Talk:ITunes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A revisit on Alistair's Criticism Section solution

User:AlistairMcMillan added the iTune's Criticism section a month ago in an apparent attempt to stop the vandals from their drive-by "this page sounds like an advertisement, where is the criticism?" that showed up in the talk section every month or so. Unsurprisingly, although it has stopped the talk page questions, it has not stopped the attracted random attacks, which now go directly into the seemly made-for-them criticism section [1][2][3][4][5]. Mr. McMillan and others have done an admirable job of patrolling this, but I don't believe it is has been worth the effort. Just like the (non-policy) WP:CRITICISM section says, it is a lighting bolt for negative WP:POV subjects and instead those verifiable subjects should be placed throughout the article to maintain balance within it. Twice long time editors have attempted to integrate the section, while keeping all of the details and both times it has been reverted by the re-creator of the section. I propose to re-integrate it. By integrating it into their respective sections, it should make the article seem less like an advertisement and make the article more balanced overall. To be more specific, right now the article reads like a He Said/She Said transcript (a bunch of glowing stuff followed by some crappy stuff). -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support As stated above, a critcism section tends not to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. Also, Cristism sections tend to, as you can clearly see by the MobileMe page which I am attempting to maintain, create a negative spin on the page. Althrough the section is no longer called called critcism, you will notice all the press that this page is quoting is negative. NightKhaos (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support As above. Dedicated "Criticism" sections are inherently a biased perspective. Jeremy Avalon (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per AlistairBettering the Wiki (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as having a criticisms section gives those criticisms undue weight, makes the article less neutral, and if these will fit in another section they should go there. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The intent was not to stop vandals. The intent was purely to mention the criticisms of iTunes that are out there and place them where people can find them. Sorta like how I moved all the stuff about podcasting under a heading called "Podcasting". And as I've said before the article has much more significant problems than the god damned criticism section that all the "long time editors" continue to obsess about. Anyway a week ago I restored Nightkhaos's integration efforts, why we are having another survey. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure eh? I totally agree with you, there are more important issues and it appears that this issue has been resolved. Still, we'll keep this vote up for the moment in case there are people not voicing their opionions. NightKhaos (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are sources necessary here?

This article has a substantial number of "doesn't cite sources" tags. However, most of these are discussing features that are discoverable by any user browsing Apple's site for iTunes or playing with the software (such as the "Sound processing" and "Managing podcasts on an iPod" sections of the article). As per Wikipedia's citation policy, which requires attribution only for material "likely to be challenged," are these really necessary? Jeremy Avalon (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of them. If you want proof of iTunes' features, see iTunes itself as Jeremy pointed out. If any users think something in these sections does need to a reference, please add specific {{fact}} tags to the body of text itself. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

iTunes v7.7.1

I downloaded a version that the Apple Software Update recommended. It deleted my old files and attempted to load the new version. The installation will not complete because it states "The feature you are trying to use is on a network resource that is unavailable. It says it is looking for "itunes.msi. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Ron (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up either at the computing section of Wikipedia's reference desk, or at the Apple discussion board (http://discussions.apple.com/index.jspa) This is a Wikipedia talk page, a place to discuss improvements to the iTunes article and not a general forum. Good luck with your problem. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned Podcasts

where should banned podcasts be mentioned? for example nobody likes onions is banned from the itunes store podcast section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.156.111 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

iTunes Pink Virus?

I don't know what it's about I uploaded a picture of it, view it here, please tell me what is about?

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 01:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can only be synced on the exact same library

When you sync your iPod with iTunes, it has to be the exact same library, even if the songs are virtually the same. I have Windows XP and if I try to sync my iPod on another user account, it will demand to erase my iPod first before I can proceed. And another thing, this article makes it sound like you can only get songs compatible with iPods from iTunes, yet it doesn't mention Amazon.com (10 cents cheaper than iTunes) or LimeWire (which is basically free). Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true, you can sync via another library, it just requires some configuration that I cannot remember that tells iTunes to append rather than overwrite the library data. I think you do it by manually syncing music. As for non iTunes music being usable in iTunes, well be bold and adress it as you see fit. NightKhaos (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No Criticism Section?

iTunes have been the despair of many Windows user claiming that it is slow and sluggish compared to Mac version. Why no write up on it? I'm sure I've read an article on it too. 60.52.35.201 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:ITunes/Archive_4#Criticism_section AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Not only is iTunes for Windows a horrible application, it also pushes a bunch of other apps onto you such as Quicktime, Bonjour, Helper, Updater, Safari. I would hope that Apple would be above that. Loebotomy (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How many times people? If you have a criticism, merge it into the article, and remember to include a refutable source. BE BOLD. Please see the archive Alister provided for reasons why merging is more neutral, etc. Further more, iTunes is not a horrible application, it is just memory hungry, which is the way it is designed. As for the other apps it "pushes onto you" they are required for one reason or another in order to facilitate the user with the various services iTunes is designed to provide. The video playback in iTunes uses the Quicktime libraries, which thus requires Quicktime to be installed, Bonjour is an optional service install, it is not forced upon you, except for the part which allows iTunes compatible devices such as network speckers, Apple TV, and Apple Remote for the iPhone OS, which is very small. The Helper application is included with the iPod drivers in order to monitor for connected iPod devices because Windows does not allow for application specific actions when devices are connected without doing some hacks to the registry that would destabilize the operating system. Finally, it is not SAFARI that is put on your system, it is WEBKIT, which the engine that iTunes users because the iTunes store does not use Trident, the engine provided with Internet Explorer, because it is known to be highly inefficent and does not comply with web standards. It also means the store can be inter-useable between OSes. Unfortunate, since most of Safari IS webkit you could be mistaken for thinking they are one and the same. Personally, I don't see how any of these features are a problem... but maybe I'm missing something, maybe you like things to be complex and require lots of user intervention? Maybe you don't like to plug in your iPod and get iTunes to launch? Oh well. NightKhaos (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong there about WebKit. iTunes does not use WebKit. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

