“Safari’s weak market position allows for Google to make bold moves, as evidenced by their recent discontinuation of h.264 support within their Chrome browser in favor of its WebM video codec,” Reschke reports. “While this isn’t a direct affront to iTunes or Safari, it is an attempt to further alienate the iOS platform, which also damages Safari.”
Reschke reports, “It is believed that Safari will be the only browser able to access iTunes, as iTunes is built into the browser itself. ‘Moving iTunes organizational side-bar into Safari isn’t a monumental task’ claimed a source, adding ‘Safari would skyrocket in use as a result of integrating the software titles together.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Are you talking about iTunes the player of iTunes the (music/app/everything else) Store?
I completely disagree with a music player merging with Safari.
I can’t really complain for the Store as it’s merely that on iOS.
Very interesting. A response to Eric de Mole’s WebM.
I wish Steve Jobs would pen a letter addressing the whole video thing, or better yet have Apple buy out the rights to 264
With both being based on webkit technology, the process should be smooth and seamless.
@Kelly McNeill
Hahaha….you said “smooth and seamless” lol
I don’t see the advantage of this move.
I also think this is a move to do away from the name iTunes, since it much more than just music now. Safari will be the main name for the software. itunes will just be a category.
Interesting idea, but why? If the primary reason is to force users to use Safari if they want access to iTunes, then that reason seems bogus. Many users, including Apple lovers, prefer other browsers over Safari. Why force customers into one product for no technological reason other than screwing Google. That just doesn’t seem like Apple’s way.
This idea reeks of bloatware.
But Apple have to do something to counter the evil moves by Google.
In my opinion they would be better splitting iTunes up.
Apple forcing people to use their browser to do things? Sounds eerily similar to how Microsoft used to behave. I wonder if people will have similar outrage to this? But since it’s Apple, probably not…
And in other news, apple predicted to merge QuickTime and flash. Rumoured to be called “quash”. Oh wait, screwgle already did that Flogg Theory
If this happens I’ll move to Chrome.
@ericdano I wonderd about the possibility of Apple just buying the rights (or whatever it would be) for h.264 for MPEG-LA (.. is that the right group? I really shouldn’t have an opinion if I’m this clueless) and removing the royalties associated with it. I suppose it’s not that easy.
I hope this rumor isn’t true. iTunes does too much as it is. It needs to spin off synchronization and the app store into separate applications. It wouldn’t hurt to separate music and videos, either.
The only thing iTunes doesn’t do is word processing, it seems.
3 of the apps i have on my mac mini, is safari, itunes, app store. Why have 3 apps open at same time when you can have just one. Everything could be accessed by just clicking on a category like itunes is now. better yet, they can add the mail app inside it too
I value privacy and don’t like the idea of having accessing my entire music libraby on a web browser. Horsefeathers! Poppycock! You better believe it!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”snake” style=”border:0;” />
First impressions – I don’t want my browser to do anything other than browse, I certainly don’t want iTunes in my browser.
After thinking about it a bit longer – If any company can make this work it will be Apple but I hope they are doing it for the right reasons and not boost Safari’s use or to combat Google Chrome because of some competing codec squabble.
What kind of uproar will this create in Europe if iTunes can only be found on Safari. MS didn’t fair to well when their OS had IE tightly integrated, even though other web browsers were out there to download, which cannot be said of iTunes… Just throwing that out there.
Addendum:
I know iTunes is available for PC as a download, but will that option change if Safari and iTunes merge to become one, thus funneling people to Safari? What of the others?
It doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. It would generate more cries of tyranny from Apple.
iTunes is the backbone of the IOS world, and it seems to work close to flawlessly for an app that big, and in constant flux. Why mess with this, unless it can be made substantially better?
The history of integrated software is littered with failures (e.g.Works packages, Netscape Communicator)
iTunes Store shopping from the browser? OK. Not much different from Amazon of Netflix.
Media playback? No thank you.
