Topic: Next -- Mac? (Read 6921 times)

lpr · « **on:** May 28, 2009, 10:50:48 pm »

I have a secret wish... I would love to see a Mac port of MC, at least for the audio part... There is not one software on the Mac that come close to the power of MC for my music library management and playback. This is an open market that could be exploited, as long as iTunes ignores flac and ape...

Just a wish

Magic_Randy · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2009, 11:45:30 pm »

Is it possible to write an Apple iTunes App Store app that could sync music, videos, and pictures from MC? I know there are apps that can write into the iPhone database, I just don't know if the APIs are restricted to not allow syncing media.

Could be a way around the closed Apple policy. You could even sell the iPhone App for a fee.

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** May 29, 2009, 05:00:58 pm »

Quote from: lpr on May 28, 2009, 10:50:48 pm

I have a secret wish... I would love to see a Mac port of MC, at least for the audio part... There is not one software on the Mac that come close to the power of MC for my music library management and playback. This is an open market that could be exploited, as long as iTunes ignores flac and ape...

I'd like to do it, too, but it's still several hundred thousand dollars of work, and I'm not sure of the market on Mac. I also don't trust Apple.

park · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2009, 12:04:03 am »

1. How about a java version of MC? Would it be too slow? Then you could please linux users too.

How about creating the basic browsing/playback functionality of windows MC in a java program, then open sourcing it, allowing programmers to access all of MC's database, and letting the community "finish it off". Songbird would be obvious competition, but you'd have image and video features too, making MC more tempting. You would always be "leading" the development of MC through new features with the windows version, and keeping control of the database. I hear Sun are launching a global "App store". It would be good to be featured on that when it's still young.

I must admit I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sounds like a good idea to me.

2. As suggested in the "Where next?" thread, if itunes were "in synch" with th MC library, then that would cut my need for a mac version of MC a lot. Much of the time I just want to be able to play a tune without having to boot up windows in a VM. I dont import my music into itunes at the moment, because when I make changes in MC the files get disconnected in itunes. Also ratings/playcounts etc. dont get shared, making listening to new music in itunes frustrating.
If MC could synch itune's video list too, that would be cool. I could live without the metadata and viewschemes of MC as long as the actual list of videos in itunes were always up to date, and ratings got synched.

In the living room, I'll still always use MC and theater view to play media. When organizing my data, I dont mind booting up windows on the mac and doing the work in there. But simple playback of media on the mac is still the gaping hole in my life.

pank2002 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2009, 04:06:28 am »

A QT or even better a GTK+ version of MC would be great. That would make it work on linux...

Marty3d · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2009, 05:33:14 pm »

Not that I own an iPhone, but why not start sniffing the market by making a mini-MC for that? It would of course be very simplified, but the core MC technology is so good, it would be a shame if "the others" didn't have the chance to awe

park · « **Reply #6 on:** June 01, 2009, 08:44:09 pm »

http://lifehacker.com/5273791/synchronize-nearly-any-storage-device-with-itunes

Software that adds itself as a device to itunes. I think that's the wrong approach though. If itune's library is just one big xml type document (which i heard from somewhere), then something like MC could in theory, just open it up, check that all the paths to the songs are the same as MC's, and synch playcounts/ratings/last played using the same logic it uses to sync with ipods currently. And since it's only working with itune's library file (which the user could put on a nat drive), it would be able to synch with mac itunes or windows itunes wouldnt it?

bspachman · « **Reply #7 on:** June 02, 2009, 02:34:14 pm »

Quote from: park on June 01, 2009, 08:44:09 pm

If itune's library is just one big xml type document (which i heard from somewhere), then something like MC could in theory, just open it up, check that all the paths to the songs are the same as MC's, and synch playcounts/ratings/last played using the same logic it uses to sync with ipods currently. And since it's only working with itune's library file (which the user could put on a nat drive), it would be able to synch with mac itunes or windows itunes wouldnt it?

User 'prod' has already done this!