←Really? Thanks for clearing that up. Okay, so why all this comotion about iTunes installing Safari? I don't see Safari on any of the machines I install iTunes on. NightKhaos (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

iTunes asks if you want to install Safari when it installs or updates. It's something you can opt out of, but some people still find that, and the fact that it requires Quicktime in the background, irritating. I agree though with the others that this article should have a criticism section. The fact that it is memory hungry, and therefore slow, is a valid criticism. Other problems include sound clipping (like a scratched CD), which oddly enough, some people are able to work around by having another program operating in the foreground. Overall, it is a very monstrous and complicated program, and it seems to get worse with each new version - version 8 has now added the Genius sidebar, which many, like myself, have probably turned off. Who needs it? I would also be curious to find out how the user interface scores with usability experts. Not sure if there are any articles on its usability. 70.191.196.187 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep saying iTunes install safari, as Safari and iTunes are completely separate programs, and the iTunes installer doesn't include safari. As for the other points you bring up, feel free to add them to the article... when you can find a reliable source that specifically argues those points. And the question of whether or not to have a criticism section has been discussed on multiple occasions, and the consensus is to incorporate criticism into the appropriate section of the article. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

← 1) Darkage7, remember to sign. 2) 70.191.196.187, as pointed out before this article follows WP:Criticism and as such, any an all criticisms are merged into the article in the appropriate section. If you feel there is due evidence, in the form of a refutable source, to add a criticism anywhere in the article please do so in the relevant section. No one here will stop you. NightKhaos (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Licensing Survey

Although I agree with the point that iTunes in a Proprietary software, I do not agree that we should exclude the freeware point in the licensing information. I have argued this with an anon user, however I do not believe it wise to revert the edits made by User:KelleyCook because I will be in breach of WP:3RR. So I ask this, is there just cause why the term "freeware" should be removed from the license description? I do not think there is, the software fits the requirements as out laid in the freeware page, not only that it is in place as it was in order to describe the terms of the license in a simple to user manner, much the same as shareware describes that the software is free to try and requires a payment to unlock functionality or allow extended use of the product. So... a survey. If you feel we should include freeware in the license description, please place '''Agree''' at the start of your apply with any attached reasons. Conversely, if you feel we should not include freeware in the license description please place '''Disagree''' in your reply with you reasons. Consider my post one vote for Agree with my reasons outlined above. NightKhaos (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. I think the software type (freeware, shareware, etc) is an important part of the description. iTunes obviously is freeware, so this should be included. It contributes to the informativeness of the article, and doesn't make it any less neutral. Not putting the licensing information is like not putting the record label of a band, it just doesn't make sense. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 04:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:ITunes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 31, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• This article is largely uncited, and thus fails 2b of the good article criteria.

• There have been two requests for citation outstanding since July 2008.

• Four sections are explicitly tagged as having no citations.

• There are at least three dead links.[6]

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

articlename

Is iTunes correct? Why the second one is capitilized and not the first? --87.78.34.84 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just how Apple brands it. It refers to the fact that it's a "Tunes" program, and Apple frequently add the 'i' before their product names, something about the 'i'nternet age I imagine. See iPod and iMac. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 08:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere the 'i' stands for intestines, like the internal working of the software. I may be wrong.-Fert81

Criticism Section

In light of recent edits I must remind editors of the agreement made on the subject of a Criticism Section.

See here for full conversation

In summary, please merge all criticisms with their relevant section in the article, and use refutable sources, etc.

Further reading on the policies that this apply to can be seen below:

WP:Criticism - An essay that outlines the proper use of criticism in the article and why criticism sections are generally frowned upon.

WP:NPOV - Wikipedia should remain neutral at all times. Bias in ever direction reduces the quality of the article.

WP:RS - Everything in Wikipedia should be properly sourced from a refutable source. Forum postings and user ratings from websites do not count as refutable. However, they may be statistically relevant to highlight a point which is covered in a refutable source.

WP:MOS - Remember, we do have a code of conduct, agreed policies that tend towards the betterment of Wikipedia as a primary source for most activities. Althrough the rules are optional, there is generally some logic behind them, and it is still worth reading others ideas on how Wikipedia should be written.

Thank you. NightKhaos (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please let me quote from the single most important part of WP:Criticism. "This is an essay... Essays ... may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out my point was actually to point out an agreed consensus on the above issue. Also note that I stated it was an essay above. Then let me point out that there are no rules on Wikipedia, even the WP:MOS is technically just an essay about suggested style guidelines. Difference being the MoS is more widely followed than WP:Criticism. NightKhaos (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NightKhaos. For the record (since I was asked if I was an Apple employee), my own opinion is that iTunes is a hideous piece of bloatwear, coded by a bunch of drunken monkeys. I just think it's better for us to be neutral in articles and cite reliable sources, so that's why I removed the recent criticisms. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the general opionion of iTunes (for Windows) and I agree with it. However, as you stated, reliable sources are needed, and on the Mac platform iTunes works very well. Also iTunes tends to be getting better, for example the MobileMe control panel item is now optional. Still, that is not the issue, the issue is WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. NightKhaos (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some more criticisms of the program here, there are a lot of problems with it and the article only seems to focus on its features. There aren't going to be scholarly, peer reviewed, articles on a free program used to play music. It's better to have a complete description than being overly concerned with the quality of a source. Obviously the most official sources in this case are going to be from Apple, the other side needs a voice even if it's less official. 64.132.80.134 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia thinks all criticisms are welcome, so long as they are reliably sourced. This isn't a primary source site, it's an encyclopedia... meaning all of the content (especially controversial content) must have a notable, independent source. So feel free to add whatever you want, but be warned that if it's controversial and lacks a source it will be removed. That's just how it has to be to keep wikipedia accurate. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 19:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of a newcomer to this. But I wanted to let everyone who has apparently been discussing this for a while that I came searching for a concise summary of some of the criticisms of iTunes, and was a little disappointed in not being able to find a criticisms or at least a review section (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldurs_Gate#Reception for a good example, it says what's good, and it says what's not). I also feel that the positive review section would add a lot to the article. What about citing http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=554, for some possible reasons why some windows users might not like the windows port. And http://support.apple.com/kb/TA23565 for a less biased list of what is installed (couldn't find an iTunes 8 list). Hwttdz (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if Critisism sections are generally discouraged in Wikipedia, they are not explicitly prohibited. An article about a controversial product such as iTunes pretty much requires a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.229.184 (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been going around for months, if not years. The consensus has been to integrate the criticisms, per Wikipedia's article on neutrality. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DRM

I don't see the new DRM-free iTunes being all that well documented under the DRM article. This is huge news. In addition, a lot of people stand to gain from a better definition of what exactly this means for sharing their music before they go deleting their limewires and such :-) ANybody wanna tackle that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.131.65 (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. My writing is bad, though, and needs editing. -Fert81 —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Request Good Article Status?