Whether you use Safari or not, if you use iTunes, the net effect of this would be nil. You would use one application (Safari) to use iTunes. Safari users move from 2 apps to 1.
I use Firefox. So, the net effect for me is zip unless there are other advantages that may be produced from the combination of the two apps. Maybe itunes will bring some new capability to the Apple TV, for example. Full browser capability (must include Flash) and would combine the apps that are separated on the ATV like You Tube and Netflix. This would add Hulu, Pandora and a host of others.
…just thinking out loud…
Not a very good idea in my opinion.
iTunes needs to be more clearly defined at some point, but I don’t know that merging with Safari is the answer.
For years, the iTunes name has been outdated.
I was hoping for some time that would rename iTunes “iMedia” with sub-categories:
• iTunes for music and music videos
• iBooks for books
• iNewstand for magazine and newspaper subscriptions & purchases
• App Store for all App Stores with tabs for iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad and Mac
• iMovie for movies rentals & purchases (if iMovie editing software is renamed)
• iTV for television rentals & purchases
• Podcasts
• A separate iSync app that is used for all syncing to devices
The biggest problem would be educating consumers on the name switch
Thing is – if Apple does it…it will succeed. Period. 80% of people could not care less about browsers. Just need it to work. Remember when people use to point at the IE icon and call it “the Internet” – LOL. Most just don’t care. But if they need it to sync iPhone and iPods and iPads – they WILL use it.
Safarunes?
iTari?
Cool!
Time for Google to pay the price for there actions. If not they will take over the web. We need Apple to makes things right. Microsoft just does not seem to care even though they are loosing IE market share. Google is evil. Eric T Mole is the leader.
To consider this move is brilliant yet lacking in sheer complacency.
Seems like a weird idea, and frankly I doubt this rumor is even true.
Still, I’m sure Apple can use the release of this rumor to track down some information leakers among their ranks…
Bearman341
You are right…Google is evil. Never trust them…ever.
“We are highly skeptical of the claim for a number of reasons, including significant reservations due to the rumor’s source, which has in the past appeared to base its claims on significant amounts of speculation.“
“Sounds eerily similar to how Microsoft used to behave. I wonder if people will have similar outrage to this? But since it’s Apple, probably not…”
This is like screaming “IMMA TROLL. I LIEK TO ANNOY PEEPLE”
Apple is frequently targeted with “EVIL” BS, when in fact Google is even closer than Microsoft from representing the ultimate evil company
@lukesmymac
The original poster was correct. Forcing users to use Safari to access what is now the world’s leading content store is questionable. Admittedly the comparison with Micro$oft is not quite apposite, since Safari is a free download, but it would certainly draw scrutiny that Apple may prefer to avoid. So I don’t see it happening.
Having said that, it’s a bloated mess right now that needs fixing. iTunes with books, apps and iPhone support doesn’t make sense. I envisage a suite of 2 or 3 programs, one for device content management and one for commerce and library management, with a common database. But who knows…
This is total hogwash. It’s not going to happen. It makes no sense.
1) Consider how many apps Apple bundles, yet keeps segregated into different apps (see iLife, iWork, Mail, iCal, etc…). This really isn’t an Apple way of doing things.
2) There’s no “browser market share” benefit to doing this. What counts for browser market share statistics is actual use of the browser. If people are using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or IE instead of Safari now, why would they start surfing with Safari simply because iTunes is part of it?
3) It’s likely people would stop surfing with Safari if it one with iTunes. People need to use browsers for work related tasks or tasks where reliability is important (purchases, etc…), they don’t want their browser to freeze up, crash, or bog down because of an issue with syncing with their iOS device.
4) It’s adding to the biggest complaint about iTunes…bloat and subsequently speed…and then extending that to Safari. Apple makes money from what iTunes enables. iTunes is friggin’ gold, not to be messed with. Safari is a “nice to have” that has no direct revenue associated with it.
5) iTunes functionality could be added to Safari…though I still don’t see much of a need for this. As it is, the iTunes store recently added and has been improving its web presence. If anything, I could see Apple enabling more of the iTunes store from within Safari, but that’s different from integrating the iTunes app into Safari. This makes even more sense with the App Store.
