iTunes and Apple rant

[Fudzy]

Ummm... I've got a Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 so I do actually know how transferring works. Please do me a favour and try copy 2 file at the same time but separately. It will crash and your device disconnects. So you have to copy something from one folder and then wait for that to copy and then copy something else. iTunes negates this completely.

I haaate MTP

 

[Abe]

Ummm... I've got a Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 so I do actually know how transferring works. Please do me a favour and try copy 2 file at the same time but separately. It will crash and your device disconnects. So you have to copy something from one folder and then wait for that to copy and then copy something else. iTunes negates this completely.

Didn't experience this while copying files onto our Nexus 7's. I did copy multiple files across at the same time. It's not a clever thing to do though from a technical standpoint because your copy will end up taking longer because of the disk head movement. I only did it because I was doing something else at the time and wasn't really worried about how long it took and didn't have an internet connection on the box so I couldn't put on a better copy application. What you should do is use something like teracopy which will queue the copies.

If you understand the architecture of the underlying OS then you will realise that it doesn't matter if you copy 10 files at the same time. If you experienced this sort of issue, it was more than likely related some either a faulty USB cable or a problematic driver and would have had something to do with the throughput over the connection rather than the fact that you were copying multiple files.

 

[Maverick Jester]

Ummm... I've got a Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 so I do actually know how transferring works. Please do me a favour and try copy 2 file at the same time but separately. It will crash and your device disconnects. So you have to copy something from one folder and then wait for that to copy and then copy something else. iTunes negates this completely.

Very strange that yours does that, I multi-copy files all the time. Just copied two different videos, to two completely different directories on my Nexus 4, and it coped seamlessly. Sounds like more of a Windows issue than an Android one.

FWIW- iTunes can and does crash. It bricked my old iPod this way.

 

[Maverick Jester]

If you understand the architecture of the underlying OS then you will realise that it doesn't matter if you copy 10 files at the same time. If you experienced this sort of issue, it was more than likely related some either a faulty USB cable or a problematic driver and would have had something to do with the throughput over the connection rather than the fact that you were copying multiple files.

Agreed.

 

[Maverick Jester]

I haaate MTP

Whilst I hate it as well, it has gotten a lot better. Even using my Nexus 4 in Ubuntu is easier (if still littered with workarounds).

 

[Abe]

Not entirely. Drive does not hold application data and rosters, purchase history, linked device information, etc. Drive is more similar to Dropbox than iTunes.

On it's own, yes. I probably said it wrong. When I open an attachment in Gmail, it opens in Google drive. The problem is that google have a bunch of seperate services that happen to be integrated. There is not really a single name for them.

You do get both. Apple just merge the two aspects together because of the way that their ecosystem works. It doesn't mean that they are dependent on one another, though.

The one leverages the other. It's still an artificial limitation that restricts access to one of them.

So this is why I prefer to dissociate file system access and transferring, with account syncing and management- they are mutually independent of one another. Apple and Google's reasons for applying their different file system access policies, differ as a result.

So it kind of comes back to what I initially said- iTunes is not for you (it isn't for everyone, myself included), and you should move over to Android. It gives you the freedom that you prefer. Using Apple devices to the fullest encourages a lifestyle change- in terms of the way you consume media, and the hardware that you use to consume this media. I think that those running a full suite of Apple hardware would agree that the interoperability of Apple's different hardware products, is second to none, and is a lifestyle choice to accept and utilise.

Probably

 

[Abe]

Whoa now you're talking about two totally different kinds of syncing here. One is core data which doesn't require interaction at all. That's handled already by Apple fairly well in iCloud. It could be better and there's a fair number of developer complaints but it's in place at least. But this kind of syncing is media and content, and that requires an enormous overhead from the user no matter what. If you have two conflicting libraries you literally need to ask the user what they want to do in every instance where there could be a potential issue, or else you'll end up duplicating and spamming up and creating basically junk in their music folder.

No, technically they are the same thing. You put media in a "box" as a special case when it really doesn't need to be. Remember, these are not multiple users, it's a single user with multiple environments. There is also a logical layout to music. Album-Song. The same album is added in two places and we have a conflict where we can prompt the user on an action. Otherwise it's just add the new albums. It doesn't matter if the same song exists in 4 places. In fact, that's exactly what my brother in law has. Often songs are in 2 or 3 places on different albums. You are over complicating it.

In my case for instance I've painstakingly labelled all of my ministry messages and spoken word into categories and albums and so forth by hand. Now you go and sync with another computer and what's going to happen to all of that? It's all going to go straight to hell that's what.