I've done a lot of editing on this lately.. I think all that needs to be done is to add a criticism section, expand the plugins section, and add more references/citations.

I know people might not want a criticism section, but the article is still totally neutral if we present both sides of the argument. Actually, I think this articles is biased to Apple; it's like a brochure. It only presents the good stuff. Despite someone saying they merged the criticism with the rest of the page, I can hardly see anything in there.

After all this is done, can we request good article status for this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fert81 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I did intergrate them. Note the history. Also note they have not been removed. Finally, please note that the problem is not finding bad press, it's citing it to a reliable source. Very few cristisms originate from a well researched blog or a reputable news site, hence we only have three, yep, count em, three, bad things in the whole page.

Please also read my post clearly. I stated that there had been an agreement made. Adhere to it, or request a vote on the issue again. And if you find some good "bad" press please add it, intergrating it into the article.

Finally, please Sign. People are less likely to take you seriously if SineBot needs to cover your ass. NightKhaos (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I nominated iPhone for GA a few weeks ago; it didn't pass. If you haven't done a GAN before (like me!), it's a whole lot tougher than you might think. I haven't been watching this article very closely, so I don't know the extent of your editing, but I suggest that you get very familiar with it, if you haven't already. Go section by section and look for bad references, improperly tagged images, and sentences that don't make sense. Holistically, you may need to reorganize content. I'll see what improvements I can make; they're much easier to do when you're not working under the pressure of an impending failure of the nomination. (Could you possibly return the favor and look over iPhone for me?)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Sinebot. Anyway, somewhere above this section is a link to an article to ZDNet or something—the section also links to a similar list on the Apple website. I'll be sure to incorporate it, as well as any other criticism I can find, into the article. Thanks for the help from both of you. I look over iPhone soon. And Nightkhaos, people are more likely to take you seriously if you learn how to spell. ;)Signed: (:D)Fert81 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The history section only listed what OSes were supported when; I tried to add milestone features. The Features section is very bloated and needs header reduction, but I'm not sure how exactly. There are many images with dubious fair use claims, both as far as lacking the proper tags and being redundant to other images. The iPhone remote, while good to have in theory, must not display copyrighted album art. (I don't know if the one shown is or is not.) Many of the references are a mess (try to use primary sources, namely Apple, whenever possible). I highly recommend refTools. But don't let any of that draw your attention away from the text itself. Try to tackle a subsection a day.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs a lot of editing. Thanks for all your help. I'm new here and I don't know much about copyright laws and whatnot, so thanks (again) for all your help. By the way, your iPhone article is very good.:) - Fert81 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, although evidently it's not quite Good. (For inspiration, Macintosh is Featured.) I'll take of the image copyrights over the next few days. I have no formal legal training, but I'm familiar with the Wikipedia bureaucracy. To reiterate, the most fundamental thing is the text itself. Good luck!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception/critique section?

Where is this section? Are you telling me this software is perfect in every way and nobody has any comments on it? This article has become very large but is missing a very important section.--Otterathome (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages archives. Talk:ITunes/Archive index

In short, there are criticisms in the article, but they have been integrated into the rest of the text instead of being their own section. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What about reception? Things such as awards and good/bad points by reviews should be in a separate section. See Firefox#Critical_reaction for example. From what I can see, none of this exists.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be a criticism section. As long as it is properly sourced. In previous discussions on the topic I've been shouted down and frankly I don't care enough about it to put up enough of a fight. To be honest I think this article is shit right now. Just one big long list of features. Everything interesting in the article has been moved out into other articles or been deleted out right. And if anyone wants to start arguing about the quality, I dare you to print the whole thing out and try reading it from beginning to end in one sitting. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. The features section is longer than the histroy of some countries. Honestly, how useful is this article when it's just a giant list of features? 154.5.52.172 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

+1, there should be some discussion on criticism of iTunes, especially the performance issues under Windows Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to the consensus that there should be a criticism section I've added the Neutral POV tag to the page Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You want more criticism in the article then add more criticism. Just make sure it is properly cited, and be prepared to defend your edits if necessary. If people were willing to put a little effort into their edits this article could be full of criticism, up to now people are just too damn lazy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Such is the central problem of Wikipedia....--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And the problem of pedantic editors demanding citations for the obvious. I came to this talk page to find out why iTunes' obvious short-comings were not documented. Now I see that they have been systematically removed. Sad.War (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree that there needs to be a criticism section, and at the very least a NPOV tag on this disgrace. iTunes is widely criticized for its excessive RAM usage, and I can't find any info about it anywhere. It's obviously been systematically removed. Father McKenzie (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Mac version keep track of moved files?

