Itunes 10 and Tiger 10.4.11

I had a computer that does everything I want of a computer.

Then I bought a phone that was compatible with it. Now my computer is nolonger compatible with it and if I want to keep up the functionality of the phone (the reason I bought the phone), I have to buy a new computer. B ***ks. To suggest that this is my fault for any reason is outrageous.

I was about to buy a new macbook pro, just because I can, but not now after Apple pulled this insidious trick.

<Edited by Host>

Another solution I thought of:

After you buy a computer and iOS device, simply disable "automatically check for updates" on the computer and iOS device.

(On OS X, look in 'System Preferences', 'Software Update'. Uncheck the 'check for updates' box.)

That way you'll be sure to enjoy 100% device compatibility for the life of your product.

Also, be sure to check minimum system requirements BEFORE buying a product, just to make sure it'll work with your existing set-up.

Thanks for the detailed reply to my vent Deborah 🙂

I take your points, but it still smarts to be forced to upgrade when I have no other reason to do so.

The only point I'd make in reply is to your comment: "That a device may look almost identical is no reason to expect that it is identical inside the case."

I accept that there may be some differences with the Ipod itself, but there is certainly no need for differences with the dock/charger. This is essentially a shaped piece of metal that performs an identical function across the last few generations of shuffle. There is no reason other than 'planned obsolescence' to have this piece not compatible with the last two shuffles.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my rant in such detail Feefer.

I understand that the OS has moved on: I'm never going to be happy about being forced to upgrade, but I guess that is the industry I can always vote with my feet if I don't like it.

The point that really bugs me (which is admittedly the least significant in terms of cost) is the dock/charger issue.

My old shuffle is 2 generations old, so it requires the same usb to headphone port adaptor that the current gen uses. I have since purchased a 3rd party piece which performs the same function perfectly (for about 50 cents online).

However, as I mentioned, the dock that came with the new ipod does not work with the old, despite there being no meaningful 'change of form' factor at all. Similarly, the 3rd party piece which works perfectly with the old ipod does not work with the new.

It is clear what has happened: Apple has designed the new shuffle to only recognise a dock of the same generation. They have also designed the new dock to only work with a shuffle of the same generation. As far as I am aware there is no technical reason for this (I'm happy to be convinced otherwise).

You can call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but Apple has re-designed this gen of shuffle to be incompatible with 3rd party docks and old gen docks alike. Its got nothing to do with form or function: its a commercial decision made to restrict users to Apple products alone, and to prompt them to upgrade.

That shouldn't even be a controversial position: Apple is one of thousands of companies that does this sort of thing (it would be naive of you to believe that they do not), but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Particularly when previous gens had no such restrictions.

Anyway thanks again for the reply.

I am so ****** off at the fact that i can't put music on my 10yr old sister's IPOD because it requires Itunes 10 which to install requires Mac os x 10.5 and my family only has Mac os x 10.4.11.

Any help with my problem would be appreciated heaps. Thanks.

<Edited by Host>

A lot of respondents are missing the point in this discussion.

First, all the technical digressions about hardware and hardware support are red herrings. For the many of us, the problem is not hardware compatibility; it is OS compatibility. If I go out and buy an OS upgrade, iTunes 10 will work just fine on my older hardware.

Second, we are not holding Apple to some unacceptably high technical standard when expecting them to develop a version of iTunes 10 that runs on Tiger. The difference between OS X 10.4 and OS X 10.5 is not radical. Plenty of software written on Leopard runs just fine on Tiger (including software written by me.) This not an unusual or a hard problem. The fact that iTunes 10 does not run on Tiger is not the result of an insuperable technical difficulty but is the result of a business decision made at Apple.

I work with both Macs and PCs. (In my home, we are using 5 Macs, 3 Windows machines, and one semi-retired Linux box. I develop software using all 3 systems.) One of the things I've always disliked about using and/or developing with Microsoft technology is that once I have a need to upgrade one piece of software, I often find myself pulled into an expensive upgrade spiral. This is a conscious decision by Microsoft, since, as Ballmer himself has pointed out, Microsoft's greatest competition is its own installed base. In this case, it is evident that Microsoft's interests run counter to their customer's. When discussing the two platforms, I've always pointed out that this is one area where, even for business users, the Apple environment is superior to the Microsoft environment.

The incompatibility of iTunes 10 and Tiger seems to be a case where Apple is engaging in the same behavior I disdain in Microsoft. As consumers, we should complain about such behavior. If we don't clamor for better products and support, we are not going to get them. The folks who say "If you don't like Apple's policy, go somewhere else" are missing this point. Some of us have made significant investments in a cluster of Apple products, partly because of Apple's better record when it comes to preserving backwards compatibility. (At times, Apple's performance in this respect has been remarkable.) Our expressions of frustration are not only understandable, but, I hope, effective. If not in this instance, perhaps in the next.

