One Library to Rule Them All
on 05.11.05, 06:52am in art of software, windows • comments (17)
The other day, I mentioned a conversation that I overheard regarding the ease of use of Windows for digital photography vs. the Mac. There were definitely some interesting comments, but I really believe it boils down to three things:
- Hardware. As John mentioned in a previous post, all he wants from Longhorn is the ability for it to work with his ’stuff’. Mac has a better reputation when it comes to hardware and networking ‘just working’.
- Software. As Lou mentioned (who, BTW, I’ve been nagging daily to start a blog), the "applications" that come with digital cameras are usually in-house apps built by Canon, Nikon, etc that are just terrible.
- Libraries (I’ll add this one). I’m freaking tired of applications creating their own media libraries. How many photo, music and video libraries do we need? (speaking of that, how many ‘import my photo’ tools do we need?)
Personally, I would really like to see a central storage facility for media in Windows. Perhaps it’s already in Longhorn, I have no idea, but I want a single place (that I specify - why does it have to be on the local box?) that is a repository for all my photos, videos, music, contacts, etc that’s easily accessible via a consistent API and common dialogs.
The Windows Logo program should mandate this, IMHO. An application should not be able to get the ‘Designed for Windows‘ seal of approval if they create their own media store.
One reason that Apple does a better job of this is that most applications (not only media) has programmatic access to not only their storage location, but also their functionality (and, yes I am already well aware that apps such as Windows Media Player has this too, but tell me how many music apps use it). Any application can easily hook into iTunes, iPhoto, Image Capturing, etc to add capabilities to their software by using a consistant user experience. For example, check out Bitcartel’s iRecordNow. Neat stuff, and they don’t create their own audio library, they don’t create their own scheduler, instead it hooks directly into iCal to schedule the download of internet audio content and adds them into iTunes. Duh! Imagine that!
I know people are going to say "This is what WinFS" was designed for, but I think the problem can be solved without it.
Dave (May 11, 2005 @ 8:54 am)
A central media library is a great idea, and the Windows Logo Certification is a genius way to enforce it! However, having rewritten my comment several times while thinking it through, I would think that Longhorn would have to do some pretty fancy stuff with WinFS and add a layer of abstraction to Explorer (that I’ve not seen discussed anywhere on the web). Almost what OS X Tiger is doing with Smart Folders.
I think on the whole, we’ve moved on from folder tree structures (just look at how Microsoft modified the behaviour of Explorer to show system folders with a blue warning by default). When you plug something in, you don’t care where the data lives. Except maybe if you’ve got external storage devices, and in that case the O/S should ask you if you want to use those. If you watch Windows users installing software, you’ll notice that most of the time, the prompt that says, “Install to: c:\program files\somename\someprogram” is quickly skipped over with a “humpf” of confusion. Click the next button, see what happens. To this end, I’ve always marvelled at the Macs ability to pick up an application, drag and drop a single icon to a folder on your hard disk, and it’s installed.
I really do hope that WinFS holds the keys to a smarter O/S.
Some people might argue that the PC has too many applications, whereas others might suggest it’s a good thing. Personally I believe that there are too many lousy applications, and not enough quality ones. The Mac is a different ballgame because it has the attention of graphic designs, who may well be the next user interface experts!
There’s no excuse why the same principles can’t be applied to Windows applications. Just look at Picasa - it’s user interface is excellent and I can’t help wondering if the author/designer has some kind of Mac background.
steve (May 11, 2005 @ 9:08 am)
I couldn’t agree with you more (I was actually in the middle of writing a post where I suggested that). Just the other day I was having a conversation with someone regarding the speed (or lack thereof) of the WMP library.
I suggested that this is the type of thing that should be in the OS. Wouldn’t it be great if you could use whatever frontend player that struck your fancy at the time.
Jeff Atwood (May 11, 2005 @ 10:29 am)
I still say this cannot be solved with a traditional PC and its open, third-party model. You have to go with the closed Xbox 360 model. You guys do know that the 360 has a “green button” on its remote, right? And USB 2.0 ports in front?
Steve (May 11, 2005 @ 12:30 pm)
Jeff: Why couldn’t you just have a set of Common Dialogs, designed for Photo/Contacts/Video/Music/etc? and an API set for accessing a common store location.