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=51734.0

brad

park · « **Reply #8 on:** June 02, 2009, 08:33:08 pm »

Yeah that looks very good, but it doesnt write to the library files directly does it? So it only works with windows itunes.

bspachman · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2009, 07:18:13 am »

True, but I believe (and I could definitely be wrong here--I'm not a huge iTunes user) that once you use prod's utility, you can quit iTunes, nuke the .xml file and reopen iTunes.

That will recreate the xml file reflecting the current state of the iTunes library.

The xml file should then be portable to any other copy of iTunes (Mac or Windows). If you nuke the library file on that machine and import/rebuild using the xml file, you have a totally up-to-date library.

Again, things may have changed. I remember doing something like this procedure to move from Mac-iTunes to Win-iTunes back around version 6....

Of course, if this procedure works at all, it should also work for those folks running MC in a virtual machine on their Macintoshes....

brad

prod · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2009, 07:15:35 am »

Quote from: park on June 02, 2009, 08:33:08 pm

Yeah that looks very good, but it doesnt write to the library files directly does it? So it only works with windows itunes.

It would be possible to expand the sync app to read a specified XML version of the library instead of the binary kind, and then output any iTunes changes as applescript. The applescript would then have to be run manually on your Mac.

park · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2009, 12:38:36 pm »

That would be ... good.

(King of understatement)

richard.e.morton · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2009, 01:33:38 pm »

If it is seriously being considered to build a Mac version; my vote is instead for a cross platform version of MC. build it on cross platform toolkits like QT4 or GTK+

I do understand that MAC and Linux combined have a tiny market share compared to the massive percentage that MC already targets, so this is hard to justify commercially. But if the case was built for doing the Mac it must only be a similar expense to instead to build it on a truely cross platform environment that would let you market to all the *nix-like OSs as well as Windows

Rich

Alexis · « **Reply #13 on:** June 11, 2009, 01:23:17 am »

I agree that if it were a Mac version, it would be best of all to have it as a cross platform one instead. My wife has an iMac and I keep an mp3 copy of my entire flac library just for her. Even so, she is perpetually annoyed with not being able to browse by composer, with the absent conductor tag in iTunes (she likes the classical), and with lots of other things she sees I can do with the same library in my MC. So, the cross platform thing would be of course a *great* idea (only if it were indeed feasible)...

MrHaugen · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2009, 04:53:59 am »

I'll just quote my self from another post with the same subject. Just so you can all know what I think about it

Quote from: MrHaugen on June 08, 2009, 02:55:32 am

Let me get this straight. You want J River to port MC to OSx? You want them to use countless hours to recode all that's spesific to Windows? For example DirectX and who knows what. And to port the rest of the program to whatever code language OSx use? New programmers most probably have to be hired to be able to do the OSx programming effectiv. After a year or two with NO further upgrades of MC, and NO new features they will finally release it to users that's mostly never heard of the application. Except only a few newly converters. THEN after all this, and the loss of a lot of earlier MC users because of the lack of new upgrades and features, the actual process of making new features and fixing bugs comes along. It takes twice the time as today because it's available on two platforms. At that time there are probably similar apps that have most of the same features that MC have, and it looks stunning and are easy to use. Game over.

I can't wait for a port

I might be a little to negative here, but considering that Mac still have a little market share compared to Windows I think this would be a recipe of disaster. Use Wine (or bootcamp) and have a blast. People have made it work. Don't try to screw up something that 95% of the users here are quite happy with.

GrantDG · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2009, 04:59:34 am »

Quote from: park on May 30, 2009, 12:04:03 am

In the living room, I'll still always use MC and theater view to play media. When organizing my data, I dont mind booting up windows on the mac and doing the work in there. But simple playback of media on the mac is still the gaping hole in my life.

If you're looking to control your media server from your Mac... try this!

It even works on iPhone (apparently)...

ThoBar · « **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2009, 09:57:47 am »

I had a thought the other day, while playing with Ubuntu 9.04... why not just a "Server" flavour of MC that could run on Linux/Mac?

Do away with the complexity of Direct-X for playback purposes etc, and just have a database/media hosting engine?

