iTunes vs. Google Music

I've always loved iPods. I've had an iPod since the 2nd generation mechanical click wheels. Wow, it's been almost a decade since my first iPod. I had the weird 4-button 3rd gen, an iPod-mini with an armband, an 8GB Touch and now a 64GB Touch.

I've always hated iTunes. I always used Winamp. Then I used a Winamp plugin to handle Apple devices for library syncing. And finally when Apple went to audio and video podcasting, I had no choice. I had to embrace iTunes. And once I fully committed to it like a marriage, I found things that I liked about it. I even found things that I didn't know I'd like: like real-time playlists.

That said, iTunes has never fixed two fundamental problems:

1. it crashes
2. it's slow

This solution was partially alleviated by using iTunes on a MacBook Pro. Sure, it makes sense that Apple software works better on Apple hardware. It makes sense that you'd prefer to allocate company resources for company machines. That also means that iTunes will never work great on any other platform. As much as I like Apple products, I don't want them to be my only choice. And that's what it's been for at least the past 5 years. Only iTunes.

I've tried all the competitors: Songbird (like iTunes, but worse), Windows Media Player library (this is a joke), and others not worth mentioning.

Enter Google Music beta. I don't know how long others have had it, but I've been using it for the past few days. It's lacking a lot of features that people are used to. Here's what else it's not:

It's not slow. It doesn't crash.

Google has done a faster, more reliable music program on the web than Apple did with all that computing power available to your CPU.

Is it going to replace iTunes? I don't know yet. I can tell you that I still use Microsoft Office over Google Docs, 90% of the time. So, Gmusic may not displace iTunes use. And besides, Apple is rolling out their own cloud music soon. Hopefully, that'll be a good competitor to Gmusic, or even iTunes.

 

Hey guys--let's leave out the insults, shall we?

Google Music and iTunes aren't [yet] exactly comparable. They serve slightly different purposes, with GM obviously based more on a cloud implementation, which is the key.

If you want a good music player for Windows, give foobar2000 a look. There are plugins to make it sync with iPods as well--it worked fine with my old 3rd gen iPod Nano, when I still used iPods

 

So, the only real issue here is choice. (Not to diminish your point, I'm just clarifying the issue, it is certainly a valid issue).

iTunes works well on os x. Not so great in windows. And of course, linux is a shot in the dark. However, keep in mind that using iTunes just to organize your media does not restrict you to using iTunes. iTunes leaves you with an extremely portable library. It tags the files themselves and organizes them into a structure that is very suitable for parsing by a different media player.

Also, despite believing that you have tried all the competitors, you have not. There are major, established choices for various platforms.

- foobar2000 (windows only)
- iTunes (primarily mac, windows)
- Clementine (or Amarok, cross-platform, iDevice compatible)
- Banshee (primarily linux, cross-platform)

many others worth mentioning. songbird and wmp are not commonly recommended.

Cloud support is not widespread at the moment for any music players, but Google music is still in beta and is also not widely available. There are, nevertheless, cloud solutions.

 

That was the whole point behind introducing the iPod in the first place. Back in 2001, Apple was the only one designing their hardware and PC end software to sync with their devices. Most other companies would come out with half-assed PC software to sync with their hardware and instead started pushing users towards other jukebox software such as Windows Media Player or MusicMatch (remember that?). Apple has always been about this closed iEcosystem when it comes to their iDevices. I am not sure why it came as a surprise to you.

Except that Google Music is slower if you actually want to access that content offline as you first have to download it to a PC or device. You are also comparing apples to oranges here as Google Music is a cloud based solution while iTunes requires local storage. Might as well start comparing a PlayStation 3 to a loaf of bread. So, until Apple manages to come out with their own cloud solution (which is still all just rumor), you can't directly compare Google Music to the services offered by Apple through iTunes. Besides, Google fails miserably if you throw in the actual music store portion.

I am not saying that iTunes or Apple are perfect, far from it. Just don't expect to make serious arguments comparing two different types of services that operate differently. Its like comparing Netflix to having a stand-alone Blu-ray/DVD player and a Best Buy up the road (or ordering through Amazon). One is an online streaming service while the other offers tangible copies of the media for local playback.