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny. Page 37 of the February 2009 issue of Macworld UK is the second page of a two page review of the new 17-inch Macbook Pro. Page 27 is about the iTunes Store but doesn't mention anything related to tracking files. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How odd. What about page 17? - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Half-page about iLife that doesn't mention iTunes. Quarter page about Apple buying a stake in Imagination Technologies. Quarter page about software updates released by Apple that doesn't mention iTunes. Sorry, are we just taking guesses now? Should I try page 7 or page 47 next? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it anywhere within the first seven pages? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? Do you not have access to this issue yourself? And to answer your question, NO, the first seven pages are the cover, a letter from the editor, a content listing and four pages of adverts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about in the contents listing? - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you just taking the piss now? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now I am. In all seriousness, I'll ask my servant to check again; he obviously wrote down the wrong issue from his stack. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Surround Sound beyond iTunes 7

What about the fact, that all iTunes versions since 7 are incapable of utilising surround/5.1 sound off music or videos? Just recently read about it again: (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8834688) Ishbane (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also broken in iTunes 8: (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8399164) Ishbane (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous discussion forums are not reliable sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Both discussions were held at the official Apple forums, without any reply by officials. But how about these: News on Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/apple-dragging-its-feet-on-itunes-dolby-51-issue.ars) and News on AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/10/itunes_8_users_grapple_with_missing_dolby_surround_sound.html) Ishbane (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

iTunes DJ and Party Shuffle

iTunes DJ has very little in common with Party Shuffle except that that songs are automatically populated on the list and some of the setting for controlling what songs populate the list. You can't really say the name was just changed. It seems like some one just added the name change, becuase only the features of Party Shuffle and not meantioning any differences to it with the changed name. iTunes DJ replaced Party Shuffle. Also iTunes DJ has it's own connectivity with the iPhone/iPod Touch Remote app, I'm going to add a description of the connectivity. --Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File Format Support

iTunes 9 now supports AAC-HE encoding and playback. Can someone update the article? Link: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL925%7C (mentioned in the paragraph below the bulletpoints). 86.150.218.75 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

EULA

Is it worth noting the weird "Do not use to make nuclear or biological weapons" clause? 120.28.64.72 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ID3 support

I reverted your removal of text regarding ID3 support. The referenced forum post provides further details on the topic and while doing so refers to credible sources to substantiate its point. The source is therefor reliable. Neither implementing the post's complete content into Wikipedia nor referencing the ID3v2.x standard definitions without the further explanation would be in the interest of Wikipedia users. The issue described is a verifiable one and the referenced article provides both explanation and credible sources of information.

149.148.224.27 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC), copied from AlistairMcMillan's talk page

Anonymous discussion forums are not reliable sources. We need reliable sources to meet our goal of verifiability. And the form postings do not point to other "credible sources to substantiate" as was claimed in the posting to my talk page. The posting just says (a) this is the standard (with a link pointing to the standard) and (b) Apple doesn't follow the standard. That is original research, and what makes it worse it is anonymous original research.

Your edit has been reverted by two independent editors. Please find a better source before restoring.

AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The information that was added to Wikipedia's iTunes article was as verifiable as information can be. The forum post links to the ID3 standard and describes in detail how iTunes' interprets and handles ID3 tags in opposition to said standard. The content of the forum post is not unreliable hearsay but a falsifiable piece of information based on a credible source (the definition of the ID3 standard itself).

The only realistic way I see to provide a more credible source would be to ask ID3.org or Apple to acknowledge the issue publicly and to reference such an acknowledgement, which, in my opinion, is not worth the effort and adds nothing in terms of verifiability.

I'll rather let you remove the piece of information, no matter how hypocritical that removal is, considered that there are quite a few non-peer-reviewed personal websites and blogs listed in the references, which, according to your point of view, should be regarded as unreliable sources and therefor be removed immediately, including all passages of text in the article that rely on them.

To give one randomly picked example: have a look at reference #55, Unofficial Apple Weblog, iTunes activation server pining for the fjords. How is that source more reliable compared to the one that has been removed? Is that verifiable and peer-reviewed information? Don't be ridiculous!

149.148.224.27 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done, you've missed the point. If you have a problem with another source then start a discussion about that source, but it doesn't change the fact that forum posts are not reliable sources, and your source is a posting from a fourm. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with other sources (otherwise I would have edited them) but with your double standards when it comes to evaluating the credibility and verifiability of referenced information. Either blog and forum posts (not written by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") can be reliable sources or they can't. The two of you seem to support the latter view, stating that no matter how precise and verifiable an anonymous forum post may be, it is never to be regarded a sufficient source. However when it comes to putting your interpretation of the rules into action, you fail to show consistency.

I believe that the addition to the iTunes article with its reference provided reliable information. The content that was added was not challenged or likely to be challenged and the referenced source provided further detail and everything necessary to validate the information. I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Use_common_sense.

We won't agree on this matter and I won't spend more effort on this.

149.148.224.27 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't reliable though, it was an anon post at a forum. If you believe it was reliable then you need to read RS more closely. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No iTunes Extras?

• Nobody seems to care about iTunes Extras not even on Wikipedia. I guess I'll have to write something about it. --Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 03:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I just added the information, but again there is already separate iTunes LP article and no mention of iTunes Extras in that as well. --Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 04:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Be Bold - Fix that article as well. NightKhaos (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

The screenshot really should be of a Mac version of iTunes; while the program is developed for both Windows and Mac, the Mac version is unquestionably the one it is more suited on. Would anyone mind if I replace it with a similar image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.53.49 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, with help from (npcserver) . Of course, that user forgot to put the correct licensing information so the image was going to be deleted next week! Fixed it now. NightKhaos (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

iTunes Sound Processing

Discussion moved from my talk page and User:213.158.246.114's talk page. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

At 02-24-2010 22:45 will theare a totaal of 10.000.000.000 downloads in the itunes strore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.161.124 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allistair, here is some food for thought regarding this subject. Much Love. Sound Enhancer predominantly works by Increasing the S-signal(the out-of-phase component) after running the signal trough an M/S-matrix, resulting in an apparent wider stereo sound but with less coherent phase response between channels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)#Phase_difference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M/S_stereo_coding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound#M.2FS_technique:_Mid.2FSide_stereophony And some more informal references on this issue, please regard that several of the debaters are A-List Audio Engineers. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/21341/0/0/19017/ http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/448537/19017/?srch=itunes+sound+enhancer#msg_448537 http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/36856-stupid-itunes-sound-enhancer-frying-your-ears.html http://www.gearslutz.com/board/moan-zone/354094-itunes-sound-enhancer-decline-western-civilization-sorta.html http://lfnet.net/blog/?page_id=21 (not very acurate)

This processing is selected on as a default in iTunes, and as such as an enourmous cultural influence. This should clearly be mentioned in the article. Several of the worlds audio mastering houses. send their reference files with info on how to turn it off to their clients.