Why? You sync the new objects to the new location. I am sorry but I don't see what the problem is. How would this work in iCloud? Device 1 -> Cloud -> Device 2. All we are doing is Device 1 -> Device 2.

Heavens no. That's totally wrong. Google Drive is like Dropbox. You sync files and folders over the cloud. iCloud is for syncing core data - think game saves, contacts, photostreams, application settings, purchased apps, that sort of thing.

Please see my response to Maverick. The problem is that google doesn't have a name for their eco system.

There's plenty of reason. If you can manage user data without needing to gain file system access, you protect the device from a host of potential issues. For that matter, Android doesn't actually give you full file system access out of the box - you need to root it to get that. What they do is partition off a visible chunk that's dedicated to media, and leave the OS file system guarded off.

But more importantly, the iOS file system is extremely difficult to navigate. It's all based around a Unix structure. Content is located with the application, so you can't just shunt things around. It's very easy to break and I have broken things by not knowing what I was doing in there.

But they do it with photos. The only difference is the meta data.

 

[cerebus]

No, technically they are the same thing. You put media in a "box" as a special case when it really doesn't need to be. Remember, these are not multiple users, it's a single user with multiple environments. There is also a logical layout to music. Album-Song.

Album-Song is far from the sole logical layout of the music. The information side can be highly complex. On my iTunes it's structured by Creator, Album, Song, Music Type, bookmarks, Year, etc; by hand. I suppose one could manage all that in the cloud, and iCloud does manage whatever was bought through iTunes. But what are you getting at? You really think adding an album in 2 places is a working solution?

Why? You sync the new objects to the new location. I am sorry but I don't see what the problem is. How would this work in iCloud? Device 1 -> Cloud -> Device 2. All we are doing is Device 1 -> Device 2.

In iTunes the way you do it is: 1) you transfer the existing content from iPad to iTunes. That doesn't require a sync. Then 2) you re-sync with that version of iTunes which now has all of the content from your iPad plus whatever was on there before. That enables you to control whatever goes onto your iPad without jumbling it up. What's wrong with that solution? The last place you want to be organising this stuff is on the device.

Please see my response to Maverick. The problem is that google doesn't have a name for their eco system.

I forgot what the point of this is. All of Google's cloud services work quite well on iOS. iCloud also works pretty well on iOS.

But they do it with photos. The only difference is the meta data.

Yes but that's because photos only exist in one location on the device. Everything else is sandboxed by app. They could open a mass storage folder for every application but what's the point? iTunes handles that metadata far better than the user could themselves.

 

[Maverick Jester]

On it's own, yes. I probably said it wrong. When I open an attachment in Gmail, it opens in Google drive. The problem is that google have a bunch of seperate services that happen to be integrated. There is not really a single name for them.

There is- it's called Google. It is not as unified as the Apple one, but this is by design.

The one leverages the other. It's still an artificial limitation that restricts access to one of them.

I disagree. It is a limitation by design. It's a very obtuse way of doing things yes, but it is one that simplifies things for Apple.

Probably

I definitely think that you would be happier using it...

 

[Abe]

Album-Song is far from the sole logical layout of the music. The information side can be highly complex. On my iTunes it's structured by Creator, Album, Song, Music Type, bookmarks, Year, etc; by hand. I suppose one could manage all that in the cloud, and iCloud does manage whatever was bought through iTunes. But what are you getting at? You really think adding an album in 2 places is a working solution?

Song data is just object meta data. Remember that the same song could be done differently on different albums so there is often a reason for keeping both copies. Between devices, nothing has to sync automatically. I have spotify on my computer at home. I can tick a box to make any list available offline. Check a box and it syncs. iTunes already does that. Its just about letting it work that way with multiple devices.

In iTunes the way you do it is: 1) you transfer the existing content from iPad to iTunes. That doesn't require a sync. Then 2) you re-sync with that version of iTunes which now has all of the content from your iPad plus whatever was on there before. That enables you to control whatever goes onto your iPad without jumbling it up. What's wrong with that solution? The last place you want to be organising this stuff is on the device.

Because there is a restriction in that it only links to one iTunes library. I can't even tell iTunes to pull anything off an iPad thats linked to a different PC. It's like a magic box thats hooked up to a different door. If my laptop is stolen I am stuffed. Why are there so many external applications that "hack" the interface to allow people to work around the problem if there is no problem?

Yes but that's because photos only exist in one location on the device. Everything else is sandboxed by app. They could open a mass storage folder for every application but what's the point? iTunes handles that metadata far better than the user could themselves.

Thats a poor design. There is no reason to have a shared "data" area that allows multiple applications to share data such as movies. Having data stored with apps is fine in some cases but not all cases.