 

I used foobar in, umm, the year 2000. Not only have they refused to make it easier to use, it doesn't do core things that I need it to do. e.g., browse by album art.

To clarify your point, the issues (plural) are choice related. First, the only app that's worth anything is iTunes. I actually wouldn't care if it did what it's supposed to. It doesn't. So, it is simultaneously the best program available and still a slow, crashing buggy piece of crap. Second, I'm multi platform, so I don't appreciate being landlocked inside a particular territory.

Of course Gmusic is cloud and doesn't compare with iTunes. This is also why I mentioned Apple's own cloud music service soon to be launched. Whether they make use of the lala acquisition remains to be seen. However, while they can't be compared in terms of platform, they can be compared in terms of usefulness as a music delivery system. The iPod killed the Walkman. The DVD killed VHS. The car killed the horse. I am glad to see the beginning of the end of iTunes is all I'm saying. Hopefully, Apple's cloud service will be good. Though, they might be opting for a recognition type system instead of actual uploads. That makes sense for them because they're mostly a hardware company without the internet infrastructure that Google has. Unfortunately, they don't recognize a good half of my album collection. Maybe, I can upload whatever they don't have. Though, I don't want to speculate about something we have no idea about.

And you're right about not having used every single other app out there. What I meant to say was that I've tried everything that would be remotely comparable in functionality. I don't need to speak in clear, definite terms, detailing every exception, do I? I was speaking the equivalent of shorthand.

 

google: foobar2000 album art panel

also, check out the other recommended media players. note again that wmp and songbird are not on the list.

 

Is that a recently added module? The last time I tried to use Foobar was maybe 2008 or so. Module/skin loading was still difficult.

There are other issues I haven't mentioned. No program can handle 40,000+ mp3s well. Another thing is half of my albums have their art grabbed by iTunes. If I went to another player, I'd lose half of my album art. Even if a new player grabs album art, it won't grab it the way iTunes does. And given the size of my collection, I can't be arsed to do it.

What I really want is for iTunes to be faster and reliable on the PC and Android because it does (almost) everything I want. But alas, Apple lacks code talent.

 

I wasn't trying to start a *thing* by getting to the root of your point. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't diminishing your point. I was just trying to figure out the best way to help - by showing you that there are other critical choices you have so far left unchecked. I'm not interested in the semantics of how many issues we can count under the category of choice. Come on, give me a little credit. Jeez.

"Speaking" (writing) clearly would be helpful in general, yes.

I'm not merely saying that other media players exist that you haven't tried. What I am saying is that there are major software players that seem to meet your requirements that you skipped, in favor of software that most people would NOT recommend. I think WMP and songbird left a bad taste in your mouth and got you in the mindset of hopelessness. I really think you should look into Amarok, Banshee, and Clementine. They may or may not work for you, but it's certainly worth a shot.

There are plenty of programs that can automatically collect album art. If you haven't embedded the art, then it won't port over. However, pretty much every major player can collect art automatically. It's one of the easiest tags to auto-complete.

I don't know how old the album art panel plugin is, but I know it was around in 2007, so definitely earlier than '08.

There are players that can handle large libraries. Rythmbox is another good one I forgot to mention earlier. As far as the new player not grabbing album art "the same way iTunes does" - you'll have to be more specific. That doesn't necessarily seem like a problem, unless "not being iTunes" is part of the problem, in which case I don't think you will find any solstice. But, I'm hoping that isn't what you meant.

Last thought, Apple has plenty of coding talent. You can see the results of that in OS X, their software in OS X, and iOS. It's a business decision to extremely limit their efforts outside their ecosystem. I don't think you can goad them into putting more effort into windows by bringing their talent under question, anyway. Besides, can you really take the stance that iTunes sucks, it's also the best there is, and Apple has no coding talent? Seems to me like you can really take all sides there.

 

Okay, I'll just say MY BAD so we can end this.