Do not revert that edit, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.246.114 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I've removed your addition to the iTunes article.

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Anonymous forums and blog posts are not reliable sources.

If you can come up with a reliable source to back up your edit then your addition might remain in the article. Otherwise it will continue to be removed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there again, I have above quoted 3 wikipedia articles that is relevant to this phenomenon, in addition I have linked you to non-anonymus forums where this is discussed by some of the worlds most renowned audio engineers. Now, do you actually deny that this "feature" is present in iTunes? If not, plese do not revert the edit again. I am aware of the non original research rule, but let me, between us, add that I am very much an expert in this field, working as an audio professional, and your earlier left field remark about recording, which is completely non-topical and not relevant, tells me you should stay away from editing audio related topics. The issue here is easy: Does the Sound Enhancer change the material or not? Obviously it does, it is what it is there for. Notice I have not gone into great technical detail, and that is because of the non original research. But, again, between us, my research does show conclusively that it raises the S-component considerably while also adding what you might call a "Loudness curve" to the same component. This can subjectively result in a marked improvement when listening to small single driver,closely spaced computer speakers, but works the other way around on higher quality systems, and absoutely wrecks havoc on mono-compability. Notice that this research is ot added to the article. This feature is ON by default in iTunes. (http://support.apple.com/kb/TA44539?viewlocale=en_US) Much love.

I'll leave you with some more reading material, and please do restore the edit, it's the right thing to do. http://www.designwsound.com/dwsblog/?page_id=1607 http://www.wiretotheear.com/2008/09/19/turn-off-the-itunes-sound-enhancer/

Now, once we have this behind us, we'll discuss one of the other "features", "Sound Check", thats when it starts to heath up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.246.114 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.

Anonymous forum postings cannot be used as sources.

Random weblogs cannot be used as sources.

Your own personal opinions cannot be used as sources.

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In short, we need sources that are written by people who are considered to be authoritative and are known for amongst other things, fact-checking.

Your only source that might be useful is the posting on Oliver Chesler's weblog. And I'm basing that solely on the fact that we have an article on him (The Horrorist, so he might be considered authoritative in his subject area. But given that that article appears that he might have written the article himself, which is a common reason for deleting biographic articles, maybe not. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and my comment about recording in the edit summary earlier, was referring to the fact that a significant amount of the music that people listen to in iTunes or on their iPods was not originally produced as an MP3 or AAC file. It was originally recorded in some other format and then converted to MP3 or AAC, so right away it is not a bit for bit representation of the artist's original intent. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

iTunes 9 alleged issue with iPod Classics =

iTunes 9 has some major compatibility issues with iPod Classics. Many users with iPod Classics are reporting that their iPods have crashed after using iTunes 9. See, for example, this discussion board: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2151907&start=0&tstart=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.11.69 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Message to Darrenhusted: why did you delete the section I created called "Criticism" at the iTunes page? It was properly sourced. There are numerous references to this problem. See, for example, http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2151907&start=0&tstart=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.1.199 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We are looking for sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anonymous forums where anyone can write anything they want are not reliable sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As Alistair said, we need RS. Forums are not that. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of things installed by iTunes 9

• List of things installed by iTunes 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.68.17 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is at least a way provided by Ghacks to somewhat circumvent the useless and extraneous Apple bundled junk with Itunes, which shows that users have a problem with that bloat. Here are the links http://www.ghacks.net/2009/04/04/install-itunes-without-quicktime-and-bonjour/ http://www.ghacks.net/2009/09/10/install-itunes-without-unnecessary-software/ This is also a more reliable sources that mentions the unnecessary bloat installed by Itunes. Not explicitly in a critical tone, but can also be sourced for someone writing a future criticism of the Itunes. Had to leave add the additional information to let Darrenhusted understand it's not meant to be anything related to a forum, but as a source for adding additional information to the article later on. Goodluck to all. Additional, after reposting this I have found even more reliable sources that criticize Itunes for its bloated, unneccesary, and nonconsented bloat at LifeHacker, CNet, CNet Review, it's mentioned in Paul Thurotts review, ZDNet, ZDNet Again, and Technet. Another article from PCWORLD Magazine detailing I found criticizing Itunes can be found here

Also, please see the relevant talk pages for myself and Darrenhusted for even more information. -- 98.218.129.248 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

I've tagged the article for overlinking, it first came to my attention after seeing it on a to do list for another user. And looking at it, the introduction contains around 45 links! Acather96 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done some cleaning of the links, I bet it can use a bit more, I tried to remove all the duplicates. If someone else can take a look then maybe we can get rid of the template at the top.Mcmatter (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing categories

Did readers know know that iTunes has a category called 'Reggae' and another called 'General Reggae'. Now, what on Earth could be the possible difference between these two categories? And if there is no difference iTunes should really remove the 'General Reggae' category. Life is already complicated enough. Is it possible to email iTunes pointing this out? Anybody know? Thanks in advance.

 SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reggae is for that precise music style, while General Reggae is for the genre as whole. So users who can't tell or don't want to bother with differences between styles (roots, ragga, dancehall, lovers rock, one drop, etc.) can just use the General Reggae category. Jimthing (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

Hi, everyone

Have you noticed that this article is missing information about critical reception? Really, what other sources say about iTunes software popularity amongst users? Do they like it? Do they like something else more that iTunes? Are there only fans amongst Mac users? These questions are just an example of what can be answered in critical reception section of this article.

