaking in terms of applications and dlls or files being identified by their extention. The existance of something called kernel is made transparent, unlike windows where the last thing you will know is the build of the kernel. This ensures that a person using linux will first have to learn whats a kernel, whats a window/desktop manager, what exactly is booting, how are applications made, etc. :guitar: All this is hidden from "MainStream", newbie oriented and Get-Used-To-This-Fast type Operating Systems like Windows Vista and Macintosh OS X Leopard.

But applications like Real Player, Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc are targeted at this mainstream audience, and hence are likely to entertain the warth of users who like to be aware of what they are doing. They simply aren't made for this market. Porting them here in their existing forms is like feeding peanut butter and jelly cream to a lion and expecting it to like it.:lolflag:

sebbouckaert
May 25th, 2008, 01:38 PM
This ensures that a person using linux will first have to learn whats a kernel, whats a window/desktop manager, what exactly is booting, how are applications made, etc. :guitar: All this is hidden from "MainStream", newbie oriented and Get-Used-To-This-Fast type Operating Systems like Windows Vista and Macintosh OS X Leopard.

But applications like Real Player, Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc are targeted at this mainstream audience, and hence are likely to entertain the warth of users who like to be aware of what they are doing. They simply aren't made for this market. Porting them here in their existing forms is like feeding peanut butter and jelly cream to a lion and expecting it to like it.:lolflag:

My girlfriend owns an iPod and uses it frequently. She was used to iTunes under Windows XP. Then one day (like so many times) her XP install got borked (I got it fixed later).

Last year, I talked her into Ubuntu, and installed Gutsy next to her XP system. She made the switch to Linux with no effort whatsoever. She now uses Ubuntu for work, internet, mail everyday. Yet she has no clue what a kernel, WM or DE is. However there is one thing she badly misses...yep, iTunes. It contains many of her iPod playlists, and in the past she has bought music from the iTunes store. So she still feels at home within iTunes, even just when browsing the store without buying stuff...So now the only reason she still boots up XP now and then is because of the iPod and iTunes....

I guess it's just the way the whole thing is integrated: synchronizing the iPod, managing the collection, browsing the store...

So if you ask me: iTunes for linux? Yes please!

Dixon Bainbridge
May 25th, 2008, 01:42 PM
I've spent most of my time on a Mac trying to avoid using ITunes. And iPhoto, and all the other crappy Apple apps. Why would anyone in their right mind actively seek to install iTunes? Its horrible. :confused:

Ub1476
May 25th, 2008, 02:11 PM
I've spent most of my time on a Mac trying to avoid using ITunes. And iPhoto, and all the other crappy Apple apps. Why would anyone in their right mind actively seek to install iTunes? Its horrible. :confused:

Cause people were used to Windows Media Player before.

karellen
May 25th, 2008, 02:16 PM
imho opinion, they can keep their iTunes, ipods, iphones and shinny expensive macbooks for themselves. there are lots of fine alternatives to everything Apple promotes: mp3 players that work well with Linux, offer the same features and are less pricey than ipods, smartphones with flexible OS and better performance than the iphone, OS's that works on a wide range of hardware (Linux). why would I spend more money to get basiscally the same thing, but more glossy? for being trendy? no thanks, I'll keep it my way...

MetalheadGautham
May 25th, 2008, 03:44 PM
My girlfriend owns an iPod and uses it frequently. She was used to iTunes under Windows XP. Then one day (like so many times) her XP install got borked (I got it fixed later).

Last year, I talked her into Ubuntu, and installed Gutsy next to her XP system. She made the switch to Linux with no effort whatsoever. She now uses Ubuntu for work, internet, mail everyday. Yet she has no clue what a kernel, WM or DE is. However there is one thing she badly misses...yep, iTunes. It contains many of her iPod playlists, and in the past she has bought music from the iTunes store. So she still feels at home within iTunes, even just when browsing the store without buying stuff...So now the only reason she still boots up XP now and then is because of the iPod and iTunes....
that still doen't count as a full fledged "user".
I too know a few people who use it with no clue.
But that means frequent phone calls like "oh dear, what does this synaptic mean ? its all latin to me", etc. One can never be a total user in Linux without knowledge of the internals. But Windows is different. You can see people blindly speaking of registry entries, etc. And I was a Windows power user for years before making the switch. Only after the switch did I bother to find out stuff, and now I LOVE IT.:guitar:

gameryoshi600
May 25th, 2008, 03:49 PM
I don't need itunes I can use another program that is smaller

gn2
May 25th, 2008, 07:16 PM
Other: Apple won't do it because there's no money in it for them.

