Skip navigation

Is cover flow gone in iTunes 11?

195504 Views 1,162 Replies Latest reply: Mar 2, 2014 8:48 AM by sigina RSS Branched to a new discussion.
  • Mark Block Level 2 Level 2 (270 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 10:56 AM (in response to rustyintegrale)

    You are quite right, rustyintegrale. Ads (print, web and TV) are pulled all the time. But it's expensive, especially when last-minute cancellation fees are charged. However, hasn't Apple known for a long time that Cover Flow would be removed? I've worked on ads for a company considered a competitor to Apple, and we've been advised more than once that a certain feature or look would be changed in the future and our ad would need to reflect that with an updated version. The Apple ad could have been changed very quickly. New ad-buys and air dates for the revised ad should have been in place, assuming that the removal of Cover Flow had been planned for more than a few weeks.

     

    Which brings up the question: Was Cover Flow "on the bubble" as a feature? Was it still a possibility in October, when iTunes was supposed to be released? In any case, there is really no excuse for the Apple ad to have run after iTunes 11 was released. Although airdates had already been purchased, Apple has other ads that could have been easily substituted. As to the video still being available on YouTube, that's fine -- all part of the historical record.

  • rustyintegrale Level 1 Level 1 (60 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:05 AM (in response to Mark Block)

    Which brings up the question: Was Cover Flow "on the bubble" as a feature? Was it still a possibility in October, when iTunes was supposed to be released?

     

    Yes I've been thinking about this all day. iTunes 11 was delayed 'for engineering reasons' and because they 'wanted to get it right'.

     

    Could it be that Coverflow was dumped because they couldn't get it to work?

     

    Personally I'd have lived with a bit more delay to allow them time for coming up with a solution. The damage done by bringing a product to market when it's anything but ready is disastrous.

     

    If this was the case with Apple then it's a monumental error and I foresee heads rolling...

  • greenmind Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:19 AM (in response to HJE22)

    Very well said HJE22. Now only if apple were listening to their customers.

  • madmak Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:29 AM (in response to rustyintegrale)

    The only time I bring that visualizer up is when I acidentally trigger it from the hotkeys... then I immediately dismiss it! I really miss Cover FLow as well... I consider it a slap in the face that the OPTION to have it turned on or off isn't even there... sorely disappointed and extrememly unimpressed with the Spreadsheet looking design of this Application now... just terrible.

  • Mark Block Level 2 Level 2 (270 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:41 AM (in response to rustyintegrale)

    rustyintegrale wrote:

    ...

    Could it be that Coverflow was dumped because they couldn't get it to work?

    Or was Cover Flow dumped because Apple was tired of the legal hassles, having been sued and found guiilty, then saved by the good sense of the judge, who overtunred the jury award:

     

    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/apple-escapes-liability-for-its-cover-fl ow-spotlight-os-features-more-on-inducement.html

     

    Apple bought the technology in 2006, but was sued for infringement by Mirror Worlds in 2008. I would imagine that Apple has been working on an alternative to Cover Flow for some time, in the event that the lawsuit had gone the other way. Perhaps Cover Flow was removed a long time ago, but a new graphical interface wasn't ready. Resources were devoted instead to making the "Expanded" view more eye catching. Restoring Cover Flow may have been attempted after the overturning of the jury award, but was too fraught with problems, both legal and operational, so the decision was made to drop it for good very late in the game.

  • greenmind Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:39 AM (in response to rustyintegrale)

    Cover Flow was free advertising for apple. If my screen was on, wt music playing, on the cover flow screen, people would always comemnt "wow" on the cover flow first, even before saying anything about my macs physical experience. Then they would say, a mac. Apple has removed a lot of the 'wow' experirence.

  • rustyintegrale Level 1 Level 1 (60 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:50 AM (in response to Mark Block)

    Mark Block wrote:

     

    rustyintegrale wrote:

    ...

    Could it be that Coverflow was dumped because they couldn't get it to work?

