Well i for one have like an OCD with the Album covers, if its not there i get parrinoied and google for one. So now i have these tiny icons it dose not look as 'impressive' people would come to the house party i would show them where the pc was they would simply play an ablum and off we went. they would then comment on how WOW it looks (the cover flow HD Full Screen with HD album covers) = impressive. Now i dont get any comments, i like the new features, i like the new layout, but i want to have the option to change how the albums are displayed and the size of the album covers!
i dont see why u can say no one used it when its on the iOS system.. oh god PLEASE DONT REMOVE IT ON THERE TOO!!!
I would not be surprised if they removed it from iOS as well... But I am not an industry insider, so I don't really know... But I have read that Apple has made it clear that iOS is on the horizon for a major update. And since there seems to be a general (disconcerting) trend towards convergance, well, I think the writing is on the wall... It's funny, I don't use coverflow much, if at all, on my iPods and iPhone... Because on those devices it is all pretty much the size of a thumbnail already...I hope that everyone who has posted or read and agreed that the loss of coverflow is a significant issue will leave feedback.
My thinking: the Cover Flow interface probably creates a "pixel pushing" issue, perhaps related to battery life. The next iOS update is supposed to be "flatter," which will make it easier for Apple to stay ahead of the competition on battery life even when using "retina" displays. With Apple laptops also going retina, the OSX software teams have been tasked with making their apps easier on the graphics cards and retina displays. Scanning through Cover Flow art is wonderfully satisfying, beautiful and impressive, but it it's probably a torture test for the graphics system.
I see a new update is out (11.0.4), but it seems to merely fix a couple of bugs, not add features. I was hopeful of more because the update notes included this: "Improved Songs View. You can now enjoy your album artwork while in Songs view."
However, that refers to a feature added last month. Move along; nothing to see here. Last month's added feature makes the Songs view usable -- finally -- but it's a very limited replacement for Cover Flow. Apple's explanation for removing Cover Flow (no one used it) is transparently bogus; we all know that. If I'm right about the problem with Cover Flow being a technical one related to retina displays and/or battery life in laptops, then it will not be re-introduced until Apple makes a technological breakthrough, or decides that many incremental improvements justify bringing it back. And that also depends on users continuing to request it.
Well tbh I think since the last major update apple has gone down hill.
I mean putting it down to just the basics,
iTunes lost its cover flow renderers it on same level as windows
They released different covered iPod touch? Is this a big deal? I mean cases offered this yet I still have to get a case to protect it... Not necessarily a good thing in my opponion I liked the chrome or mirror backing,
The iPhone 5 oh my god don't get me start the only real difference is an extra row of icons? UK dose not have much 4g that's no difference, I can't see it being any faster than my 4s. I only got this phone as my contract was up and my 4s was playing up. I resent it that the charged so much for an extra row of icons/1 cm to the top of the screen!
Oh and my mid 2010 iMac not being able to do AirPlay despite no major hardware upgrade between that and 2011 iMac, and the new one no cd drive? Whaaat?? Yet no extra USB port to make up for it....
Tbh I have a lot that's apple, but I am starting to lose faith in the company. If cover flow goes from iOS, if the new phone dose not show something drastic, if the new OSX dose not wow me, I think it's time to look at an alternative company :/
A drain on the 'graphics system'??? That's totally nuts. Think back to the system resources we had when CoverFlow first appeared. Miniscule by today's standards. No, that's not it.
Maybe you guys are right. I have no way of knowing how much of a CPU and graphics drain it is to create the pseudo 3D images and reflections of Cover Flow, then make the covers scrollable in real time, but the flat art in iTunes 11 has to be vastly easier to handle. I've heard it discussed by tech pundits that the flatness of Windows 8 was all about squeezing out a little better battery life, not about being ahead of the curve aesthetically.
My point was that retina displays have to push a lot more pixels than the old displays on laptops when Cover Flow was first introduced. Battery technology has barely improved, but some system resources that drain the battery have increased almost exponentially; the retina display is a major battery killer. Apple is trying every trick in the book to keep battery life impressive while employing retina displays. One percent saved here ... one percent saved there -- it adds up. But again, I may be totally off base.
Mark, I believe the trend in going to a more flat design is 99% aesthetic as people's tastes start to move away from skeuomorphism. Think about the graphics card in an early iPod Touch or early iPhone. Hardly beefy, yet Coverflow was always an option on those little devices. I hate iTunes 11, but in general I'm a fan of Apple products. I realize Apple is well accustomed to people discussing its imminent demise over the years. This is nothing new, but I really do believe it is time for the company to worry. Consumers are tired of Apple. For the first time, their competitors across the board really can provide users with a similar or better experience. Back when nobody could touch Apple, we didn't have a choice. But now, clearly, we do. Seemingly random decisions like the removal of Coverflow isn't going to make them any new friends. But it has the potential to alienate a lot of people as you can see from the comments right here in this thread. No one benefits.
Mark, I believe the trend in going to a more flat design is 99% aesthetic as people's tastes start to move away from skeuomorphism. ...
Just to be pedantic, skeuomorphism has nothing to do with flat design. Totally different aesthetic issues. A skeuomorphic design can be flat or not; one has nothing to do with the other.
I agree that it's mostly a taste issue at this point, but I see it as a chicken vs. egg thing. Which came first, a taste for flat design or a need for flat design? I think the need came first, but that's a hard thing to prove.
Google and Microsoft began developing flat UIs quite a while ago in order to get better performance from the devices they had in the pipeline. When Microsoft dropped the translucent Aero Glass interface a year ago, Redmond touted it as an aesthetic improvement, but tech bloggers called them on it. It was done to conserve battery life, the tech pundits claimed. I believe Apple has had flatter designs in mind well before the aesthetic trend became popular.