cardinals_fan
May 25th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Look at what happened to real player. People asked real to port real player to linux, once real obliged, people got pissed off that their beautiful looking Crystal icons were being replaced with ugly real icons and all file associations handed over to real. So they just grabbed the real linux-native codecs and coded some stuff into xine to make it use them. There are even workarounds for Real Mozilla plugin.

Huh? I use RealPlayer and have no issues.

init1
May 25th, 2008, 08:09 PM
Because there's not enough demand for it yet.

Vaelrith
May 25th, 2008, 08:45 PM
Because banshee (beta) supports audio transfers to ipod, video transfers to ipod, pretty much everything you would need itunes for. Plus it matches your desktop theme, unlike itunes which looks like a mac, and doesn't match anything else on the desktop.

hellion0
May 25th, 2008, 09:00 PM
Right now, a bandage is a Band-aid, a soft drink is a Coke and mp3 players are iPods. They have the edge in brand recognition by a longshot. The reason they ported iTunes to Windows is because Windows is the PC in the eyes of most consumers. The iPod would be little more than a niche geek toy if it weren't able to be used by as many as possible. People won't buy Macs just to use an mp3 player.

Linux doesn't offer what Windows does - marketshare and security. Get the Windows users to buy an iPod, you suddenly find an explosive burst in potential buyers. Get the Linux users to buy one... meh, not worth it. But do we really need iTunes? No! If there's one thing Linux users are, it's resourceful. We already have ways to use their hardware, via software the community creates. If anything, the ingenuity of the Linux community could destroy them.

They already have a huge audience for the music they sell in the Mac and Windows populations. They can still turn profits without us, and the price of openness is simply too high for them. All it takes is one determined and brilliant coder, and Apple becomes Real.

In the end, Apple will keep selling iPods and music from the store, even without iTunes being ported to Linux. We'll buy the iPods anyway to make them work with our stuff, and they don't have to make any kind of effort to open up to us. We do the work, they keep making their money. They're in the catbird seat, and see no need to get up.

karellen
May 26th, 2008, 08:06 PM
Right now, a bandage is a Band-aid, a soft drink is a Coke and mp3 players are iPods.
I wouldn't be so sure, especially about the last two examples ;)

zachtib
June 11th, 2008, 05:19 PM
I think it's just an issue of market share. Originally, the iPod and iTunes were for OS X only. Porting it to Windows makes sense from a business perspective, as Windows has around 90% market share, but porting to Linux, with 1 or 2% of desktop users, doesn't make sense. Especially when several of those Linux users would refuse to use non-free software, even when it's ported to Linux.

forrestcupp
June 11th, 2008, 06:01 PM
I can't believe so many people voted that it would keep Linux users from switching to a Mac! If that's the case, why do they have a Windows version? They obviously care more about getting Windows users to switch than they do about Linux users. Just watch their commercials. They don't ever mention Linux in them. It's that they know Linux users despise DRM.

And to all the people that brag about how Amarok (or whatever you like) is a better player than iTunes. That's not what it's all about. It's about having the media available from their store more than it is about having another media player. I'm not interested in the iTunes media player, but I might find it useful to have the option to buy from their store.

But that's becoming more and more unnecessary with places like Amazon offering DRM-free music that works in Linux.

timcredible
June 11th, 2008, 06:22 PM
has the answer "because apple is a bunch of twits" been used yet?

cardinals_fan
June 11th, 2008, 06:27 PM
When Itunes started demanding "updates" which happened to include Quicktime and some other trash (I hear that they're bundling Safari now), I just removed it.

SigmaSanti
June 11th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Right now, a bandage is a Band-aid, a soft drink is a Coke and mp3 players are iPods. They have the edge in brand recognition by a longshot.

