Do you think iTunes is bloated?

[kirkmc]

Again, you're trading off a pleasant user experience with a certain amount of bloat. But if you do not have an iPod, and never buy music online, then its bloat that provides no benefit. It's mostly unobtrusive, but not quite. It's mostly costless, but not quite. So the people that complain about bloat the most are those that use the fewest options of the program.

Yes, the people who seem the most vehement about this, in my research this week, are those I queried in an audiobook forum. Most of them use iTunes only for loading audiobooks onto their iPods. Some use it for music, but relatively few. (As if, curiously, most people who are big audibooks fans really don't listen to music...) So they naturally see anything that does more than load audibooks as "bloat".

Which returns to the root question, though. Is a program bloated just because it has features that _you_ don't use? That's a bit self-centered. One person, in a classical music forum, said that the feature in iTunes that allows you to convert files to other formats is bloat. Another replied, no, this is a feature I use all the time. So in the end, there's no objective way to answer this question, and the whole point of my raising it was to see what subjective criteria people used to make this statement.

[HermanHiddema]

Which returns to the root question, though. Is a program bloated just because it has features that _you_ don't use? That's a bit self-centered. One person, in a classical music forum, said that the feature in iTunes that allows you to convert files to other formats is bloat. Another replied, no, this is a feature I use all the time. So in the end, there's no objective way to answer this question, and the whole point of my raising it was to see what subjective criteria people used to make this statement.

Although bloat is somewhat subjective, and the perception thereof depends on the user's needs, you can say that a program is more bloated in general if it has a feature set that is very disjunct and that almost none of its users need entirely. A feature set is disjunct if the features are mostly unrelated.

Most movie players, for example, can play tons of file formats and codecs. But that does not mean it is bloated, because all those codecs are closely related to the single purpose of the program: showing video. Photoshop has an enormous amount of features that most users never use. But all of them are related to the program's core function: editing images.

The old Netscape Communicator (and later Mozilla) on the other hand, includes web browsing, news reading and mail reading. Those are mostly unrelated features (their closest relation is probably that they are both "stuff that involves the internet"). That's where the bloat sets in.

iTunes, similarly, has a few functions that are somewhat disjunct. Playing music and putting files on iPod are related mostly as "stuff involving music". So it is more bloated, in general, than programs that play only music or only sync your device. As I said before, that's a choice Apple made. It helps the user, because it requires less effort on their part. It just works. But "It just works" comes at a price, because nothing is ever free. The price is a certain amount of bloat.

It is, I think, quite similar to the Windows vs. Linux issue. There is very little that Windows can do that Linux can't. The biggest difference, to the end user, is that on Windows stuff "just works". That's because Microsoft put in a ton of "just works" functionality at the cost of being more bloated. Linux is the OS of choice for a lot of technical stuff, because that's where technically knowledgeable people prefer to have a lean system that needs some expert setup, rather than a more bloated one that just works.

[amnal]

Which returns to the root question, though. Is a program bloated just because it has features that _you_ don't use? That's a bit self-centered. One person, in a classical music forum, said that the feature in iTunes that allows you to convert files to other formats is bloat. Another replied, no, this is a feature I use all the time. So in the end, there's no objective way to answer this question, and the whole point of my raising it was to see what subjective criteria people used to make this statement.

Which returns to the root problem: if anyone comments who does not use every single itunes feature and consider it essential, they are not the target user and are using it wrongly, and therefore are not qualified to comment.

Thus, itunes cannot possibly be bloated. Cunning.

[flOvermind]

You say it's not that the apps use more memory, but the system shows that memory as being allocated to the apps. So what you say is more or less what I said, in a different way, that the figure shown as "real memory" is not a valid figure as to how much memory an app is using. Is that correct?

No, I'm saying that the system does *not* show the cache as being allocated to the apps. It is only shown in the summary.

And the other point about the OS basically using what's available also can explain why, for one poster, iTunes is using 300 MB, or why, for me, it uses twice as much memory on one of my Macs as another.

Buffers can't explain that, because they are not counted towards individual app memory usage. There must be some internal difference in the app. Perhaps one has a media library that's bigger the size? Who knows, I have no idea what's going on inside iTunes. I can only tell you what the memory management interface of the OS looks like.

My point being, as I tried to say above, that the amount of memory used by an app really means nothing. Though I'm not totally clear whether this number is closer to reality on Windows... From what you say above, this isn't the case; does that mean that any given app's memory figure is realistic, or is it higher or lower than the amount of memory that the app really _needs_?

Of course, the task manager will tell you just what the applications currently _uses_. Who knows whether it really _needs_ it?
But when the application _uses_ memory, other applications can't use it at the same time. If the app uses memory it doesn't actually need, that memory is occupied, too.

