One of the reasons I switched to Linux was to escape from "that other OS'es" (tm) attempt to monitor and control everything on my computer. This includes licenses for files, restrictions on what I can do with them, etc. - both of these things being deeply imbedded into iTunes. I can't imagine people with the Linux free opensource mindset even considering installing something as alien in concept as a proprietary software DRM infested music player on their computers.

Itunes works fine with non DRM files too, but it's main purpose ... is to sell those DRM'ed files. It would be a stetch for Apple to think any significant portion of the Linux community would bite on that sales pitch. The newbies who want Linux to be just like Windows maybe, but probably not the Linux community in general.

IMHO

Why would Apple market to a niche market who's biggest claim to fame is that it is "free as in free beer"? If will not pay for your OS why would you pay for music? I think that they look at Linux as a market of freeloaders.

Have you not played with Amarok? Most package managers can install in easily and I think it is more than the equivilent of iTunes, as long as you don't need iTMS (which, with all that DRM, i don't know why you would want to use it). Amarok also has some pretty good middleware for dealing with iPods, if you have one.

Amarok is too laggy and bloated for me to use. It seems to run like crap anytime I try to run it, though I'm using Gnome. I like to stick to Gnome apps and stay away from KDE or anything related to it, I've had nothing but trouble coming from KDE.

But desktop environments aside, I believe that is an important reason Apple doesn't cater to Linux. They just don't see the point in developing a program for people who have no plans to give them money.

And I have to agree with haertig that I'm surprised that people wouldn't be more against Apple then they could be. I haven't really decided whether I would buy a Mac or not any time soon, but I do enjoy their products. The ipod is a great mp3 player and I can do everything I want to do with it in Linux, so I'm happy.

It is true Mac OSX is a UNIX-like OS. It is not true that it is simple to port graphical applications back and forth. MacOS Apps use an entirely different system for the desktop and none of those libraries exist in linux. Further more, while all the standard unix system stuff exists for networking, etc. they have abstracted a lot of it out in there special API's.

Sadly, it basically would require them to re-write the program from scratch.

What's the profit of delivering software for free under Mac and under Windows? You don't have to pay a cent to download and use iTunes, so why not make a port to Linux? SURE is not because Linux is a non-profit market for them.

Even more, they should release it, just because people maybe they'll go and buy a Creative Zen instead of an iPod just because they can use it under Linux...

Just my $0.02

PS: BTW, you can use Amarok to sync your iPod (haven't checked with videos, but I don't think it works). Works awesome and also uploads the CD picture if you have it as well in Amarok

iTunes isn't free software for the purpose of being free. It is free because they want to sell video, music, and the iPods. Whenever a business makes software like this they pretty much ask the following question: "Is the market gained big enough to justify the development effort involved?".

On Windows and Apple the answer is certainly yes. The development effort wasn't huge on either platform because the music/video playback part of iTunes was already developed on both platforms (aka QuickTime). In the case of Windows it also encompasses a huge percentage of the desktop PC market.

On Linux they have no QuickTime. They also probably have few, if any, programmers that are extremely comfortable with the Linux API's (QT, GTK, etc) or any QA setup for Linux software.

In short, right now the cost of producing iTunes on Linux isn't justified by the size of the market gained by it. The bigger and more popular Linux gets the more likely a company like Apple would reevaluate its decisions.

So go out and get everyone you know running linux!

Fair enough with Amarok - what of Rhythmbox? I have yet to try it, but I hear it gets good reviews. Anyway, as to Apple not developing for Linux, that answer is simple: Apple wants to be THE alternative to Windows, not AN alternative.

I like Rhythmbox, though it still has some bugs to work out (it likes to crash for me from time to time, especially when trying to play internet radio). And Rhythmbox even has iPod syncronization support, so it's pretty much an identical clone to iTunes, minus the annoying background system processes and online store.

The only thing iTunes has that Rhythmbox doesn't, that does bother me, is IDv3 tag editing. Kinda sucks that I have to fire up XMMS or Easytag to edit the information on a song. I'm sure there is a reason for it, but for now I can't see why it doesn't support tag editing.

You DRM freaks kill me. iTunes supports CD burning. These are the steps I took to get Dark Side of the Moon from the iTMS playing in Linux:
And now a top 6 list of reasons to use iTunes.
So I sync w/ iTunes on my Windows computer and don't touch it any other time. That's what other users are for.

Well if you're worried about expenses, then why run Windows? Windows XP Home Edition by it self costs roughly $99. If you want to purchase music online you always got napster (though I'm not sure if you have to download any programs or not, I never use it) or you can order cd's online from plenty of websites. Not only do I think it's not worth it buying CD's in general, if I had to buy a song I would utilize other resources.

Plus what if someone is completely against Windows?

This is fine for those who wish to put up with it. If you are not bothered by the quality loss, additional writeable CD media expense, and personal time loss you get when you have to burn/rerip, then more power to 'ya.

Personally, I don't see a call for iTunes on Linux because iTunes proprietary design and embedded DRM limitations are opposite of the spirit of Linux. It's the principle of the thing - commercial proprietary vs. free opensource. It doesn't matter to me that some workaround can be concocted to get the music on Linux.

The fact iTunes is free won't make people buy more iPods, and, as I said before, with an iTunes for Linux, it could be that some Linux users would buy an iPod, instead of buying any other mp3/video player. I understand is pain in the butt coding from scratch an iTunes for Linux, but the iPod market is not sized by how many Apple and Windows PCs are in the world, but who (the real people) is going to buy them.
So, saying Apple won't release iTunes for Linux because there's no market for iPod for Linux users is nonsense.

You can use mplayer to play quicktime videos.

Certainly more Linux users potentially would own iPods and buy music on iTunes if they could use the program. However, the question still stands, are there enough people they would reach in the Linux market to justify developing and supporting the software on the platform? Apple apparently does not think so. It is a simple matter of accounting, until they believe the market is big enough to justify all the costs they won't do it.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact Apple doesn't develop Quicktime for Linux current does it? They could build iTunes around mplayer, but again, there were be a large learning curve for there iTunes development team.

Apple should use Java for writing iTunes. I do not know why people still use some platform dependent stuff. Go for mediachest.sf.net if you have multiple systems.