This time Apple has let us down. To introduce my daughter's inexpensive $40 shuffle into my family's environment of Apple devices, I am forced to go out and spend more than that on an OS upgrade. Fortunately for me, I can instead run iTunes on one of my Windows machines. (Unfortunately, that means that this iPod won't have access to the 13,000+ song library I use for my other 8 iPods.) But, really, I shouldn't have to do this.

In the next year, I will be buying another laptop and, probably, another desktop system. When it is time to debate my wife about whether to get an Apple (my choice) or a Windows (her choice) box, you can be sure she will bring this situation up. I'll marshall my other reasons for buying a Mac, but on this point, I won't have much to say in response. She'll be right.

dms0508 wrote:
A lot of respondents are missing the point in this discussion.

You're right but most fan boys won't agree.

Apple is basically forcing it's users to upgrade something that doesn't need upgrading.

Apple is also forcing its users that try the new ios to upgrade due to their authentication servers which make your idevice ineligible to install a previous ios. If you call apple they claim you can fix this problem by installing the newer version. Which only makes the problem worse.

Apple authentication servers currently and probably never will allow you to downgrade a ios to a previous version.

This is simply not right. Microsoft and Sony got sued for very similar actions.

Linux might not be user friendly but it's going to become more popular because of this.

I would run Linux on my mac if it wasn't crippled by an EFI bios.

I love my mac, and I'm not a fanboy. I like it because it works, and as the term goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have literally thousands of dollars of software on my macbook pro, and I'm currently running tiger os x 10.4.11. I refuse to upgrade to leopard or snow leopard, not only because I don't want the hassle of having to purchase newer programs that I've already paid for and currently have installed, or because I think it's ridiculous that I should have to pay for a newer version, but because I currently despise Steve Jobs for creating new products but then refusing to look back at his customers who have spent countless billions on his products he now considers to be obsolete.

Yes, upgrades are helpful. But I don't care much for fancy, just functional, and Steve Jobs should show he's proud of all his products by supporting them for more than a few short years. And there is no argument that can be made in Apple's favor as to why they would support XP but not Tiger. None.

Basically, we can all expect that some aspect of any of our apple products will become obsolete within a few short months, if not weeks. I run a 2.2 macbook pro, which came with tiger, and has an intel core 2 duo processor. So the people who are stating that apple isn't supporting tiger bc they moved on to support intel OSs only and ditched PPC hardware systems can nip that now.

I received a new ipod touch for Christmas. To my amazement, steve jobs failed to support me again (as we all now know that newer ipods require itunes 10 to operate). To get around it, I simply opened my Parallels loaded with Windows XP, downloaded the itunes 10 for it, and connected my ipod. Everything works perfectly.

I say, if you want to keep your Tiger, keep it and pay for parallels (or similar program to run Windows on your Mac). I would rather spend money on software to show steven that we don't care if he tries to screw us, in the end we'll find a way to make things work even if it means no longer purchasing his products.

Message was edited by: TriniTT

This is happening to me right now and I am so frustrated.I finally got one of the newest ipod touch 32GB and I was so stoked to have it and upload my music and what not.I went to download itunes 10.1 and it tells me I can't because I'm on tiger 10.4.11.I honestly don't WANT to have to buy new programming just so I can be up to date but it seems as this is my only option.I was suppose to get the sims 3 as well but couldn't because it was only for a mac os that was 10.5 and higher so I told my mom to return it because it wasn't worth upgrading my entire computer,now to use my ipod touch it looks like I'm gonna have to.Personally I'd rather not but it's my only option it seems and I'm quite upset cause I do love 10.4.11 ever since I got my mac it's given me no trouble and it's been great.Sadly though if I wanna start using new mac products and other things I'm forced to spend 129 bucks to get a completely new os.Tad upset that I gotta do this because I mean c'mon shouldn't mac be making things compatible for all it's users? and not making sure windows is good? man so frustrated about this and I totally wish there was some way around this,but I tried and got nothing so looks as if I'm stuck and out 129.Thanks a lot apple!

Garth Algar (way) wrote:
We are in agreement on most of this issue.

And thank you for the polite reply that sticks to the topic: that is always helpful and appreciated.

Perhaps we are getting a little off topic. I would like to return it more toward <why> iTunes won't run on Tiger.