That is a very good point, there are better mp3 players, bandages and soft drinks since much of it is opinion. But they made a name for themselves and when people think soft drink they immediately think coke and mp3 leads to ipod. That definition has been made in peoples minds and will stay unless someone changes it.
The time and effort required to port it to linux < working on iphone:)

OmniCloud
June 11th, 2008, 07:09 PM
Right now, a bandage is a Band-aid, a soft drink is a Coke and mp3 players are iPods. They have the edge in brand recognition by a longshot. The reason they ported iTunes to Windows is because Windows is the PC in the eyes of most consumers. The iPod would be little more than a niche geek toy if it weren't able to be used by as many as possible. People won't buy Macs just to use an mp3 player.

Linux doesn't offer what Windows does - marketshare and security. Get the Windows users to buy an iPod, you suddenly find an explosive burst in potential buyers. Get the Linux users to buy one... meh, not worth it. But do we really need iTunes? No! If there's one thing Linux users are, it's resourceful. We already have ways to use their hardware, via software the community creates. If anything, the ingenuity of the Linux community could destroy them.

They already have a huge audience for the music they sell in the Mac and Windows populations. They can still turn profits without us, and the price of openness is simply too high for them. All it takes is one determined and brilliant coder, and Apple becomes Real.

In the end, Apple will keep selling iPods and music from the store, even without iTunes being ported to Linux. We'll buy the iPods anyway to make them work with our stuff, and they don't have to make any kind of effort to open up to us. We do the work, they keep making their money. They're in the catbird seat, and see no need to get up.QFT:guitar:

Nessa
June 11th, 2008, 07:27 PM
other: Apple Won't Do It Because There's No Money In It For Them.

+1

the_darkside_986
June 11th, 2008, 07:48 PM
That, and the DRM issue. It can't be to encourage Linux users to switch to Mac, maybe to Windows, but I'm not sure I'd want to switch to an over-priced proprietary platform that cannot play any of my DirectX games natively just to use an mp3 player.

bufsabre666
June 11th, 2008, 08:14 PM
just ignoring the financial and philosophical reasons, if they coded the windows version for wine they would also gain alot of linux users there, i dont think linux users are taking away anything substantial from macs user base but i notice alot of linux users have ipods so this might be a good move for them

Robux the great
June 11th, 2008, 08:14 PM
Because steve jobs is evil

Nessa
June 11th, 2008, 08:40 PM
Apple is a business. I think the reason is financial. Being Linux users didn't stop us from buying iPods. They simply have nothing to gain.

arranmc182
August 19th, 2008, 03:34 AM
i think maybe apple should do a basic iPod management tool for Linux that does not have the store hell it wouldn't kill them because think of how many iPod users don't use the store i only used it because my sister got me a £10 coupon for my birthday hay it wasn't my money and its better than her buying me some **** CD that i would listen to one time then forget like she has in the past (i all ways brake apples simple DRM and change the file to a mp3:lolflag:)

grossaffe
August 19th, 2008, 03:44 AM
other: Apple sucks hardcore.

picpak
August 19th, 2008, 04:01 AM
Because Amarok is better!

jespdj
August 19th, 2008, 10:07 AM
Because Apple is not a philantropic or idealistic organization, but a commercial company that wants to make money and the market share of Linux is too small.

It would cost Apple a lot of time and money to develop and maintain iTunes for Linux and they wouldn't make any substantial amount of money with it.

Apple, like Adobe, is totally not interested in those few people that run Linux.

artir
August 19th, 2008, 11:25 AM
1. iTunes suckz . I prefer my rhytmbox
2. For apple we DO NOT exist. (they never mention linux on their keynotes or website [Only on PRO video tools such as Shake])

Iksf
September 3rd, 2009, 04:15 AM
It won't be popular with Linux users because we have Amarok and Banshee, both of which make iTunes look like a joke

Also there is another reason not on your poll, Apple never release anything for Linux, simple reason in my opinion,

If you go on the Apple website there are tonnes of things like "The Worlds most advanced operating system" and "The worlds fastest browser" etc

If you count Windows products they may have a point but if you factor in Linux, BSD and products made for them, all their claims are shown to be pretty much lies. Thus Apple doesnt want to officially "Notice" that Linux exists because that makes it alright in their eyes to lie all the time. Making iTunes for Linux would break this policy

mamamia88
September 3rd, 2009, 04:18 AM
cause it would be one less reason to buy a mac over using cheaper alternatives

ad_267
September 3rd, 2009, 04:27 AM
Apple doesn't seem to ever even admit Linux exists. So I doubt they'd release iTunes for Linux, not that I'd care.