Yeah, I've mentioned that above. I don't blame them for putting priority on their software above platforms outside their company. However, it doesn't make their sucky parts any better. Here are just a handful of examples, but I could go on all day: Auto dim doesn't work on iPod Touch and iPad since the latest iOS updates, but they used to work fine; unfixed for at least 6 months. Network transfers are slow with Windows 7 machines. Mapping a network drive means it MUST popup at login. No way to minimize it through default OS. TRIM doesn't work for 99% of drives available. I didn't even get to what doesn't work in Boot Camp.

Let me speak in nuance, then. Apple is the biggest technology company in the world by market capitalization. Of course they have talent. Their products sell like hotcakes because they make good products. Good products can't be good unless everything about them meets a minimum bar of competence. Coding is absolutely an essential part of it.

Now, having said all that, they have great coding decisions mixed in with absolutely inane ones. Can I take the stance that they are simultaneously the best and the worst? Of course, I can. Here's a clear example among myriad others: Henry Ford and his Model T were the best production cars in the world, but only available in the color black. Out of all his customers, wouldn't there be one or two that wanted a different color? Is it still hard to recognize the greatness of something while also lamenting its shortcomings? I hope the answer is no. This is also why I don't think in binary terms: all good or all bad. This is also why I loathe fanboys.

Of all the major players sitting on top of piles of money, Apples coders are the worst. They're the worst of the best. And even if you're the best of the best doesn't mean you can't improve. I constantly praise Apple for what I like about them. I constantly crap on them for the things I don't. I do that for every company's products I buy. iTunes is one of their turds. It's simply atrocious as a basic music player. Winamp + AlbumList is far better for my needs. But, I didn't adopt iTunes for its music player abilities. iTunes became compelling because it tied the ecosystem together to be an all purpose media consumption device: music, podcats, apps, etc.

So, there hasn't been a compelling reason to switch out of iTunes for years. Until now. Gmusic does cloud, and even though it's very vanilla right now, we all know that functionality is on its way. I'm sure Apple will have a strong competitor service. Either way, I'm happy to see the beginning of the end of iTunes as we know it. Because it's a turd.

 

So this whole post is just an iTunes eulogy for you. In that case, iTunes is (unfortunately) very much so alive and well, and in it's current incarnation, no less, for the time being and for the near future. In the near future, you personally may be able to make the choice to drop iTunes for something else that you find better or beats iTunes by holding some other critical and exclusive functionality over it. However, I think that with a little experimentation, you could already make such a choice *today*.

I get where you are coming from. I like the mac OS, but I would much rather use some sort of open source cross platform library software that is integrated with the cloud over iTunes. (so would pretty much everyone, if it were handed to them on a silver platter). I'll almost certainly start shifting over to Gmusic once it becomes available to me.

 

Then why did you make a thread called "iTunes vs. Google Music?" If they can't be compared then they can't be compared no matter how it is spun. Google Music is a cloud based system backed by independent artists. Amazon's mp3 cloud system would be a more direct comparison especially since the big name labels/artists and indi bands/labels all support it as well. You buy a song and it is uploaded to your cloud account so that it can be accessed on other devices with an internet connection. That sounds a lot like Google Music just with more backing.

The iTunes Store (since iTunes is an actual program) delivers music differently and has always been about local storage. That may or may not change in the near future but, as of now, Apple is taking the standard music store approach: you buy content, it is stored on your computer, and you sync it to devices. Hence why Google Music, something that uses a completely different setup, can't even be compared to the iTunes Store.

You must be looking at the wrong picture then because iTunes and the iTunes Store are both going strong even after Google and Amazon launched their music cloud services. I don't even think Apple has taken a single dent in music sales and the amount of iDevices that they have sold certainly hasn't decreased either (as a result of competition music cloud services).

This whole thing just comes off as a large negative statement against iTunes. As I said, it is fine if someone doesn't like a certain program or service. Nothing, including Google Music (which will never catch on beyond a niche group unless big labels and artists get behind it), is perfect and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't try to turn this into a Google Music vs iTunes thing when it isn't about that, it is about your disliking of the software and music store offered by Apple.