And more specifically, I'd like to know why iTunes 10 runs under Parallels/Fusion (running XP on a Tiger OS, if the post above can be believed), but not on Tiger (10.4.X) itself? While there may be a valid technical reason to justify Apple's restrictions to XP and > X.10.5, it would be damaging for Apple's case if iTunes 10 is shown to run RELIABLY on Tiger under Parallels/Fusion.

(Caveat being, it must not just run, but should provide a satisfactory user experience while doing so. That's a subjective standard, and presumably Apple has resources and knowledge to make that determination better than an individual user (where the beta-test n = 1). I recently installed Android on a jail-broken 1st-gen iPhone, but while it works, it demonstrates why you may not want to hack your phone: I experienced sluggish performance and frequent crashes/freezes that meant it wasn't acceptable for use as my primary phone.)

I've been hearing talk from a whole lot of long time users that say it is getting way too big and bloated, trying to do too much and be too many things.

While I agree on your point that iTunes is getting unwieldy and bloated (by trying to do too much), it would be hypocritical to then claim that Apple wasn't justified to discontinue PPC support, if only on the grounds of fighting OS X bloat (one of the touted improvements in X.10.6 was cutting the cord on PPC machines, thus making for a slimmer install that uses less HD space).

Putting it another way: why should Intel multi-core owners be deprived of innovations (e.g. Grand Central Dispatch) out of concerns that it was software that single-core PPC owners cannot make use of? Why should PPC users be required to install bloat they cannot even use? It's the reason people ask why they must install foreign language support for languages they don't speak (and why Apple allows custom installs of OS X).

Sometimes it just makes sense to cut the cord, and focus on the future of the platform, not the past. For everyone saying the platform is developing too rapidly, there's another person complaining that Apple is not adopting newer technologies (e.g. why does Apple not make a laptop with BluRay, Light Peak, USB .0, etc).

Don't get me wrong. I still want a new mac, and I'm due, but I don't just want to confine my "old reliable" to the scrap heap when it still runs so well.

Not sure what other limitations lead you to think that "you're due" for a new mac, but there's nothing wrong with that approach, as long as you understand you shouldn't install ANY software, OS updates, buy peripheral devices, install drivers, etc. until verifying that doing so won't "break" functionality. This is the "don't fix what ain't broke", "don't rock the boat" philosophy. If it works for you, then great. That's all that matters.

Noticeable performance improvements typically require hardware PLUS software improvements that take full advantage of the hardware. A good example of this is the following excerpt (from wikipedia's Snow Leopard article):

On 21 October 2009, SFGate blogger Yobie Benjamin wrote that the "MacBook Pro that came preloaded with Snow Leopard kicks butt and is a screaming fast machine", but "when I tried to upgrade one of my 'older' MacBooks, it was a fricking disaster from ****". Apart from upgrading, Benjamin also tried a clean install. But he complained of slowness even after his clean install. He wrote, "I ended up downgrading back to OSX 10.5.8" then he concluded by writing, "I might try to do it again but it won't be till Apple releases at least 2 major fix updates. If you want to roll the dice and try, go ahead... your upgrade might work however random installs not working is not good for me. Lesson learned --- I'll wait."

Point being, you can go against the official Apple recommendation of what OS is recommended for what hardware (by installing bootloaders, firmware hacks, etc), but then you've got no one to blame but yourself should things go awry, and you find your system is bogged down or unstable.

I'm suspecting updating iTunes 10 for Tiger requires "fragmentation" (splitting the program into a separate version), which is problematic, in and of itself. It's understandable that Apple would choose NOT to fragment apps, since building a separate version of apps for Tiger is, by definition, "support" for Tiger, and that amounts to back-tracking (we all know a tiger can't change it's stripes, just as a leopard doesn't change it's spots).

BTW, anyone who's been on Apple for more than a few years knows how these threads tend to be re-incarnated: here's a thread from a 1st gen iPhone user who was complaining how his new iPhone DEMANDED Tiger, and he threatened to return the iPhone as he couldn't use it unless he upgraded from X.10.3.9:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=322315

Notice the same threats to boycott Apple, the whines of abandonment of longtime faithful, etc. The more things change, the more they stay the same....

Wonny wrote:
I had a computer that does everything I want of a computer.

It does "everything you want"? How about run iTunes 10: do you want it to do THAT? Might be handy for THAT, as well as being able to enjoy the improved performance of 10.6.5 ....

Then I bought a phone that was compatible with it. Now my computer is nolonger compatible with it and if I want to keep up the functionality of the phone (the reason I bought the phone), I have to buy a new computer. B ***ks. To suggest that this is my fault for any reason is outrageous.