Grifulkin
September 3rd, 2009, 05:11 AM
I would assume because they want it that way. And also, why would they want to put Itunes on linux, we already have way better programs than that anyways.

Gen2ly
September 3rd, 2009, 05:59 AM
Apple has been almost in a feature freeze the last 8 months (since Jobs took a break). If they get the resources, I think that they will eventually - though I don't think it will happen for awhile.

blur xc
September 4th, 2009, 07:03 PM
I would assume because they want it that way. And also, why would they want to put Itunes on linux, we already have way better programs than that anyways.

How many of these "better" programs let you put videos on your ipod?

And don't come back with, "Well, I don't watch videos on my ipod," because if that works for you, that's great, but a lot of people watch videos and pod casts on their ipods.

So, until there's a linux solution that allows you to do at least everything you can do through itunes (even apps for ipod touches, and games for the regular ipod), you can't say there's anything better than itunes in linux. Maybe there are better music managers, but ipods can do more than just play music. For those of us that utilize our ipods for more than just music, there's nothing better than itunes, anywhere (at least that I know of).

BM

TwiceOver
September 4th, 2009, 07:12 PM
I'm going to go with "Option F". They won't port it because it is the worst POS software I've ever touched.

The iPod itself isn't all that great of a device either. It really is amazing the power of marketing. Take a device with quite possibly the worst UI in the history of computing, make someone dance while listening to it, watch as all the slack-jawed morons buy your product.

Xbehave
September 4th, 2009, 08:47 PM
I'm going to go with "Option F". They won't port it because it is the worst POS software I've ever touched.

The iPod itself isn't all that great of a device either. It really is amazing the power of marketing. Take a device with quite possibly the worst UI in the history of computing, make someone dance while listening to it, watch as all the slack-jawed morons buy your product.
iPod isn't particularly bad but itunes is the worst POS I've ever touched, i try and wear gloves when setting up playlists.

RabbitWho
September 4th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Well I had a conversation for about 10 minutes with a friend who wants to buy a computer for four times what the hardware is worth today, AKA a Mac. And she just said she wants to edit films.

If Linux worked with Apple software Apple would have zero advantage, they're allready making millions off the simple fact they don't get viruses and people continue to trust them despite their tendency to spontaneously combust.
The funny thing is she already has a mac that's only 3 years old, that she took really good care of, and it's cracked and broken and slow as hell. She thinks she just didn't spend enough money ( and it cost over 1000 euro. )
My cousin has the same one, it cost 1500 euro, the power pack caught fire, the thing cracked, and the battery swelled up "like a pregnant rat and died"
Not to mention it's incredibly slow and frustrating and difficult to use, even for him and he's used to it. He also has a 7 year old dell which worked faster even with windows.. and works like new with Ubuntu of course.

I've never seen a company make so much money from pure marketing.. it's like bubble wrap painted red and sold as a relaxation device. Bubble wrap is fecking brilliant like.. but it's not worth 4 times as much because it's painted red.

I really don't want to be one of those arseholes who shove linux down peoples throats though. I don't like people shoving Macs down the throats of Windows users either, we can't think it's okay for us just because it's free. We need to advertise so people will have the choice, but not act all clever and superior. I hate that.

ctrlmd
September 4th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Because between all software companies apple would be the last company that care

about linux.

RabbitWho
September 4th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Because between all software companies apple would be the last company that care

about linux.


Would you not say they should care the most? Seeing as how they're providing something almost the same, but inferior in most ways and really expensive.

ctrlmd
September 4th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Would you not say they should care the most? Seeing as how they're providing something almost the same, but inferior in most ways and really expensive.

all im saying is when they provide some service or software to other competitors like MS
they are expecting to get something in return

and linux does not offer anything to them so...... they just don't care.

and i think apple is a good,selective and evil co.

khelben1979
September 5th, 2009, 12:58 AM
I don't think they can do it.

Apple, prove me wrong! :)

RabbitWho
September 5th, 2009, 01:01 AM
I don't think they can do it.

Apple, prove me wrong! :)


Ha ha you're right!

Come on apple! Prove us wrong! (So that my friend will come over to linux)

I mean imagine if you give apple users a survey and you ask them:

What operating systems do you know of?