I think we need someone well-versed in this matter to write a critical reception section and aggregate the critical reviews from multiple reliable or authoritative sources.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I also, think this article needs a criticism section. As I know some people who cant or refuse to use itunes...because of it's proprietary nature, DRM, low bitrates, huge updates/bloat, inability to remove bundled Quicktime with Itunes windows, too many services running in Windows, unauthorized remote starting of the itunes application when you visit the iTunes website,and a general distaste for apple locking out developers from creating iTunes alternatives for latest generation ipods. I dont know how to properly write in Wikipedia prose so I cant do this. I personally own a Sansa Fuze now and not an ipod, so I havent used it in a while, but I have a complaint about the site owners who have the podcast available on itunes, but if you dont use/have access to itunes, its near impossible to get to/subscribe to the podcast... if anybody knows a solution to that I'd be greatful (especially since I use linux sometimes) 68.33.26.6 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be a "criticism" section that debunks all these "reasons" not to use iTunes. Lars T. (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We've been through a similar discussion over at iPhone, and the consensus is not to have such a section because Wikipedia is not a catalog or product guide. We are not here to lay out the good versus the bad; we are here to provide neutral information. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Debunk. Desmchunk. I dont really care. I was just expressing my surprise as well with the original poster. The real reason, I was here was to read about various methods/or alternatives to acessing iTunes data (particularly podcasts). Also, good luck debunking alot of that, as I can personally attest to alot of those problems, except that I finally lost my ipod. Although, my sister still uses one and my friends do also. Not too mention you can find more complaints via the web. Anyway, I assume there is no one has a solution to accessing podcasting that has been setup only to report it's latest podcasts thru itunes. Thanks! 68.33.26.6 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a criticism section if the criticism is notable. The criticism of Itunes is widespread enough to warrant such a section. There are thousands of complaints posted as reviews on Itunes itself, as well as general distaste towards it on other sites. Obamamaniac (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Show us some actual reliable sources and then we'll actually have something useful to discuss. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What about this, this and this? It's kind-of hard to find non-personal-blog and non-forum articles criticizing about iTunes, but there are a lot of people who really hate iTunes. Personally I think this article really needs a criticism section, otherwise it just states the positive sides of iTunes and as such is POV. 77.168.211.168 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

False balance is no balance. If there are 100 people asked for an opinion about iTunes and 1 hates it while 99 like it we do not have to report the 1 hater and 1 liker to achieve balance. If you can't find criticism from reliable sources then maybe that is because it doesn't exist, and if it doesn't exist (outside of forums and personal blogs) then the true reflection of opinion is positive, to find one bad review in the attempt to introduce a false NPOV is actually a POV. We reflect the truth, and the truth is that iTunes is not widely criticised by those who do that for a living. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"We've been through a similar discussion over at iPhone, and the consensus is not to have such a section because Wikipedia is not a catalog or product guide. We are not here to lay out the good versus the bad; we are here to provide neutral information. " I guess you only viist the Itunes page on wikipedia and no other software pages...

Criticism has nothing to do with good vs bad. For example, bundling with other software (Quicktime) for Windows users, is not making it good or bad, but something that is a complaint amongst many users. Kazaa's page has criticism of bundling adware. To me, this is a very biased page in comparision to other wikipedia pages due to the fact that it indirectly misleads readers into thinking that there is no criticism of Itunes. And to whoever said only 1 out of 100 dont like Itunes, simply could be a factor that since most people arent aware of other unauthorized programs that can be used to sync the ipod, they use Itunes and know nothing of other potential programs to compare Itunes too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for (relatively) coordinated and policed critical feedback of this program and was really suprised that it was only on the discussion page. Documenting wide spread criticism of subjects is a common part of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.73.56 (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the above, but there should be, in keeping with most other Wikipedia articles on software, a section on its critical reception (not just actual criticism) to show that we're being impartial and not just saying what's good about the software. There must be reviews to draw upon here. Miremare 16:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Show us some actual reliable sources and then we'll actually have something useful to discuss. And by "reliable sources", I mean "sources that are reliable" not blog posts which almost without exception are considered "unreliable sources". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to jump down my throat... Not being an editor of this article, I'm merely putting forward what would ideally be in this article if it expects to ever get back to "good article" status. If you can't find any reviews of iTunes without my help, then there's probably no hope. :( Also, it's no longer 27 December 2009, it's been 2010 for several months now... ;) Miremare 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised there isn't a criticism about i tunes as well. You can't even play music bought from iTunes except on iPods or iPhones. Apple won't license 'FairPlay digital rights management' and its technology to any other players manufacturers. For instance, my Sony player might recognize the AAC files, but it can't decrypt them, so they won't play. I think for this article to be representative it should include either a critical reception section or even criticisms. Leaving it out makes this seam a little Astroturfed.173.35.68.10 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)CivEngAlyssa (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Still pretending that "you can't even play music bought from iTunes except on iPods or iPhones" over a year after they dropped DRM for music? Classy. Lars T. (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have some music that I bought after the iTunes Plus switch that is in *.m4p format. I can play it on my computer, but not on non-iPods, and when I try to edit the tags with anything but iTunes they don't save properly. 108.114.218.86 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take that up with the software/hardware manufacturers in question. There is no reason from Apple's perspective that iTunes Plus songs shouldn't play on other devices. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys: please add in sourced criticisms - there are plenty to choose from. Turkeyphan^t 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Release

Don't edit the current stable release until it's actually RELEASED.

As of right now, iTunes 10 has only been announced and is not available for public download. Chris122990 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Its only a matter of hours before that happens. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the latest version is 9.2.1, can't you guys wait until it's actually there to edit it? --87.198.18.48 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and leave the new icon up, it looks fine. AliceSKD (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception (Section)

The reception still has only information about iTunes 9.0 reception. Someone needs to write information about iTunes 10 in that section of the page.