I was about to buy a new macbook pro, just because I can, but not now after Apple pulled this insidious trick.

So let me get this straight:

You were about to buy a MBP for a frivolous reason alone ("just because you can"), but now when you know it'll actually solve a real-world problem you're experiencing, you're not going to buy one? Wow.... Do you often cut off your nose to spite your face?

dms0508 wrote:

First, all the technical digressions about hardware and hardware support are red herrings. For the many of us, the problem is not hardware compatibility; it is OS compatibility. If I go out and buy an OS upgrade, iTunes 10 will work just fine on my older hardware.

True: if you're lucky, a $29 OS upgrade is all you will need. However, there are those running oldr machines where their hardware (or config) will not support updating to Leopard, without adding RAM, etc. In some cases, it will not be an option (see minimum system requirements).

Second, we are not holding Apple to some unacceptably high technical standard when expecting them to develop a version of iTunes 10 that runs on Tiger. The difference between OS X 10.4 and OS X 10.5 is not radical. Plenty of software written on Leopard runs just fine on Tiger (including software written by me.) This not an unusual or a hard problem. The fact that iTunes 10 does not run on Tiger is not the result of an insuperable technical difficulty but is the result of a business decision made at Apple.

Without commenting on the technical merits of the difficulty (i.e. the programming hurdles that must be overcome, which I doubt either you or I are qualified to determine, unless you've written quality software that attempts to handle the many challenges faced by iTunes: video/audio playback, interfacing with ITMS for commerce, Ping, syncing with iOS, etc), you're no doubt exactly right that it IS a business decision.

Bottom line: Apple gave users PLENTY of 'heads-up' warnings of their product development roadmap, even long before they officially announced that they would discontinue support of Tiger in Sept 2009. The announcement was over 1 year ago: were so many people narcotized at the time to NOT know what that means?

What part of that announcement ("we will not be supporting Tiger in the future") don't people get? What exactly did everyone THINK that meant, exactly?

For how could Apple reasonably be expected to write an updated version of iTunes, specifically for Tiger, without it being considered "supporting Tiger" and going back on their word?

FWIW, writing an iTunes version for Tiger is NOT the easy breezy task you seem to imply it is, and would require a diversion of resources from other current projects to comply. Do you think it's fair to those customers who want Apple to remain at the forefront of technological development to delay other projects, simply to change policy of what they announced over 1 year ago?

And what of other products which aren't supported for Tiger? Should Apple ALSO write a Tiger version for the Airport Extreme/Express, since an update issued last month required 10.5.7?

If they don't cut support for Tiger in Sept 2009, and make an exception now, then when exactly SHOULD they cut Tiger support? Where do they draw the line?

Bottom line: Apple announced Tiger was being replaced YEARS ago, and announced it WAS end-of-life over one year ago.

Lion (X.10.7) is scheduled for release Summer 2011, and similarly Leopard/Snow Leopard WILL no longer be supported at SOME point in the future; it's not a question of IF, but WHEN. Apple's been pretty good at giving users a 'heads-up' in the past, so maybe it won't catch some of you off guard when it happens next time....

I just don't understand why everyone is so upset about this. If you buy a CD and it won't play in your 1977 Malibu because it only has an 8 track tape deck, you don't blame GM, do you?

No, 10.5 is no longer sold by Apple but it is available on eBay and elsewhere. Now it has been three years since 10.4 was current. If you chose not to upgrade how can Apple be at fault?

deejb wrote:
I just want to say my daughter was so happy to receive "the best Christmas present ever" only to find it didn't work. She went from happy to sad in a flash. What's a dad to do.

I would explain to her how companies(Apple, etc..) like to rip off their customers. Then return the product. If Apple won't return the product call head office.

Feefer wrote:
Bottom line: Apple gave users PLENTY of 'heads-up' warnings of their product development roadmap, even long before they officially announced that they would discontinue support of Tiger in Sept 2009. The announcement was over 1 year ago: were so many people narcotized at the time to NOT know what that means?

What part of that announcement ("we will not be supporting Tiger in the future") don't people get? What exactly did everyone THINK that meant, exactly?

You must be talking about that guy Steve Jobs that told software developers that the new and improved 64 Bit Carbon API would be supported. Another lie. Carbon has now basically been deprecated. Yet iTunes is "supposedly" a 32 bit carbon application.

So you're saying everyone who owns a 32 bit intel mac should upgrade to snow leopard so that they can magically run a 64 bit version of iTunes on a 64 bit operating system.

Take a wild guess why iTunes 10 and Snow Leopard run on a 32 bit intel mac. Because it's 32 bit.