Why do you Choose Apple?

How many people who know about Linux would not list program compatibility as their number 1 concern?

Sublime Porte
September 6th, 2009, 12:26 PM
it will stop many Linux people from swithching to Macs

Actually the opposite way round, they don't want to provide incentives for Mac users to switch to Linux. I know of some Mac users who cannot handle switching to Linux merely because their life revolves around their iPhone/iPod.

uljanow
September 6th, 2009, 12:49 PM
Linux doesn't have a DRM infrastructure like Vista which is required to view "premium content". How many linux drivers support HDCP ?

geekygirl
September 6th, 2009, 04:37 PM
Oh I love it when these sorts of things get brought up in here...

Why *should* Apple make iTunes Linux compatible? Its their code, they paid people money to make it, they own it, so...why should they? Want to use iTunes buy a Mac or run Windows. From where I am sitting I can see no real *commercial* reason for Apple to port iTunes across to Linux...no money in it for such a tiny market after all...

Why do people in here not get it when a company does not want to port something to Linux which has a minority market share? and even then (as seen by the numerous Apple bashing posts in UF) a lot of people would *not* use iTunes based on some RMS style of attitude or distrust of a large corporation with Satan (if you believe some of the Apple bashers that is) at the helm....

Then there is the whole "what do you need ABC proprietary software for when there are plenty of FOSS alternatives" attitude, which a discussion like this suggests that there are *not* viable FOSS iTunes alternatives? (I am yet to find something that syncs my iPhone as good as iTunes - something as good? I am all ears...)

I for one would like iTunes to work on Ubuntu as it would make syncing my iPhone that much easier (but I also have a Mac/iTunes for this so a bit of a mute point) - however I am not so naive as not to see that bigger picture thing that so many people forget is the driving force behind companies like Apple and MS - money - and unless you want to pay for what would also be a non-open source port of iTunes, well...I don't think getting iTunes on Linux is going to happen in my lifetime anyways...

fela
September 6th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Because they don't give a **** about Linux.

They prove this with their 'Mac vs PC' ads.

geekygirl
September 6th, 2009, 04:43 PM
Because they don't give a **** about Linux.

They prove this with their 'Mac vs PC' ads.

+1 hooray!

MikeTheC
September 6th, 2009, 04:51 PM
You cannot be successful by biting the hand which feeds you.

What incentive is there for Apple to produce iTunes (or any of their other software products) for a community which has gone on record as saying they hate them?

aysiu
September 6th, 2009, 06:38 PM
If you really want to know all the reasons, I've laid them out here:
Wake-up call: Apple won’t port iTunes to Linux (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/wake-up-call-apple-wont-port-itunes-to-linux-2/)

If you don't have the patience to read that, the bottom line is this:
Pretty much every Linux user who wants an iPhone or iPod Touch already has bought one without a Linux-native iTunes. There is no extra revenue Apple will make from porting iTunes to Linux.

ad_267
September 6th, 2009, 10:53 PM
Actually the opposite way round, they don't want to provide incentives for Mac users to switch to Linux. I know of some Mac users who cannot handle switching to Linux merely because their life revolves around their iPhone/iPod.

Yeah that was my thought too.

I would be extremely surprised if they ever did port iTunes to Linux and I think we're better off without it. The less iTunes/iPod users in the world, the better.

schauerlich
September 7th, 2009, 01:27 AM
Why should they? The market is too small. There'd be no return for the man hours they'd have to invest in porting it.

keplerspeed
September 7th, 2009, 01:31 AM
I cant see how it will stop many Linux people from switching to Macs. There is a win version of itunes, isnt that stopping many Windows people from switching to Macs??

Dunno about you, but I dont need it.

Sublime Porte
September 7th, 2009, 02:26 AM
I cant see how it will stop many Linux people from switching to Macs. There is a win version of itunes, isnt that stopping many Windows people from switching to Macs??The flow of users is from Windows to Mac, not Mac to Windows. So porting to Windows would actually just provide exposure for Apple products to Windows users who are prospective Mac users. I know of a few users who've been lured from Windows to Macs because of their use of Apple products that utilise iTunes.

Whilst with Linux the flow of users is generally the other way. A Mac user is more likely to switch to Linux than a Linux user to Mac.