--Corbin Davenport (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Content on iTunes not allowing old versions to be downloaded

An IP is adding some POV content on this, but they do have a point. A couple of sentences would be good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look on the Apple support page, and some earlier versions can be downloaded. See here and here for example. As far as I know there is only a problem for users of Mac OS X 10.4 or less when they buy a new 2010 iPod, which needs iTunes 10 and as a consequence Mac OS X 10.5 or later. GoldRenet ^thoughts 11:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well fair enough. I was basing it on my experience of iTunes 4 :eek:. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gift cards

Can anyone add a timeline of the hack and Apple responses? Turkeyphan^t 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I put a page about Critisism. Let see if they remove it

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.48.89 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) diff

iTunes catalogue

It would be helpful if there were a discussion of how Apple populates its catalogue. Who are the parties who have made their songs availble for download? Record companies? Publishers? Garage bands? Individual performers or composers? ASCAP? Harry Fox? How are they compensated? What are their rights? Thanks. Billy Fyre billyfyre@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.244.118 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

iTunes sales charts as a reference

There is a discussion going on concerning the use of iTunes sales charts in articles (particularly song and album articles). Currently WP:BADCHARTS specifically disallows use of iTunes charts the discussion is on whether this needs to be updated or not. See Wikipedia talk:Record charts#iTunes sales vs. WP:Badcharts--RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

iTunes Server® — WTF is it?

I keep reading about NAS and external RAID drives having "iTunes Server®" functionality in their smallprint, but WTF is it? Does this mean that in order to move your iTunes media folder onto a separate networked drive, it has to have this so-called function, or will any drive do this? Can't find anything about it anywhere?!
In fact there is no info in the article about the storing of an iTunes media folder on a networked harddrive, and being able or not to thin-client manage the library from more than one machine — possible or not? If not an explanation is needed of why? Jimthing (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No answer, so its just being ignored then is it by all the experienced iTunes users around here. Great.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. This "Promise" branded enclosures/drives, as taken direct from a news article on the DLNA website (here http://www.dlna.org/news/pr/view?item_key=e6f02710fd7ee89d8fdb807dfce9dd716e33ead8 ) is just one of the many companies talking about "includes an iTunes Digital Media Server" — 'includes', how does it include a special iTunes server? Never heard of such a special "included" technology? The only thing I have read extensively about over the last couple of weeks is that ANY external networked drive can act as an iTunes folder for your media; so again I ask, what is this thing these companies are advertising?

I'll quote it here directly, so it can actually be addressed properly somewhere in the article rather than just ignored:

iTunes Digital Media Server The SmartStor Zero includes an iTunes Digital Media Server for playback of music files of MP3 and AAC audio files. The SmartStor Zero iTunes Digital Media Server can also playback H.264, MOV, MP4 and M4V Video Files. (Playback of Video is ONLY supported using iTunes in MAC OS X (Windows Supports Music playback) In addition to music and video playback, the SmartStor Zero allows for creation of custom playlists using the new iTunes playlist generator making the SmartStor Zero one of the most advanced iTunes Digital Media Servers available today.

Answers on a postcard please... ! --Jimthing (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the criticism that was supposedly "integrated" into the article?

I read the article and went over the discussion archive and from what I gather every past attempt to add a criticism section was blocked by Apple "fans". It was claimed that criticism was integrated into the article, but I can't really see where. Is there any hope to salvage this article? Scatophaga (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please cite where you have come to these conclusions. Also, I have read the article as well and found some limitations/criticisms integrated into the article.

• iTunes#Media management: "There have been some concerns, voiced by Mark Pilgrim, that this feature will create an "undocumented binary blackhole" because the recovery from the XML file may not work.[26] It has also been noted that iTunes does not automatically track changes to actual files in the library. If a file is moved or deleted, iTunes will display an exclamation mark beside the library entry and the user will need to manually amend the library record. Several third party tools address this problem.[27]"
• iTunes#Library sharing: "With the release of iTunes 7.0, Apple changed their implementation of DAAP. This change prevents any third-party client, such as a computer running Linux, a modified Xbox, or any computer without iTunes installed, from connecting to a remote iTunes repository. "
• iTunes#Books / PDF support: "One current limitation of books (though not PDFs) is that they can only be read using the app on any iOS device and cannot be read inside iTunes on a user's Mac or PC. PDFs can be read using Preview or any other PDF reader/editor application the user has on their machine."
• iTunes#iTunes Store: "DRM protected songs can not be played on computers not authorized to the purchaser's iTunes account. "
• iTunes#Integration with other applications:"Though iTunes itself can be installed where the user desires, ancillary applications such as Bonjour which are part of the iTunes installation can not be placed in a user-desired directory.[80]"
• iTunes#iMix:" iMixes were first introduced in iTunes version 4.5.[81] However, they are limited to 100 songs, must feature content available on the iTunes Store, and are active for one year from their original published date. "
• iTunes#Internet radio:"Since the release of iTunes 7, Apple no longer promotes the Internet radio feature, though it remains in the application. Some third-parties offer iTunes plugins that add additional radio stations."
• iTunes#Apple's privacy policy controversy

This is what I found thus far, please feel free to add some input. kiranerys(u,c) 22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mobile phone management software

itunes is a Mobile phone management software as well as a media player. but no one ever added this page to the appropriate gategory until now! can someone please tell my why? all the best, Danigro456 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danigro456 (talk • contribs)

Probably just an oversight, I wouldn't necessary blame anyone. Also, of note, Zune Software and Sony's Media Go are not in there either.. kiranerys(u,c) 07:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery Songs

What is the information value of this statement: "These "mystery songs" have been frequently removed from playlists by iTunes users, because they know little about the songs."? My suggestion is to delete this sentence.

84.177.53.126 (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, and came to the talk page for that reason. I deleted it. I also rewrote the rest of that paragraph. Chris Loosley (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Itunes 1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Itunes 1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing Files

" If a file is moved or deleted, iTunes will display an exclamation mark beside the library entry and the user will need to manually amend the library record. Several third party tools address this problem.[30]" Actually, on my Mac with iTunas 10 ans Mountain lion, this doesn't happen. In fact, I can move or rename any file to any location / name I want, as long as its not a net volume. iTunes tracks and finds them. No prob here. The Exclamation mark only appears if a file really is missing, IOW deleted. 88.134.12.72 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Itunes.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Itunes.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

*Not* a msuic / video management system

Whilst iTunes might originally have been for managing music and videos, this is now, arguably a secondary role. iTunes is now the *only* way, short of jailbreaking, of loading 'Apps' onto an iPad, iPhone, etc., and also the way in which the various i-devices are baced up, reset, etc.