Another push toward flatness came from web designers. As websites became more complex and cluttered, designers started dropping the drop shadows, translucency, reflections, highlights and depth cues. Result: pages loaded much faster. Designers could sell flatness as being less cluttered, but the problem being solved was one of performance. Flash animations are flat of necessity also. Users didn't care about depth and realism if the browser took too long to load.
I admit I'm not an expert, just someone who reads the tech press and blogs. But I just Googled "flat design" and found almost nothing about it written prior to this year. (The discussion of Aero Glass vs. Metro about a year ago mentions "a flatter, clean look." Before that, nothing.) Of course, in the modern art world the pendulum can swing easily from "flat and simple" to "rich and complex" and back. In computer UI design, the trend until now has been in one direction only: towards richer and more realistic graphics. That trend has always been driven by technology: faster computers allowed for more realistic graphics, and users had an expectation that "newer equals more realistic." I'm hypothesizing that the trend to flatness now was also driven by technology, at least initially. People are moving away from desktop computers and into mobile computing, where battery life and speed are more important than 3D graphics. We've decided that "flatter equals newer" as we've gotten used to the flat art direction style.
Getting back to Cover Flow, I still think Apple was crazy to throw it out. Apple should come up with a flatter, less skeuomorphic version of Cover Flow that will satisfy those of us who love to scroll through our music library by viewing album covers. The realistic reflections under the albums in Cover Flow are by definition skeuomorphic -- an imitation of album covers hanging three dimensionally above a shiny surface. I hope (and trust) that the iTunes designers haven't given up on something cooler than what we have now in iTunes 11.0.4 for displaying album artwork.
OK, a bit off topic, I admit. But... I just want to point out with absolutely no snark intended.
"Just to be pedantic, skeuomorphism has nothing to do with flat design."
I can only assume you're kidding. When something goes out of favor and is removed, that creates a void. It needs to be replaced by something. Skeuomorphism is by definition textured and nuanced. It absolutely logically follows that if the pedulum swings in the opposite direction that the end result would be NOT textured and nuanced. Now, in a 3D world, that could mean more than one thing. But on a flat screen, that essentially means solid colors, or flat.
It has everything to do with it.
...I can only assume you're kidding.... Skeuomorphism is by definition textured and nuanced.
Not kidding. I'm saying your definition of skeuomorphism is mistaken -- but it's a common mistake. You mean "realism," not skeuomorphism. Skeuomorphic designs can be absolutley flat, without texture, although they usually are not. I'm being pedantic and I understand what you're saying, but I think it's an important distinction to make.
Apple often employs skeuomorphism in tacky, gaudy ways -- fake wood bookshelves, leather bindings with stitching -- but skeumorphism is often used in less obvious ways. A calculator program can be totally flat but still skeuomorphic, in that it has buttons laid out like those on an old-fashioned calculator, including the "C" key.
To double-check myself, I Googled "flat vs skeuomorphic." The calculator example came from an excellent article at the top of my Google search: http://sachagreif.com/flat-pixels/
Cover Flow is mostly about 3D realism, which requires skeuomorphic design elements, but the design is imaginative. The albums are not presented in a record bin to be flipped through, or on a shelf sideways to be pulled out one at a time. That would be much like Apple's horrible-looking Newsstand app; that would be strictly skeuomorphic in concept. Instead, Cover Flow has albums gliding and rotating on a reflective surface. The albums are rendered like real objects, but the effect is more magical-realism. The problem, I suggest, is not that it looks old fashioned or skeuomorphic. I don't think it does. The problem is that it's at odds with a design aesthetic necessitated by the need to maintain speed and battery life in mobile computers.
Sorry if this is getting too OT. My basic plea to Apple: If you won't give us back Cover Flow, at least give us something better than thumbnails in the Songs view! Use some imagination.
Mark Block wrote:
Maybe you guys are right. I have no way of knowing how much of a CPU and graphics drain it is to create the pseudo 3D images and reflections of Cover Flow, then make the covers scrollable in real time, but the flat art in iTunes 11 has to be vastly easier to handle.
Mark, there's no difference between a graphics image that looks 3D and one that looks flat. They're still a fixed number of pixels and they're still 2D representations. The only difference is that one looks 2D and one looks 3D. Given identical dimensions, the graphics rendering for them is identical. For a CPU/GPU, there is no difference whatsoever between 2D and pseudo-3D. It's only when you're rendering genuine 3D objects within a virtual environment that performance becomes an issue.
I've heard it discussed by tech pundits that the flatness of Windows 8 was all about squeezing out a little better battery life, not about being ahead of the curve aesthetically.
Getting rid of Aero does simplify things for the back end, but Aero was a lot more than just a few 3D-esque icons. It's a whole conglomerate of 3D shadings and whatnot. That said, machines in the Vista era had no problem whatsoever pushing around Aero stuff. My wife's circa-2008 Toshiba has no problem with Windows 7 and all the Aero bells and whistles enabled. It's much, much, much prettier on the eyes than Windows 8.
The thing about the current trend to flat, 2D interface design is that it goes completely contrary to what humans expect to find in nature. We live in a 3D world and all our useful visual affordances are 3D. Beautiful user interface design in computers has always given rich, 3D-looking affordances as a means of allowing the user a quick and intuitive way of navigating.
Devs are trying to be clever, though, simply by being different. Lion and Mountain Lion eschew colour in favour of black and white. And now we're seeing a move away from the richness of 3D to a flat, 2D experience. I swear, these people don't actually USE the software they create. Colour and depth have always been -- and always will be -- essential to a rich and sustaining user experience.