I would really, really like to see Linux run iTunes, not because it is an incredible music player (frankly, I find my MPM / ncmcpp stack better) but because it is how an iPod is best managed.<p>I fail to understand why iTunes not yet open-source. I mean, it is understandable for software like Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop - the company is charging so much per copy and will not be able to continue to do so once the source is publicly available, but how does it make sense for software like iTunes? Unless I'm mistaken, open-sourcing software should benefit users (by improving the software quality), hackers (duh!) and the company (a community). Is there something fundamental I'm missing?<p>This is not just limited to big companies. Floola is another (incidentally) iPod management software which is freeware but not open-source.
<i>Is there something fundamental I'm missing?</i><p>Sure looks like it to me.<p>Steve Jobs is well-known for being fanatical about his desire to carefully control the Apple user experience.<p>What would possible lead him to hand over control over one of his flagships? What advantage would he (or his shareholders) get from it?<p>If he wants to improve the software quality of iTunes, he certainly has the resources to do that, without relying on volunteers.<p>I don't think he's particularly interested in helping you to manage your iPod via Linux. In fact, all things considered, he'd prefer it if the desire to manage your iPod effectively led you to purchase a Mac.
I think he simply doesn't see any real benefits (for Apple) in open sourcing it. Surely the occasional geek will benefit, but there simply isn't that much market pressure for Apple to feel the need, neither other benefits, like it gets with the open source darwin.<p>The fundamental thing I think you're missing is that the assertion that open source benefits users, hacker and the company is not undisputed. Apple's stance on the matter, for example, are almost the opposite; for Apple it may benefit hackers, but it's bad for users (who may suffer unneeded complexity and confusion) and it's bad for Apple; at the least, it's a distraction and waste of resources to release an open-source version with the polish it ought to take, at the worst it may enable things Apple wouldn't want, like facilitating competitor's devices ability to fake as an iPod.<p>Not that I think Jobs is actively thinking about it, I'm pretty sure something like this doesn't crosses his mind. If asked maybe he would say 'go get another mp3 player then, or use Windows/Mac OS X'.<p>By the way I'm not saying I think Apple is right or wrong, just saying what I think are it's motives.
Apple wants to control everything that you install, read, or listen on your devices. Open up the source will only let people find a way to bypass their restriction rules.
It's all about monopolizing the market.
If it were open source, Apple would lose control. As it stands, you can only transfer songs to Apple products (iPod, iPhone), and you can only access the iTunes music store. So Apple would probably lose money by open sourcing iTunes. Perhaps, anyway - it's a possible explanation.
iTunes contains code that must be kept secret, i.e. encryption of audio streams to Airport Express, embedding user-info in mp4 files bought from the iTunes Store, communication and authentication of connected iPods/iPhones.<p>So a fully open source iTunes for Linux would only be half-working: no updates of iPods, no buying from iTunes Store, etc.