As such, the primary purpose of iTunes has evolved into that of device management, which is much more central to the core use and maintenance of the devices than just playing and controlling of media. The article should reflect this current place of iTunes, even though the name has become, in fact, a misnomer, if not actually misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.219.91 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Apple's description of the software is as such:

iTunes is a free application for your Mac or PC. It lets you organize and play digital music and video on your computer. It can automatically download new music, app, and book purchases across all your devices and computers.

Given that copy, Apple still states that the primary purpose of the software is that of a media player with an integrated store. Apps can be loaded directly onto iOS devices without iTunes. And with the advent of iCloud, devices can be synced, backed up, reset and even activated without ever having to use iTunes. So, no, device management is not the primary function of the software. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

iTunes Connect missing - not good.

This needs a short section adding about iTunes Connect, linking to the iTunes Connect page, which desperately needs expanding fully (their's plenty of info that could fill that one on a separate page). Given iTunes Connect is the main way for nearly ALL content in the iTunes Store (whether music/video or app's, etc.) to get there, it's omission from WP is really bad. I'd do it myself if I knew more about it, but what it really needs is someone who preferably has used it to upload media and/or app's, and therefore can write about it pretty fluently. Anyone agree? --Jimthing (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

iPod games

They were all pulled from the iTunes Store in September 2011, so the article must no longer say that they are downloadable. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/30/apple-removes-ipod-click-wheel-games-from-itunes/ --86.157.83.106 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Preview releases?

Where is the evidence that preview betas of the next version of iTunes (11.0) are being released? 208.22.79.251 (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of release

A quick google search including apple's press release says that it was released on April 28th 2003, not as put in the article. Please cite this or change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.230.51 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

iTunes Connect

Should probably make a mention about iTunes Connect since it provides content creators/publishers/subscribers with all the functionality in which they distribute their content. Application revisions, sales dashboards, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.178.6 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think there should be a criticism section.--173.3.16.92 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, all criticisms should be integrated in the body of the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Still no criticism section? This is the only article where you get docked for posting... A section for criticism belongs in this article. Why does this entry still not have one? CivEngAlyssa (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm willing to bet the majority of regular WP editors and admins are Apple sheep (fits the personality type). Jersey John (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here ye, Here ye. You already know it. I cant believe up until this day the critcism section hasnt been developed around this bloated piece of shit program. I remember suggesting this and other people suggesting this way back as long as 4 years ago. Some asshole is working for Apple here because they kept reverting contributions to establishing that section. 68.48.134.115 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows Media Player

Does iTunes require Windows XP to have Windows Media Player 11? I'm just wanting to know what version of Windows Media Player iTunes requires on Windows XP if it requires 11 or not. 216.145.89.170 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't. -- Calidum 00:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ITunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050830011803/http://www.vodcast.nl:80/howto.html to http://www.vodcast.nl/howto.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.soundspectrum.com/g-force/contributors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015 - Update iTunes XP/Vista for information

Please change the line "iTunes 12.1.2 was officially the last version to include support for Windows XP and Vista" to "iTunes 12.1.3.6 was officially the last version to include support for Windows XP and Vista". This will improve the accuracy of this page as this version was released on Sept 16 to add iOS 9 support.

This information is already mentioned and cited on the History of iTunes page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_iTunes#cite_note-support.apple.com-24 Altonius (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge the article IPSW...

I am suggesteing that this article should be merged into the article iTunes because this article is about the iTunes and should be there on the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiKrtk (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/jan/09itunes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization

iTunes is the name of the product with a lowercase "i". Recently, a change was made to capitalize the "i" on iTunes, which is inconsistent with how the product is referred to in major publications and from Apple itself. The Chicago Manual of Style states "Brand names or names of companies that are spelled with a lowercase initial letter followed by a capital letter (eBay, iPod, iPhone, etc.) need not be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or heading, though some editors may prefer to reword." -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ITunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=35132&st=0&p=327771&#entry327771
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217024606/http://paidcontent.org/2011/08/27/419-apple-evicts-tv-show-rentals-from-itunes-store/ to http://paidcontent.org/2011/08/27/419-apple-evicts-tv-show-rentals-from-itunes-store/
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ftechnology%2Fapple%2F8912714%2FApple-iTunes-flaw-allowed-government-spying-for-3-years.html&date=2011-11-28 with http://www.webcitation.org/63XBkpe2a?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Ftechnology%2Fapple%2F8912714%2FApple-iTunes-flaw-allowed-government-spying-for-3-years.html on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8912714/Apple-iTunes-flaw-allowed-government-spying-for-3-years.html
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Fgermany%2F0%2C1518%2C799259%2C00.html&date=2011-11-28 with http://www.webcitation.org/63XBt1ueN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Fgermany%2F0%2C1518%2C799259%2C00.html on http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,799259,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ITunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070530162245/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17itunes.html to http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17itunes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060726000426/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17itunes.html to http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17itunes.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8912714/Apple-iTunes-flaw-allowed-government-spying-for-3-years.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0%2C1518%2C799259%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ITunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160221081011/http://www.busjournal.com/content/archives/1403/CompTech.html to http://www.busjournal.com/content/archives/1403/CompTech.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,799259,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ITunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515000953/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/sep/12itunes7.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/sep/12itunes7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206154750/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/09/09itunes.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/09/09itunes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907025606/http://www.gracenote.com/casestudies/itunes/ to http://www.gracenote.com/casestudies/itunes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

46.234.195.152 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

ipad is locked and forgot all passwords

02:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)02:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick moane (talk • contribs)

“Daniel Budden” page redirect to here

Just in case I (known as Daniel Budden) has any use in something famous, I can have a link to here. The reason why a real page dosen’t exist is because I’m not famous. For example, let’s say one of my songs was in a Just Dance game, this would be a page for a redirect because it would be a bit weird for there to be no page for the Artist, so at least a redirect would be good. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

To let you know it now redirects to the iTunes Store page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Finder icon macOS Yosemite.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)