But on the other hand, I have to agree with you that the memory usage of an application should always be taken with a grain of salt. As programming guideline, I would certainly recommend that applications should just allocate memory and rely on the operating system to manage it, instead of trying to be smart. On the other hand, applications should also rely on the operating system cache and not do fancy caching themselves. Especially in the iTunes case, I'm pretty sure there is some internal caching with the media library going on, which would explain the vastly different memory usage numbers on different systems.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion. Actually I'm mostly agreeing with you (on the memory issue, I won't comment on the bloatedness discussion of iTunes, since I'm not an iTunes user). I'm just saying you didn't really understand it, giving plainly wrong arguments, which might be the reason why people don't believe it

Which returns to the root question, though. Is a program bloated just because it has features that _you_ don't use? That's a bit self-centered.

Yes, and yes.

That's the definition of bloated. If a software contains lots of features that _I_ don't need and that get in _my_ way, _I_ consider a software bloated. That's entirely subjective and may vary from user to user. You can try to make it a bit more objective by making a statistic over the user base, that is, ask what percentage of its users consider the software bloated, and for what reasons. But most of the reasons for considering a software bloated will always be subjective.

Personally, I don't really use resource usage in my definition of bloated software. For me things as startup time are much more important. Also a very important factor for me is the user interface. For example, I consider MS Office (and also OpenOffice) bloated, because it has tons of buttons I never need, but that make it hard to find the features I want.

Of course that's self-centered. But I'm not using a software because I'm so nice to the developers of the software. I'm using the software because _I_ get an advantage from it. That's already self-centered in itself . If the software doesn't do what I want, or doesn't do it the way I want it, or uses too many resources and so on, then I won't use it anymore.

I think the problem with iTunes itself is not so much whether it's bloated or not, but that there is no alternative. If there were an alternative method to download files to the iPod, people wouldn't complain about iTunes. They would just switch to the alternative software. Or they wouldn't, but then you could tell everyone complaining they should switch. Either way, it wouldn't make much fuzz

[kirkmc]

Which returns to the root question, though. Is a program bloated just because it has features that _you_ don't use? That's a bit self-centered. One person, in a classical music forum, said that the feature in iTunes that allows you to convert files to other formats is bloat. Another replied, no, this is a feature I use all the time. So in the end, there's no objective way to answer this question, and the whole point of my raising it was to see what subjective criteria people used to make this statement.

Although bloat is somewhat subjective, and the perception thereof depends on the user's needs, you can say that a program is more bloated in general if it has a feature set that is very disjunct and that almost none of its users need entirely. A feature set is disjunct if the features are mostly unrelated.

Most movie players, for example, can play tons of file formats and codecs. But that does not mean it is bloated, because all those codecs are closely related to the single purpose of the program: showing video. Photoshop has an enormous amount of features that most users never use. But all of them are related to the program's core function: editing images.

The old Netscape Communicator (and later Mozilla) on the other hand, includes web browsing, news reading and mail reading. Those are mostly unrelated features (their closest relation is probably that they are both "stuff that involves the internet"). That's where the bloat sets in.

iTunes, similarly, has a few functions that are somewhat disjunct. Playing music and putting files on iPod are related mostly as "stuff involving music". So it is more bloated, in general, than programs that play only music or only sync your device. As I said before, that's a choice Apple made. It helps the user, because it requires less effort on their part. It just works. But "It just works" comes at a price, because nothing is ever free. The price is a certain amount of bloat.

It is, I think, quite similar to the Windows vs. Linux issue. There is very little that Windows can do that Linux can't. The biggest difference, to the end user, is that on Windows stuff "just works". That's because Microsoft put in a ton of "just works" functionality at the cost of being more bloated. Linux is the OS of choice for a lot of technical stuff, because that's where technically knowledgeable people prefer to have a lean system that needs some expert setup, rather than a more bloated one that just works.

With both iTunes and Windows - and, heck, Word, Photoshop or any other "big" program - I see it more as a trade-off between providing features and not requiring users to jump through hoops to put things together. I'm not sure I agree about the old Netscape, though; I remember using it, and I did see a clear relationship at the time among its different "modules". But that was then, in the early days of the Internet; it made a lot more sense. On the other hand, I've used Microsoft Entourage (their Mac email and everything else program), and that left me flummoxed. It combines a good e-mail program, with a mediocre calendar tool, and a very poor project manager. I never grokked why they added the project manager.

[kirkmc]

For example, I consider MS Office (and also OpenOffice) bloated, because it has tons of buttons I never need, but that make it hard to find the features I want.

Hmm, now I consider that to be just bad UI, not bloat. Sure, they both have tons of features, so by some people's criteria they're bloated, but the UI is what makes it hard to find them - or even to know they exist. I wrote an ebook about customizing Office apps - with toolbars, keyboard shortcuts, etc. - and most of the people who wrote me after buying it had absolutely no idea they could do such things. And I don't even think you can blame that on documentation: when software had thick manuals, people didn't read them; when it has help files, people don't read them (and Office's help is actually quite good). I think people simply don't want to look any further than what they see; hence the many toolbars in Word because MS knows people won't find things if they put them elsewhere.