@Harry
“Safarunes?
iTari?”
Perhaps a version could be cracked to allow illegal downloads and it could be called AyeTari or ArrrrghTari.
Complaint about iTunes is that it’s bloated because it tries to deliver too much content in the narrow confines of how it was defined 9 years ago. Flip that on its head – iTunes is a browser with content limited to music, videos, apps and books. All of which you can find, but not one click purchase, on any other, less limited browser. Now, add one click purchase to safari. So safari subsumes the purchase mechanic of iTunes. Not saying it’s going to happen, just pointing out bloat is defined by perception of the software’s initial purpose, not its actual realisation.
Also, arses.
iTunes is already a specialized web browser. iTunes is probably being rewritten from the ground up. The next major version probably won’t even be called “iTunes,” since its functionality has surpassed that old name from the Mac OS 9 “digital jukebox” days. It should be called something like “Apple Central” or “iHub.”
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
BAD idea Apple if true….
For me, iTunes is a very capable and flexible way to manage music libraries of almost any size. I don’t want or need it to be more than that, and merging iTunes with Safari sounds like a terrible idea to me. Almost as bad as removing the Home button from the iPhone!
I don’t see the problem. If they integrate Safari into iTunes then this will great.
If Apple should buy anything, I’ll vote for Adobe. Next order of business would be to put out an End-Of-Life notice for Flash and stop all development cold in its tracks. 2nd order of business would be to put the Windows development team (now consisting of 2 engineers) into their new office out in the woodshed, and transfer all others to the Mac team.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
They said that about the floppy also.
Apple will do what it needs to, it will not let some 2 bit company run by a Backstabing, “pink” 2 gallon cowbow hat S.O.B, come in and do what another company did years ago.
Apple and Steve have the scares, they will fight and they do not forget.
Remember that, all you under 35 year olds that really live up to think google is the the best thing, the are a full 360* on what Apple was like and how things where in the 70’s,.
I lived that part of history, and am glad to stand up to correct it when it goes off course.
Fail to see the need for this. Safari and iTunes
work well as presently formulated.
The author has ho sense of history or legal ramifications from doing this, ergo he’s an idiot looking for hits.
MSFT was sued by the DOJ for bundling IE with Windows, then making it near impossible to use any other browser. Merging iTunes with Safari, then denying any other browser to access iTunes, is exactly the same OFFENSE.
“This is total hogwash. It’s not going to happen. It makes no sense.
1) Consider how many apps Apple bundles, yet keeps segregated into different apps (see iLife, iWork, Mail, iCal, etc…). This really isn’t an Apple way of doing things.
2) There’s no “browser market share” benefit to doing this. What counts for browser market share statistics is actual use of the browser. If people are using Firefox, Chrome, Opera or IE instead of Safari now, why would they start surfing with Safari simply because iTunes is part of it?
3) It’s likely people would stop surfing with Safari if it one with iTunes. People need to use browsers for work related tasks or tasks where reliability is important (purchases, etc…), they don’t want their browser to freeze up, crash, or bog down because of an issue with syncing with their iOS device.
4) It’s adding to the biggest complaint about iTunes…bloat and subsequently speed…and then extending that to Safari. Apple makes money from what iTunes enables. iTunes is friggin’ gold, not to be messed with. Safari is a “nice to have” that has no direct revenue associated with it.
5) iTunes functionality could be added to Safari…though I still don’t see much of a need for this. As it is, the iTunes store recently added and has been improving its web presence. If anything, I could see Apple enabling more of the iTunes store from within Safari, but that’s different from integrating the iTunes app into Safari. This makes even more sense with the App Store.”
Perfect way to ensure Safari *loses* more ground to other browsers.
What next, incorporate Address Book, iCal and iWeb? Netscape anyone? 🙁
What a total crock-o-shit.
iTunes is already a bit bloated, so what would be the point of smooshing it and Safari together?
