Charlie Brooker in The Guardian:

Here’s a familiar, mundane scenario: you’ve got an iPhone with loads of music on it. And you’ve got a laptop with a new album on it. You want to put the new album on your phone. But you can’t hook them up and simply drag-and-drop the files like you could with, ooh, almost any other device. Instead, Apple insists you go through iTunes.

This is a pretty common argument against iTunes, but one I’ve never fully understood. Yes, iTunes is sluggish and a pain in the arse sometimes, and, yes, Apple could do more to detach its iThings from the desktop using some kind of wireless sync (rumoured in an upcoming iOS update), but drag and drop? Really?

The thing is, music management is one of the few things iTunes remains really good at. When you rip a CD, it helpfully organises everything and shoves the digital files in a logical location (something you can stop it doing, if you’re, for some reason, turned on by the prospect of dragging folders around your OS’s file system). If you’ve a large collection, it’s easy to search, and you can rapidly create smart playlists, based on complex criteria (or, if you want more control and have loads of time to waste, you can revert to drag and drop, to standard playlists). These days, I use a combination of playlists to determine which music ends up on my devices, because it’s quicker and more efficient to do so when there’s 90 GB of music lurking on my Mac.

Without iTunes, I’d rarely—if ever—bother to update the music on my devices, because it’d be too much hassle. And without playlists that block recently played tracks, I’d likely end up playing the same old stuff all the time, rather than continually rediscovering old favourites.

So, yeah, iTunes is mostly a bit crap, and it could make things a whole lot easier in many ways, but it’s still a great means of managing your music and the music you shove on to your iThings.

Earlier today, someone pointed me at the Daily Mail’s article How Britain drove its greatest genius Alan Turing to suicide… just for being gay, which includes the following quote:

[…] just two weeks before his 42nd birthday, the softly-spoken genius killed himself by taking a bite out of an apple that he had dipped in cyanide.

Some believe his bizarre death is commemorated to this day in the logo used by Apple on its electronic goods—so significant was his contribution to the genesis of the computer.

Over the years, this and many other myths have sprung up about Apple’s logo, but by writers who presumably can’t be bothered to ask its designer, Rob Janoff, what his thinking was behind the iconic design. As it turns out, aesthetics were Janoff’s only real concern, as I discovered when interviewing him for MacFormat a couple of years ago.

Below is the full transcript of the interview (lacking the brutal edit that was required for print), which explains how one of the world’s most famous logos came to be, and also delves a little more into Janoff’s (then) use of the Mac.

What do you use Macs for, and how do they help you work?
I use Macs for graphic design projects, internet communications, presentations and the daily business of life… from calendars to cooking! What’s very weird is that back in 1977, when I was introduced to the concept of a ‘home’ or personal computer, I thought it was kind of b.s. that anyone would actually do the applications we were promoting in the advertising and literature. But that was the Apple II and this is a Mac. You really had to be into computing to do your household finances or keep track of recipes on an Apple II. The Mac is so much more intuitive. It’s like apples and oranges—pardon the pun! Now I can’t imagine my life without my Mac. This hit me yesterday as I was cooking dinner, leaning over the counter, reading a recipe on the screen.

What software and hardware do you favour and why?
I just completely use a laptop now. Portability is the thing for me. I split my week between country and city, so if I have design work or life work I carry it with me. The software I use is not all that exotic: InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Office.

What’s your approach to design?
I guess the most important thing a good design has to do is communicate. I don’t think people should have to work very hard to get what you are trying to say visually. How simple can you make it?

Do you have any golden rules?
“When in doubt, leave it out!”

How did you approach designing the Apple logo?
It was very simple really. I just bought a bunch of apples, put them in a bowl, and drew them for a week or so to simplify the shape.

What was the thinking behind the colour order of the stripes, and the ‘bite’?
There wasn’t a whole lot of hidden meaning behind the colours. The logo predates the gay-pride flag by about a year, so that wasn’t it—and there also goes the whole Alan Turing myth! The religious myths are just that too—there’s no ‘Eve and Garden of Eden’ and ‘bite from the fruit of knowledge’ symbolism!

I didn’t have much of a formal brief on the logo assignment, other than “don’t make it cute”. But I did know the selling points of the Apple Computer, and one of the biggest was colour capability. To me, that looked like colour bars on a monitor, which became the stripes in the logo. The order of the stripes, I’m sorry to say, had no particular grand plan other than I liked them that way. And, of course, the green stripe would be at the top where the leaf is.

The bite is really about scale and the common experience of biting into an apple. It was a happy accident that ‘byte’ is a computer term.

Apple’s logo is considered truly iconic, alongside logos like Nike’s. How does it feel to have been responsible for such a versatile, recognisable and long-lasting design?
Nobody’s ever asked me that before. It’s almost an out-of-body experience when the logo pops into my field of vision unexpectedly. I’ve felt the same way when I see a print ad or a TV spot I did when I’m not expecting it. But they only live for a week or two. And although the logo has changed over the years, it’s still the same basic shape and concept I designed over 30 years ago. I feel incredibly lucky to have crossed paths with Steve Jobs when I did. It’s kind of like watching your kids grow up and do really well. I’m incredibly proud of my kids—and the logo too.