[Aphelion]

Bloat isn't evaluated in a vacuum though. You need to compare your program with respect to other programs with similar functions. If your program offers relatively few (or useful) features for the majority of users for much greater complexity and resource usage, then it can be considered to be bloated.

[HermanHiddema]

With both iTunes and Windows - and, heck, Word, Photoshop or any other "big" program - I see it more as a trade-off between providing features and not requiring users to jump through hoops to put things together.

Providing features "just in case" is known as feature-creep, and is one the main causes of bloat. It is a trade-off indeed. Almost all "user friendlyness" comes at a price

I'm not sure I agree about the old Netscape, though; I remember using it, and I did see a clear relationship at the time among its different "modules". But that was then, in the early days of the Internet; it made a lot more sense.

Yes, in those days the internet was more of a single thing. Netscape provided a single program that dealt with this internet "thing". When Mozilla later followed the same philosophy, that philosophy was outdated, as can be easily seen by the success of separating out the browser, Firefox.

On the other hand, I've used Microsoft Entourage (their Mac email and everything else program), and that left me flummoxed. It combines a good e-mail program, with a mediocre calendar tool, and a very poor project manager. I never grokked why they added the project manager.

More feature-creep

Feature creep is very often the result of "Now that we have X, it's easy to add Y". Now that we have an audio player, it's easy to make it a media player, because movie files are video plus audio, and we've already done the audio part anyway. Now that we have a calendar, it's easy to add a project manager, because project management requires a lot of calendar scheduling, and we've already got that part.

[kirkmc]

Feature creep is very often the result of "Now that we have X, it's easy to add Y". Now that we have an audio player, it's easy to make it a media player, because movie files are video plus audio, and we've already done the audio part anyway. Now that we have a calendar, it's easy to add a project manager, because project management requires a lot of calendar scheduling, and we've already got that part.

Well, I understand the logic in both cases. For iTunes, once they started allowing videos and photos on the iPod, they wanted a way to get those files there, and it does make sense to be able to view videos, at least, in iTunes. When they added movie rentals, for example, that added to this usefulness. You can, of course, say they didn't really need these things, and could have made different apps, but I still feel the ease of use is enhanced by having one single program to sync the wide variety of content you can put on iPods (and iPads).

With Entourage, there was some sense as well, especially because I think it connects with Exchange Server, which offers those tools.

So the broader question is really one of what choices are there - add things to one app, or make separate apps. In my opinion, combining makes a lot more sense, but you'll always end up with users who don't use a lot of the features.

Let's not forget that as computers mature, users are more familiar with the process of computing, and with working with applications. So I think a lot of negative opinions about "fully-featured apps" come from people with memories of the old days, when such programs did slow things down a lot.

[HermanHiddema]

Well, I understand the logic in both cases. For iTunes, once they started allowing videos and photos on the iPod, they wanted a way to get those files there, and it does make sense to be able to view videos, at least, in iTunes. When they added movie rentals, for example, that added to this usefulness. You can, of course, say they didn't really need these things, and could have made different apps, but I still feel the ease of use is enhanced by having one single program to sync the wide variety of content you can put on iPods (and iPads).

The logic is usually there, but the thing is that features often just keep creeping

Now that we have video, we might as well add image viewing, because a lot of the same compression principles are involved.
Now that we can view video and images, and play music, we might as well ad a web browser, because a lot of the web today is images and video.
Now that we have a web browser, why don't we expend it to allow access to ftp sites as well, we have the networking code after all.
Now that we can show FTP directory listings, how about we make it a full fledged file management application as well.
With file management in place, lets expand it to be an operating system

With Entourage, there was some sense as well, especially because I think it connects with Exchange Server, which offers those tools.

So the broader question is really one of what choices are there - add things to one app, or make separate apps. In my opinion, combining makes a lot more sense, but you'll always end up with users who don't use a lot of the features.

Personally, I prefer the plugin approach, where you can expand the same program to do what you need. Firefox takes that approach, where the browser does a basic thing and there's a million plugins that you can use to tweak it to your preference.

iTunes could have taken that approach: "Have an iPod? Install the sync plugin!". It would mean less bloat, but more user action, less "just works out of the box". Apple, I think, has always been a fan of "Just works out of the box". Apple is almost synonymous with user friendliness, and I think they felt that for iTunes, the monolithic approach was the right way to go.