    Or was Cover Flow dumped because Apple was tired of the legal hassles, having been sued and found guiilty, then saved by the good sense of the judge, who overtunred the jury award:

     

    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/09/apple-escapes-liability-for-its-cover-fl ow-spotlight-os-features-more-on-inducement.html

     

    Apple bought the technology in 2006, but was sued for infringement by Mirror Worlds in 2008. I would imagine that Apple has been working on an alternative to Cover Flow for some time, in the event that the lawsuit had gone the other way. Perhaps Cover Flow was removed a long time ago, but a new graphical interface wasn't ready. Resources were devoted instead to making the "Expanded" view more eye catching. Restoring Cover Flow may have been attempted after the overturning of the jury award, but was too fraught with problems, both legal and operational, so the decision was made to drop it for good very late in the game.

     

    So now maybe we're getting closer to the truth?

     

    I refer back to an earlier post where I suggested Apple should detail enhancements that are removed with a software update as well as promoting new stuff.

     

    In fact I think it should be a legal requirement of all software updates to give the consumer the prospect of a reasoned choice.

     

    What your post does imply is that there was no legal reason for Apple to remove it, so the fight goes on.

  • Trane Francks Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 11:58 AM (in response to HJE22)

    HJE22 wrote:

     

    Whoever enters data on items in iTunes Store has been given ok to call things whatever they want adding sometimes many levels of bracketed identifiers causing linking ripped items to be in identifiable as well as using different names than what a CD may have.

     

    This, I think, is a problem with Gracenote. I was an eMusic subscriber and shuddered for years over exactly the same issue. You'll buy a live album from the iTunes Store, for example, and every bloody track has (Live) appended to the title. Yes, we know it's live. That was the point of me buying the album. After checking, I discovered that this is actually a part of Gracenote's titling guidelines.

     

    Whomever at Gracenote thought that putting information into album and song titles that is NOT on the liner is a good thing should think again. After years of building my eMusic collection, I'm STILL finding entries that need fixing.

  • Trane Francks Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 12:20 PM (in response to rustyintegrale)

    rustyintegrale wrote:

     

    Actually I've worked in advertising all my life and my point is not to cause Apple any more grief than they have caused themselves.

     

    If this anomaly draws their attention to the furore that leaving Coverflow out of iTunes has caused then that is good. That is the goal of all of us right?

     

    The problem is one of context. You've reported them to the UASA for advertising a version of iTunes that actually ships with the laptop. You do understand that, right? When you take home your shiny, new 13" Retina and fire it up, the version of iTunes is 10.7. So, while I am in complete agreement that 11 is a step backwards, reporting Apple to an oversight committee for an infraction they never committed is intellectually dishonest.

     

    I'll say it again: They should by all rights change the ad when the product refresh comes and not before. Currently, OS X 10.8.2 is in the boxes. Wait till 10.8.3 and then you have a case. Being unhappy with a software update is one thing, but falsely accusing them of false advertising is just wrong.

  • rustyintegrale Level 1 Level 1 (60 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 12:40 PM (in response to Trane Francks)

    Trane Francks wrote:

     

    rustyintegrale wrote:

     

    Actually I've worked in advertising all my life and my point is not to cause Apple any more grief than they have caused themselves.

     

    If this anomaly draws their attention to the furore that leaving Coverflow out of iTunes has caused then that is good. That is the goal of all of us right?

     

    The problem is one of context. You've reported them to the UASA for advertising a version of iTunes that actually ships with the laptop. You do understand that, right? When you take home your shiny, new 13" Retina and fire it up, the version of iTunes is 10.7. So, while I am in complete agreement that 11 is a step backwards, reporting Apple to an oversight committee for an infraction they never committed is intellectually dishonest.

     

    I'll say it again: They should by all rights change the ad when the product refresh comes and not before. Currently, OS X 10.8.2 is in the boxes. Wait till 10.8.3 and then you have a case. Being unhappy with a software update is one thing, but falsely accusing them of false advertising is just wrong.

     

    How dare you continue to patronise me.

     

    As stated, I am not in the US I am in the UK. I have reported Apple to the ASA in the UK. US rules may well be different.

     

    But regardless, if Apple chooses to ignore users and appears not to give a ****, why should I feel any different? Apart from having it demanded of me of course.

     

    Think Different? How about Apple thinks different for a change? The company has become arrogant beyond belief. If this brings them back to some semblance of reality then so be it.