Feefer wrote:
Bottom line: Apple announced Tiger was being replaced YEARS ago, and announced it WAS end-of-life over one year ago.

This isn't a problem with Mac OS X, 10.4.11 - Mac OS X, 10.4.11 fully supports Carbon and Cocoa API's. Which is supposedly the application framework for all apple applications.

Feefer wrote:
It does "everything you want"? How about run iTunes 10: do you want it to do THAT? Might be handy for THAT, as well as being able to enjoy the improved performance of 10.6.5 ....

The improved performance? Mac OS X, 10.4.11 destroy's 10.5.x and 10.6.x in load times.
Older versions of most of apple's products run faster including iOS.
Mac OS X, 10.4.11 boots up quicker than an iOS 4.2.1 <- that's SAD.

<div class="jive-quote">Feefer wrote:
And what of other products which aren't supported for Tiger? Should Apple ALSO write a Tiger version for the Airport Extreme/Express, since an update issued last month required 10.5.7?

The AirPort Extreme wireless router is a SEPERATE device like the iPod/iPhone/etc..
The Airport Extreme box doesn't say it requires Mac OS X, 10.5.x or higher.
There is absolutely no reason why a firmware update for AirPort Extreme shouldn't work on Mac OS X, 10.4.11

Saul in PA wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is so upset about this. If you buy a CD and it won't play in your 1977 Malibu because it only has an 8 track tape deck, you don't blame GM, do you?

You answered your own question.

Dunno74 wrote:
You must be talking about that guy Steve Jobs that told software developers that the new and improved 64 Bit Carbon API would be supported. Another lie. Carbon has now basically been deprecated. Yet iTunes is "supposedly" a 32 bit carbon application.

You side-stepped my question, instead responding with irrelevant information.

I asked what people thought Apple meant, with their Sept 2009 announcement that Tiger (X.10.4) was no longer supported. You responded by implying Jobs was a compulsive liar, which is relevant to the discussion how, exactly?

In fact, if sticking to one's word means anything to you, then you'd have to respect Apple/Jobs by NOT back-tracking on their announcement, and keeping their word!

And consider what happens if they DO reverse their policy: all the people who updated to SL would post in righteous indignation, complaining how Apple told them they had to update because Tiger was going to be abandoned, when in fact it WASN'T. They'd demand a refund, based on a false statement of lack of support, and some would no doubt want to downgrade to Tiger since it now WAS supported. So we'd see the same thing as here, only from SL adopters threatening to go home and take their bat and ball with them, etc. It really is a 'no win' situation for Apple, so they do what you do when faced with 'no win' prospects: stick to the original plan.

So you're saying everyone who owns a 32 bit intel mac should upgrade to snow leopard so that they can magically run a 64 bit version of iTunes on a 64 bit operating system.

No, I didn't say that: stop putting words into other people's mouths...

And since you brought up the integrity issue (by calling other people liars), wasn't it you (Dunno 74) who said the following on Sept 7th, 2010, in this very thread?

Dunno74 wrote:
Can't wait to sell this mac..

So after nearly 4 months, how's the selling of that mac going for you? Uh-huh.... I'm sure something came up that prevented you from selling....

Older versions of most of apple's products run faster including iOS.

Does obvious guy need to mention the multiple features added by iOS 4.2.1 that are not found on earlier iterations of iOS? You know, little stuff like multi-tasking, search, cut-and-paste, folders, etc? If you've got a way to add needed functions without making the OS larger, then congrats, as you've got a lucrative future awaiting you as a voodoo mobile OS developer.

Mac OS X, 10.4.11 boots up quicker than an iOS 4.2.1 <- that's SAD.</div>

Huh? You're joking, right, comparing boot times for a mobile-optimized OS (iOS) to a computer running OS X? Why would you even think that's relevant? And even if it WERE relevant to the current discussion, maybe you're unaware that boot times on a computer are highly dependent on HD speed (and why OS X loads faster when running from a SSD than a conventional HD)? You don't know that boot times for OS X may be dramatically different, depending on hardware config?

The improved performance? Mac OS X, 10.4.11 destroy's 10.5.x and 10.6.x in load times.

Is that your personal experience?

Wait: how can that be, since you're someone who's openly admitted that he hasn't installed SL? For if you HAD done the comparison, you might have found (along with many others) that load times are reduced, noticing the improved performance and new features of Snow Leopard.

I also note that you're the guy who earlier in the thread declared the iPhone 4 "a fail"! If that's your idea of "failing", then may Apple enjoy many more "failures" (per Dunno74) in the new year, LOL!