OK, I know it's not exactly that simple, but hey... it may ne worth thinking about

benn600 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2009, 12:06:05 am »

I seem to be finding more and more Mac hardware showing up and am still totally unsure how to make media work on it. Of course it did occur to me that one reason I like FLAC, MC, etc. is because it doesn't lock me into the system. So what's the problem??? Well, I'm not forced to stay but I just want to.

I tried CrossOver just now. It's a program to run Windows apps in a window (literally) so no Windows desktop, just the app. Sort of like a seamless integration. With my LAN disabled (to skip the Windows updates--which would lock up the installer) I got past installation and upon starting MC, the splash screen appeared. Unfortunately, I never got any further.

I use VirtualBox and it works well except that theater view doesn't appear to work through all the emulation. It's an ongoing battle!

lukecro · « **Reply #18 on:** September 25, 2009, 05:44:55 pm »

I used JRiver Media Jukebox for years and bought multiple versions of Media Center, which i also used for years -- and I loved it and still loved it. But I haven't bought the latest upgrades, because:

When I switched to a Mac for my main computer, I bought Parallels and installed Windows XP on my iMac almost entirely because I wanted continued access to Media Center . . . An investment of time and money just so I could have the JRiver goodness.

But slowly I stopped using MC, because as I got more into using the Mac OSX and programs, I didn't want to bother running Parallels most of the time anymore -- because it really was just MC that I needed in Windows. And now I've switched over to all Macs -- iMac, iPhone, Macbook, etc. -- and I don't miss Windows at all. And I've had to grow used to a mishmash of media players -- iTunes, VLC, etc . . . But I miss JRiver Media Center. If a native Mac version of MC ever comes out, or a solid, JRiver-official Wine port or a cross-platform java or webkit or whatever version that still has most of the MC bells and whistles -- I'll be first in line to buy the JRiver Apple MC.

(I still use Media Center on my work PC -- a crappy old Dell -- but since I maintain my main media library at home -- 30,000+ songs, hundreds of movies and TV shows -- all I need at work is basic music playback of my at-work playlist, which MC is great at, but within this context it's no longer a must-buy-the-upgrade program for me. I know it's a big ask, but please get us a Mac MC some day!)

MrHaugen · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2009, 07:43:17 pm »

Ok. I can understand that people want MC on their favorite OS for workstations and laptops where you just want to access some music now and then. I'd might be able to live with iTunes my self. I think... But when people say that the have changed totally from Windows to OSx or Mac, despite that they love MC; I'm asking my self why.

Why can't you have one single HTCP with Windows to use with MC? A HTCP is supposed to be used as a Media Center, and that's exactly what MC14 is. You don't need all those fancy OSx apps or free Linux apps when you have a complete Media center, do you? Why do you want to do this sacrifice?

benn600 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 26, 2009, 04:30:06 pm »

People are switching to Mac because they like the whole package deal with the Mac lifestyle (lol). Not only is the hardware leaps and bounds ahead of typical PC hardware, but the overall impression of the platform is set in a more positive light for many people--especially switchers.

I now have both platforms on a KVM switch and it works well but is not ideal when I have to run two computers simultaneously all day, leading to double the power usage generally speaking for the computer hardware anyway.

I'd really like to have a Mac version no doubt about that!

KingSparta · « **Reply #21 on:** September 26, 2009, 04:58:29 pm »

I Hate The Apple\Mac Commercials And Microsoft's Ain't Any Better.

Apples Market Share Has Never Been Anything To Celebrate Over.

AoXoMoXoA · « **Reply #22 on:** September 26, 2009, 05:15:55 pm »

Forget the MAC version of MC, forget the Windows version too!

Make a JRiver MC-OS and be done with it.
But make it capable of streaming media to any platform.

Afrosheen · « **Reply #23 on:** September 26, 2009, 11:39:05 pm »

Until my macbook pro brokerd (r.i.p.) I couldn't keep dreaming of having Media Center in my dock quickly applying tags of music files in my spare time. Boy do I miss my laptop now. It had almost everything I wanted, fast RSS reader (Vienna), great email app (Mail), awesome OS tools (quicksilver #1), and overall just a fun machine. Except for one thing. I HATED using iTunes. I can't stand that piece of crap.