Why on earth would anyone merge a media player-management-store application with a browser?
This probably originates from some dark, stinky, Apple-hating corner of some mom’s basement.
you’v got to be kiding me!!!
THE GUY WHO WROTE THIS WAS AN IDIOT WHO KNOWS VERRY LITTLE ABOUT WHAT HESS TALKING ABOUT!!
now I could see them putting the store in safari, and having you get music that way. but he said “…Moving iTunes organizational side-bar into Safari …”
um no
firstly, puting sidebars on webrowsers (and almost anything else) is ugly and a flat out bad idea (it reminds me of midnight commander, bleh)
secondly, apple does a pretty good job of keeping the jobs of applications separate but very well integrated.
it would take a short after noon of work to make you use safari for store purchases and to support playing audio in your library from webpages, in fact the second one can be done in just a few lines of applescript.
or they could take two aleardy large applications and make one slow large ugly application out of it. but that doesn’t “just work” and so apple probably won’t
Stupid. Apple knows it. It will not happen.
While we’re at it, might as well put the Mac App Store in there too.
This could go from ‘funny joke’ to nightmare real quick… I haven’t touched Safari in months, and everytime I’m forced to use it, It’s a painfully slow experience… there’s the beachball yea yea yea…
The idea of merging two of WindowsLovers’ most hated products, and making them, for the most part, mandatory (unless you don’t use iTunes, Music, your iPod, your iPad, etc), is pretty funny.. Can you imagine the convulsions Thurrott will go into when he is forced to use SafariTunes 6 just to update his new iPad? heheheh
I’m a Mac user for life, but I’m on the iTunes side.. I hate Safari, think it’s beach-ball hell. Don’t destroy iTunes guys.. although we all know doing so would give you Microsoftian (eg. unearned) market share in browsers
please don’t make Safari any slower!
While i agree that iTunes need an overhaul, over at Macrumors the bozos are going apeshit …. Oh the horror … No no no
They don’t know that iTunes is nothing but a browser and Safari plays media already, so no big deal.
Makes total sense for Apple to make this move. I’m sure they have been planning this all along.
Oh yeah i use Safari all day long and it never crashes on me.
This makes no sense. Wasn’t it this type of integration issue that got Microsoft condemned ?
No, you people have no clue. M$ was bundling IE and made it difficult for other browsers to install. Plus they prohibited PC manufacturers from installing other browsers on the PCs they sold, thus abusing a monopoly.
Apple is not doing any of these things.
Ubermac,
How does only allowing iTunes access via Safari on a Mac not constitute “abusing a monopoly” when iTunes is the major Application for buying music on a Mac?
If you cannot access iTunes (a separate program) without running Safari, isn’t that the same similar issue?
What if this isn’t what’s really going on?
What if what’s really going on here is different, but sounds like what they’re describing?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Apple was integrating some sort of front-end to a subscription service (massive new datacenter, anyone?) that is usable from a browser. In fact, you could use any browser, any where, as long as it is either iTunes or Safari!
How many people would start using Safari if they could use it to access their entire iTunes library online? What if there were no other browsers capable of doing this? Apple owns the service, and the data center. They’d be well within their rights to limit access in that way.
Not a credible rumor, IMO.
Hello people! Wakey wakey! iTunes is a browser – a browser that only lets you visit one specific web site. As has already been pointed out, iTunes and Safari are both WebKit based. There’s nothing to fear here if the two were to merge.
Geez and Mcrosoft got sued for offering a free web browser with their operating system.
Where the hell are the anti-trucst attorney’s now??? Safari will be the ONLYbrowser able to access itunes..
You Macheads got your way, BIG BROTHER IS HERE.
(and you thought apple’s 1984 commercial was about IBM, no no no.. is was just foreshadowing the future of APPLE.
Apple = Corp greedy scum. (It seems to go against everything macheads stand for because has become the new Microsoft)
To my mind, writing service do custom essay about this good post. Moreover, that is an opportunity to buy essays to have an academic success.