 

2 points:

- I agree with you that if the OP really wanted to rant on iTunes and was not interested in *actually* comparing Google Music to iTunes, he should have labelled the thread as such

- I think you can compare Google music to the media player of iTunes. Obviously, iTunes is much larger in scope than just a music player, so I get your point, but as a media player only (ignoring the store, podcasts, etc) - storing music locally vs on the cloud is really only a subtle difference for the end user that has significant consequences (mostly positive towards cloud storage).

 

Yes, it does. You just don't know how to use it.

As for the thread topic itself: I don't know if they can be compared at all. How many audio formats does Google music support? Any lossless formats? Is my entire library available to me when I'm offline? EQ support? Plug-in support? What happens when your browser crashes?

Also, the only "slowness" I've ever seen in iTunes (PC) is when I start the program after a reboot. After it's open, it's as fast as you'd expect. Also, I haven't had iTunes crash on any of my laptops for years.

I'd only use Google Music if (a) I had an Android phone or (b) if I had a Chrome laptop or a laptop with less than 100GB of HDD space. Otherwise, I don't see the point at all. Especially if you have a sizable hard drive and an iOS device.

Anyway, if you don't like iTunes as a music player in OSX, then use:

-Decibel
-Audrivana
-Fidelia

All of which provide superior audio quality.

If you're in Windows, Foobar is still the best way to go. You just need the right skins.

 

Same here, on the Mac iTunes takes a bit longer to launch after a restart. Regular operations it's perfectly fast and very responsive. Out of all the programs I've ever used on the Mac, iTunes has never crashed once or became unstable. The OP's system is the problem, but of course he blames iTunes.

 

This may have been already covered, so I'll apologize in advance if it has.

Can you be more descriptive on these two? When does it crash and under what circumstances is it slow?

 

an astounding 3: mp3, wma, aac.

Absolutely not.

Only if you have your entire library manually set to be stored locally. It certainly isn't designed to be used that way.

The apocalypse. Also, your music stops.

I would venture to guess "no" on both.

 

Please read my first post, 2nd paragraph. Then read the last paragraph. Then reconsider your statement.

I'll take your word for it. Either way, the learning curve was too high. If that's your way of saying I'm stupid, I'm okay with that.

I mentioned this in my first post, but I'll explain it again because people think I'm trolling. I browse by album art covers. This can be very slow in 1920x1200 because my iTunes is in a grid of album art 10 columns by 6 rows. That means the program calls 60 album covers every time I hit page down or page up.



If iTunes had to request 60 album art files from random locations on my 5400rpm drive, that would be unbearable. So, it places all of the art in its own cache on C:\ where my SSD is. Unfortunately, it's still slow unless I put it on a RAM drive. And if I flip up and down fast enough, "iTunes has experienced an unexpected error."

The other posters in this thread haven't experienced this problem because they don't use iTunes the way I do. As to potential solutions to the existing problem, I take their word for it. Either way, I don't need a better horse when the car has just been invented. And even if it's true that the best horses were faster than the first cars, I don't have time to indulge in the nuts and bolts of another program that will be cast into obsolescence.

I use iTunes and I've used it for the past few years. While I've focused on all of the things I hate about it, it's still the best app for my purposes. I'm looking forward to their cloud service which is supposed to recognize your albums and stream them to you without you having to upload your collection. I've mentioned this before, but people want to insist that I'm trolling.

 

don't take my word for it. See below. I've attached a few pics of Foobar with my current skin.

Solution: don't browse by album covers. That's ridiculous. This:



Is how most of us cool kids browse. We do it because it's infinitely more efficient. You still see all the album covers, but you have the SUPERIOR column browsing menu to sort fast.

I really have no idea why anyone would use the Grid or Cover Flow views. They're so inefficient unless you have an extremely small library (as you can see, I do not).

Best I can offer you, man. If you don't want to use the better views in iTunes to sort your music...or if you don't want to be bothered learning Foobar...you're just gonna be mad. But you've now been made aware...and if you need help, people on these forums are usually happy to help should you simply ask rather than pissing and moaning. As they say, you get more from people with sugar than lemons.

Otherwise, good luck.

 

Okay, I think this topic has pretty much come as far as it will go--thread locked.