  • Mark Block Level 2 Level 2 (270 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 12:52 PM (in response to Trane Francks)

    Trane Francks wrote:

    ... When you take home your shiny, new 13" Retina and fire it up, the version of iTunes is 10.7.

    Ah, very good point. I did not assume that. However, after one fires up said shiny new laptop, it will soon ask for an update of the software. A bit of a grey area, perhaps, but I agree that technically Apple is fully compliant with its legal responsibilities.

     

    Still, it's more than a little weird that Apple thought Cover Flow was important enough to highlight in ads for the Retina Display even while knowing the feature would be removed during the period the ads were airing. Again, as someone who works in advertising, I can't believe Apple didn't direct its ad agency to not show Cover Flow. No explanation to the account people and creative director required. Companies do that with their agencies all the time.

     

    My point is that the final decision to disable Cover Flow may have been a last minute thing. If so ... please Apple, give it back to us!

  • rustyintegrale Level 1 Level 1 (60 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 12:55 PM (in response to Mark Block)


    Still, it's more than a little weird that Apple thought Cover Flow was important enough to highlight in ads for the Retina Display even while knowing the feature would be removed during the period the ads were airing. Again, as someone who works in advertising, I can't believe Apple didn't direct its ad agency to not show Cover Flow. No explanation to the account people and creative director required. Companies do that with their agencies all the time.

     

    Precisely.

  • Trane Francks Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 1:07 PM (in response to rustyintegrale)

    rustyintegrale wrote:

     

    I'll say it again: They should by all rights change the ad when the product refresh comes and not before. Currently, OS X 10.8.2 is in the boxes. Wait till 10.8.3 and then you have a case. Being unhappy with a software update is one thing, but falsely accusing them of false advertising is just wrong.

     

    How dare you continue to patronise me.

     

    As stated, I am not in the US I am in the UK. I have reported Apple to the ASA in the UK. US rules may well be different.

     

    But regardless, if Apple chooses to ignore users and appears not to give a ****, why should I feel any different? Apart from having it demanded of me of course.

     

    Think Different? How about Apple thinks different for a change? The company has become arrogant beyond belief. If this brings them back to some semblance of reality then so be it.

     

    Take a deep breath. I'm not patronising you, I'm pointing out an error in which you're accusing Apple of something they did not do. Go to the Apple Store and check the version of OS X shipping. Check the release date. Now go back and check the Retina ad release date. Both are October.

     

    Accusing Apple of false advertising in this regard is akin to accusing a girl of stalking you after she refuses to go out on a date with you.

  • rustyintegrale Level 1 Level 1 (60 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 1:14 PM (in response to Trane Francks)


    Take a deep breath. I'm not patronising you, I'm pointing out an error in which you're accusing Apple of something they did not do. Go to the Apple Store and check the version of OS X shipping. Check the release date. Now go back and check the Retina ad release date. Both are October.

     

    Accusing Apple of false advertising in this regard is akin to accusing a girl of stalking you after she refuses to go out on a date with you.

     

    Of course it is. How stupid of me.

  • Trane Francks Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2012 1:33 PM (in response to Mark Block)

    Mark Block wrote:

     

    Still, it's more than a little weird that Apple thought Cover Flow was important enough to highlight in ads for the Retina Display even while knowing the feature would be removed during the period the ads were airing.

     

    [ quote edited for brevity ]

     

    My point is that the final decision to disable Cover Flow may have been a last minute thing. If so ... please Apple, give it back to us!

     

    I think the point is well made that Cover Flow was a huge selling point and the agency used it to good effect. It's possible that the agency wasn't told of the feature's pending demise precisely because of it being such fantastic eye candy. Moreover, I think that Apple may have lost the Big Picture with the passing of SJ. In its development, you see stunningly beautiful industrial design in the hardware being mated to disastrous software (cite: multi-display and fullscreen mode in Lion/Mountain Lion). iTunes 11 continues this relatively new trend of disaster and not paying attention to how users interact with their systems.

     

    As for getting CF added back, I sure hope so. In the meantime, I've reverted to 10.7 and will stay with it till such time as the feature is restored to newer versions.

1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 78 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (13)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.