Though being back on the PC with my old desktop, I've gotten to spend more time with MC and learn about it more, I can't wait to be back on a mac. I just wish MC would be reading to rest on my dock for easy editing and listening. That would be the BEST NEWS I'll ever hear.

benn600 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:09:33 pm »

Apple's market share as a hardware manufacturer is stunning. Keep the distinction between software & hardware separate. Apple has always said they are a hardware company. That very reason is why their software is more reasonable and you pay a premium for the hardware--but can someone point out a solid aluminum PC laptop? I'd buy a Mac and put Windows on it if I really wanted Windows. Of course my preferred state is Mac & Windows with either/both VirtualBox and Boot Camp. Bliss!

yes MC on Mac would be great.

Hey, why don't cha guys calculate (quickly) the actual cost and if you could get users to commit to a price? Is that even possible? $300 times a thousand users?

Listener · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:34:06 pm »

Quote from: benn600 on September 30, 2009, 07:09:33 pm

but can someone point out a solid aluminum PC laptop?

Right now, I can get a PC laptop that fits my needs for $ 500. That solid aluminum Mac laptop doesn't meet my criteria as well and costs $ 1000 more. I'll buy the PC laptop and keep the gold!

Bill

MrHaugen · « **Reply #26 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:07:18 am »

Quote from: benn600 on September 30, 2009, 07:09:33 pm

Hey, why don't cha guys calculate (quickly) the actual cost and if you could get users to commit to a price? Is that even possible? $300 times a thousand users?

You really think they would get an immediate profit from 1000 users at a price of 300$ a licence? Dream on

IF there was even 1000 users that WOULD buy a OSx version over the next months, most of this would never pay 300$. Even 100$ would be a stretch I believe, and differentiate cost of licenses across platforms might be a bad thing. OSx users would fill the forums with complaints I think. Because they are all broke from buying their expensive hardware

benn600 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:15:40 pm »

I wouldn't trade my unibody MacBook Pro for any PC laptop. Seamless, rock solid, sturdy, light weight and thin, and no junk/stickers placed on the device which just look awful. Of course I also would rather have fewer very high quality devices than a bunch of crap--which is what I used to go for. Quality over quantity all the way!

To each his own.

Not saying a Mac version would be easy or feasible, just prompting discussion.

Peter_T · « **Reply #28 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:09:57 pm »

I'm with you - I am a long-time PC user who finally gave Apple a try about 6 months ago. I was encouraged by my iPod touch (amazing piece of technology) and by the constant maintenance I would have to perform on the PCs in my life.

I am quite sure I’ll never buy another PC again, so long as I can afford the premium products that Apple are offering. And it’s not just Apple; there seems to exist a whole different level of programming design and feel over on the Mac side of things. A lot of ported applications feel ported – either with a clunky UI design or sluggish response. There are definitely exceptions, mind you.

And it’s amazing the way the software integrates – Apple’s core iLife programs are simple but great, and 3rd party programs often make a point of integrating with those in great ways. I know Microsoft would get thrown in jail for making great integrated software, but it doesn’t change how well it all comes together on a Mac.

glynor · « **Reply #29 on:** October 01, 2009, 02:31:31 pm »

I just thought I'd chime in, though I'm sure Jim knows how I feel on this...

Literally the only piece of software I feel is "missing" on OSX is MC. There just isn't anything even close on the OSX side, and (of course) iTunes is a complete joke. I'd pay a premium cost for a license for MCosx, for sure.

Listener · « **Reply #30 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:55:42 pm »

Quote from: glynor on October 01, 2009, 02:31:31 pm

Literally the only piece of software I feel is "missing" on OSX is MC. There just isn't anything even close on the OSX side, and (of course) iTunes is a complete joke. I'd pay a premium cost for a license for MCosx, for sure.

I'd never settle for iTunes either. I'd name the mac version of MC "McMac".

Bill

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Next -- Mac? (Read 6921 times)