What do you think about Apple’s more recent changes to the Apple logo, such as its move to a single colour, often with 3D effects?
Hey, it’s all about growing up. Everything goes through changes as it ages. I’m glad the logo has been able to keep up with the times. Logos often need to say different things as they age. I’m just glad it’s in such capable hands.

Are there any jobs you’ve worked on that particularly stand out for you?
One of the down sides of doing your most memorable piece of work so early in your career is that it’s hard to beat. Most of my career has not been about being a designer—it’s been about being an advertising art director. So I don’t really have a job that compares to the Apple logo. I would say coming up with an idea for a TV spot and watching it grow from concept to finished product was great most of the time, but most advertising isn’t as enduring.

It looks like Sony Computer Entertainment’s Michael Ephraim got smacked by the WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? stick after his recent comments on iTunes. If clicking the previous link’s a bit much effort, he said:

If we do [get mass take up] then does Sony Music need to provide content to iTunes?

Currently we do. We have to provide it to iTunes as that’s the format right now.

Publishers are being held to ransom by Apple and they are looking for other delivery systems, and we are waiting to see what the next three to five years will hold.

Because tech writers are stupid, we all assumed this meant Sony was considering punching iTunes in the face, if Sony somehow managed to not make a total mess of its own digital music offering. (Recent history suggests not betting the farm on that eventuality.)

Business Insider now reports that Sony Network Entertainment COO Brandon Layden has a rather different take:

Sony Music as I understand it has no intention of withdrawing from iTunes, they’re one of our biggest partners in the digital domain. I think those words were either taken out of context or the person who spoke them was unclear on the circumstances.

*sniff sniff* Hmm. Smells of backtrack.

As reported on THE INTERNET, Apple is locking down in-app purchases for content-based apps. In a nutshell, developers will have to enable purchases available elsewhere in the app as well, and for the same price. This means Apple gets a cut, and the content provider loses 30 per cent. Apple argues this rule has existed since the start of iOS IAPs, but it’s just not been implemented for apps like Kindle and Spotify, and claims it’s not out to ‘kill’ such products.

Peter Steinberger on why Apple’s not being entirely truthful about its plans:

Setting up IAP is a pain. Keeping it in sync with your library is even worse. And there are also limits – IAP allows up to 3500 items – Amazon Kindle currently has about 2.5 MILLION items.

So not only is this likely impossible for Amazon from a commercial standpoint—its razor-thin margins don’t allow for Apple to take 30 per cent of any purchase—but it’s literally impossible using Apple’s current infrastructure. (Note: Amazon itself is no angel, since its margins have a tendency to put small publishers out of business, and it used to demand up to a 70 per cent cut—something a lot of people and pundits appear to have forgotten. This post isn’t about defending Amazon from the ‘evil’ of Apple.)

In other words, Apple’s reportedly giving Amazon until June 30 to totally change the way it deals with Kindle, but it’s impossible for Amazon to comply. This is about getting Kindle off of iOS, because it competes with iBooks. Thing is, Kindle being booted off iOS won’t make people switch to iBooks—it’ll make people buy Kindles. And time people are using their Kindles is time they’re not using their iPads and iPhones, potentially reducing the likelihood of them making purchases.

More importantly, I believe Apple is making a bad move in turning Amazon into an enemy. Amazon has already revealed plans for an Android store, and unlike the various kinds of shambles available elsewhere, Amazon will do it properly. In other words, it’ll be like Apple’s App Store, but for Android. Additionally, Amazon now owns Lovefilm, which European Apple TV owners were hoping would become the bundled Netflix equivalent outside of the US. If Apple and Amazon start butting heads, Lovefilm will instead become part of Amazon’s arsenal in creating an Apple-like ecosystem on Android that has the potential to hit iOS hard.

Under the link-bait title War looms as Sony hints that it will abandon iTunes, The Age interviews chief executive officer of Sony Computer Entertainment, Michael Ephraim, who actually hints (a bit) that Sony might (rather than will) abandon iTunes.

On Sony’s Music Unlimited, he says:

If we do [get mass take up] then does Sony Music need to provide content to iTunes?

Bwuh? Because, obviously, the most sensible thing to do is make it so you can only get Sony music from a Sony shop on Sony devices. I foresee no problems here, and it won’t at all have Sony artists spitting fury about the company having removed their music from the biggest online music merchant.

Currently we do. We have to provide it to iTunes as that’s the format right now.

The format? What? What format? Are you talking about AAC? Or do you mean “it’s a system Sony has to support”, in the same way that Sony supports, say, Amazon and Walmart?

Publishers are being held to ransom by Apple and they are looking for other delivery systems, and we are waiting to see what the next three to five years will hold.

Yes, those poor publishers. Why won’t anyone THINK OF THE PUBLISHERS? Man, Apple really are bastards, revolutionising the online music space, actually encouraging people to buy digital music (rather than nick it), and making a success of this. Poor Sony. I WILL CRY TEARS FOR YOU TONIGHT.