[kirkmc]

Personally, I prefer the plugin approach, where you can expand the same program to do what you need. Firefox takes that approach, where the browser does a basic thing and there's a million plugins that you can use to tweak it to your preference.

iTunes could have taken that approach: "Have an iPod? Install the sync plugin!". It would mean less bloat, but more user action, less "just works out of the box". Apple, I think, has always been a fan of "Just works out of the box". Apple is almost synonymous with user friendliness, and I think they felt that for iTunes, the monolithic approach was the right way to go.

I'm often hesitant about plug-ins, and how they affect the operation of a program. I've seen how they can be detrimental with web browsers (perhaps not Firefox, but others), and I'm not convinced that they don't slow things down. Apple just introduced extensions for Safari, and I'm not sure it's going to be a good way to go, regarding performance.

For iTunes, I think the logic is more that of not burdening the user with deciding what to install. You could, of course, have the program download the necessary plug-in for, say, a specific iPod (which OS X does, quite well, for printer drivers), but I'm not sure that would change a whole lot.

[flOvermind]

For example, I consider MS Office (and also OpenOffice) bloated, because it has tons of buttons I never need, but that make it hard to find the features I want.

Hmm, now I consider that to be just bad UI, not bloat. Sure, they both have tons of features, so by some people's criteria they're bloated, but the UI is what makes it hard to find them - or even to know they exist.

Bad UI is just a symptom, and bloated software might be the cause.

Of course there are different reasons that have nothing to do with UI. For example, I don't really understand why Visual Studio needs 2 GB of my hard drive, while Eclipse needs only 200 MB. Or why MS Office needs a full 700 MB CD, while the download of Open Office has only about 150 MB for roughly the same (perceived) feature set.

That's all reasons why software is considered bloated by some people. Saying a software is "bloated" basically boils down to saying it is "too big". That may refer to feature complexity, or to resource usage, speed, download size, whatever. A bad UI might be a symptom of the software being bloated. Or it might just be a symptom of the UI designers not doing their work well. But in general, simpler software will have simpler UI. Of course, a good UI designer might be able to make the UI simpler without removing features. But on the other hand, wouldn't the UI be still simpler when removing the "unnecessary" features *and* employing the good UI designer?

It's clear that this is highly subjective. Who decides what features are unnecessary?

Of course, if a user wants nothing than copying music to the iPod, then this user would consider iTunes extremely bloated, because every single feature of it is unnecessary when you compare it to the simple "Thumb Drive" approach used by other MP3 players. Compared to that, even having to install a special software might be enough to tick this user off, because with other products you just have to plug it in and copy the files over. (Disclaimer: That's just speculation on my part from what I've heard about iTunes, I have never actually used it myself so I couldn't tell if it's really that bad).

But in my opinion, that doesn't tell anything about iTunes being bloated or not. The underlying problem is the inability to copy music to the iPod without using iTunes, which is clearly overkill if you don't want to use the other features of the program. That would be like having to install Photoshop just to take some screenshots. Photoshop is a great software, but if someone would just use it to make screenshots, this user would probably call it bloated too. Fortunately, we have simpler drawing programs to choose from, so the issue doesn't arise

So there you have the reason why people think iTunes is bloated: (Actually what I think why people think ... I think you get the idea )
They are actually using the wrong software!
It's not that iTunes is bad. iTunes is a great piece of software. It might just be that it's the wrong tool for the job for some people. There are people that need iTunes, and there are people that don't need it. The people that don't need it consider it bloated.
So why are these people using iTunes? Because they have to. If you want to copy music to your iPod, you are forced to use iTunes, with all the other features that you don't need.
The people complaining about iTunes are not really saying iTunes is bad. They actually don't want a better iTunes, they want something entirely different.

That doesn't really say much about the quality of iTunes, which is great at the job it was designed for. Contrary to the popular opinion, I don't think it's bloated in itself. But it's often misused for something that isn't it's primary function, because there is no other tool available. However, that fact does say something about the quality of the iPod

[quantumf]

I think the problem with iTunes itself is not so much whether it's bloated or not, but that there is no alternative. If there were an alternative method to download files to the iPod, people wouldn't complain about iTunes.

I assume you're talking about the Mac here? But even then, I find that hard to believe. Anyway, on Windows, I use my preferred media tool, MediaMonkey, to do my ipod synching.

[cdybeijing]

I wish this forum had an option to dislike posts. That would not be bloat.

[kirkmc]

flOvermind, valid points all.

While one can criticize Apple for not allowing other programs to access the iPod, I understand their reasoning: it's the "we're not beige box makers" logic. Apple doesn't want to have to deal with support for people who are using different software, which could muck up the way the iPod works. If you provide both the hardware and the software, you don't become like Dell who has to provide support for things out of their control. Apple is more able to tell what causes a problem because it's both their software and hardware.

It's a trade-off: if you don't like that idea, don't buy an iPod (or iPhone, or iPad). If you do want to buy an iPod, then you accept that you'll use the software that goes with it. And if you really want an iPod but not iTunes, you can always use Rockbox (if that's still being developed).