The keyboard needs a green button, I guess
Lou (May 11, 2005 @ 12:51 pm)
The Windows Logo is a great idea in theory, but there’s no REASON for an application to get the logo. In Windows XP, drivers needed it otherwise you get a nasty dialog. Even still, you call up your printer manufacturer, and they say ignore the dialog…
What if when you launched an application, if the app wasn’t logoed it would put up a nasty warning? There would be incentive to write applications to the guidelines.
Shawn (May 11, 2005 @ 1:35 pm)
Steve always has the best random ideas, and this is one of the better ones…
This could absolutely be done on a traditional PC, and who gets to define the “media types” that get supported? Look at the current RAW mess for a pathetic example. Canon says they support the format, then tweak it just a bit. Nikon does the same, and now you have two different media types. What crap. Don’t electronic companies get that these things are commoditized tools, and once the general audience gets more educated, there will be a massive backlash against these proprietary games?
The other trend that will hamper this goal of “one store to rool them all” are the spawned-from-Satan various DRMs. Despite Hillary Rosen’s latest missives which go against her entire career, the current trend is for everyone to have their unique DRM engine. This common store would have to aleviate this mess to be a success, and I just don’t see that happening in our lifetimes.
Dave (May 11, 2005 @ 2:14 pm)
In larger companies, you have “working groups” to ensure that the internals of the organisation work as best they can, and adhere to the rules.
Maybe Microsoft needs a user-focused, Windows orientated, “working group” to ratify media types within the library. Then, if the worst happened and the new formats were created, there’s a central place to update…Windows Update. Thinking about how Firefox and Google Desktop Search work, maybe a plugin architecture would be appropriate allowing people to plugin third party functionality, or write functionality themselves.
I have to say Steve, I’ve been thinking about the concept on and off for a couple of hours now and I reckon it has some mileage.
Steve (May 11, 2005 @ 3:06 pm)
Lemme see if I can float the idea around internally, and see what people’s thoughts are.
Jeff Atwood (May 12, 2005 @ 10:47 am)
> To this end, I’ve always marvelled at the Macs ability to pick up an application, drag and drop a single icon to a folder on your hard disk, and it’s installed.
Uh.. drag and drop to WHICH folder? If your goal is to hide the hierarchical file system (which I agree with), I fail to see how this helps.
Dave (May 12, 2005 @ 1:12 pm)
I was highlighting a level of abstraction with that example, thinking back to Mac OS 8 days. Hopefully the layer of abstaction will enventully dispense with this process, yes. I don’t feel confident speculating too much on the capabilities of Longhorn at this stage.
Anyway, I’m happy enough for now that single icon applications under Mac OS X run from almost anywhere. Be it desktop, hard disk, or removable drive.
Anom (May 12, 2005 @ 7:51 pm)
A central media library… with plugin architecture. that be cool
for example if you install Photoshop. instead of using it own library. it would install a media library plugin for PSD File Format. so other apps could access the same plugin and so on…
i love the idea. but would 3rd party support it…
( “Uh.. drag and drop to WHICH folder? If your goal is to hide the hierarchical file system (which I agree with), I fail to see how this helps.”
correct me if i’m wrong… but nearly all applications now give you the choice of installing you app using a installer or drag and drop in to your Applications folder… a great example is … Microsoft Office Mac 2004 and Virtual PC Mac Edition )
Steve (May 13, 2005 @ 7:57 pm)
Sigh. That’s the whole point: NO ONE USES THEM.
Dave (May 14, 2005 @ 8:15 am)
You couldn’t really classify a bunch of folders as a media library either. If I’ve got photos on my media server, and my laptop, it would be nice to see them in a single unified view. The same goes for my movies, documents, etc.
JonGalloway.ToString() (May 23, 2005 @ 11:25 pm)
Supersize my Windows Media Library
JonGalloway.ToString() (May 24, 2005 @ 12:17 am)
Supersize my Windows Media Library
Foolhardy (July 21, 2006 @ 2:50 pm)
A centralized repository of pictures, videos and such that uses a well defined API?
You mean the “My Pictures”, “My Documents”, etc. shell folders? The ones that you can redirect to wherever you want with group policies? The ones with the big shortcut buttons on the side of every open/save common dialog box? The ones that you’re supposed to be aware of and respect to get the logo?
See also the Windows Address Book (WAB) APIs, and also creating shell and WAB plugins.
Steve (July 29, 2006 @ 9:22 pm)
Right. The same My Pictures, My Documents, etc that MusicMatch, iTunes, etc., dont use.