Kevin over at jkOnTheRun wonders why point upgrades on iTunes, such as Tuesday’s 7.0.2 build, require a total application reinstall rather than a patch. Now that’s a pretty good question, but one that doesn’t interest me so much. The questions that do interest me involve Apple’s new Software Update Utility which was released in conjunction with iTunes 7. Considering Apple only provides two pieces of software (QuickTime and iTunes) for Windows, both of which check for updates on their own, it seems like overkill to produce and distribute a distinct application updater… unless there are other products in the pipeline. How does iLife Windows Edition sound?
iTunes used to check, but it didn’t install it automatically – it just notified you that a new version was available and linked to the website. So presumably if they were going to write the “autoupdate” functionality, it’s essentially the same so they combined it into one product.
It would be very cool if they released some Windows software, but I doubt it. Remember, Apple is a hardware company :)
(Not to mention that iTunes 7 has a number of issues on Windows – they haven’t totally mastered Windows development).
Speaking as a software developer who writes for both Mac and PC, downloading a whole new version rather than a patch has many advantages. These are greater reliability and lower cost of development. The advantage to downloading a patch is that it uses less bandwidth. The disadvantage is that as a developer, I have to develop a patching mechanism, I have to test the patch, I have to test it against all previous copies of the program, etc. This is a lot of work – work that is better spent working on the product itself given that bandwidth is much cheaper these days. Most applications are not that large. For something like iTunes, downloading a new app is probably as much bandwidth as downloading maybe 2 songs?
So, it is much better from an engineering point of view to just concentrate on making the application very reliable and making sure it correctly installs over any older version that might be present. (On MacOS X, that is brain-dead easy.)
And if the app just points your browser to the download website, it is even better because then the developer doesn’t have to write any download code or code to show you what new features the new version has, etc. Just check the verison and pop a website. Very simple, very reliable. Move on to other things.
Well, one very simple reason could also be driver updates for Boot Camp-enabled Macs. That’s a much easier delivery mechanism than burning a new CD from a new version of Boot Camp and then installing the new drivers on the Windows side from the CD.
For what it’s worth, Apple does own/make FileMaker, which is cross-platform. And doesn’t Apple provide Windows software for use with Airport and Airport Express base stations?
I’m tired of downloading large BootCamp images, burning new driver CDs, etc..
I’d like to see Apple post updates to the BootCamp drivers via this Software Update mechanism..
now that’s pointing to future features for Windows..
I refused to install their updater, assuming it would just be another CPU and screen real-estate waster sitting in my tray. Does it really do anything?
Personally, I’m tired of applications that can’t be bothered to automate the process of updating themselves. It might be less work for Apple to make you download and install the thing yourself each time, but at some point this competitive disadvantage vs. a competing product (if there ever is one) might matter to me.