The way the site introduces you to the "product" and then offers no info beyond it leads me to believe that this is just a joke. I sincerely hope it is, for their benefit.

Reply

This is just sad.

Reply

Wow, I just pulled up iTunes to compare... I hope they get sued. EVERYTHING is in the same place: volume, controls, even the order of categories in the browsing window. You would have thought they would change something other than just its color.

Reply

The copyright "©2005 Pioneers of the Inevitable" leads me to believe that this site is done tongue-in-cheek. They probably want to see how much shit they can stir up in a small amount of time by taking an uber-product (iTunes), doctoring it in photoshop (or using a skinning program), and then proclaiming they're releasing it to the masses.

Reply

Well Apple allegedly stole the iTunes interface from somewhere else anyway:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1143

Reply

SW: Contois made the alleged designs and patents in 1995. iTunes has been out since 2001. He waited until 2004 to even write to Apple in regards to it? And Summer of 2005 to file a suit?

No one's going to deny the "browser" style of selection. Screen cap of Contois's music interface is here:

http://www.macplus.net/magplus/IMG/jpg/20050621_contois_interface.jpg

However, that's a far cry from proving first work or patent infringement. Abstract and patent here:

http://www.diariox.com/imagedepot/articlephotos/apple/lawsuits/patent_5864868.jpg
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5,864,868.WKU.&OS=PN/5,864,868&RS=PN/5,864,868

His interface is clearly designed for controlling an external hardware music device, like a player piano, or a karaoke video machine. And it is nothing more than a way to sort music to and from a device. There's a reason he's seeking a jury trial. He knows that there isn't a judge in the world that would let such broadsweeping sorting prevent further works. His patent is obvious in its intent, and it is for a remarkably different purpose than any music playing software. If he were really concerned about protecting his work and patent, he would have went for WinAmp, Media Player, and even any and all file browsers that allow constraining selections.

Fact is, he's hoping that he can convince 12 laypersons that he deserves some money from Apple, and he's specifically waited until now because of the archaic *visual* similarities he has with the now-recognizable iTunes browser.

I hope the jury buys it, and that the judge throws out the jury's verdict and pronounces him a moron.

Reply

I couldn´t keep my mouth shut, so i ha to write them. Here´s what I said:

----
Two days to redesign, eh? I guess the first was to download iTunes and the second to paint its interface black. Come on, you guys could at least try harder.
----

The response i get? Here:

----
Look deeper.
----

Wow. That´s so... zen. :-/

Reply

Interesting, Wsyiwyg. Someone more detective-y than me needs to have a look. I've gone through the source code for each page, examined each photo under magnification, and even sought out the tracks listed in each shot, playing them at the same timecode in an attempt to find some hidden meaning / joke.

Reply

That's hillarious djones, I wrote him and got the EXACT same response! Here's what I wrote

Wow, I must say, it's extremely innovative of you to rip off iTunes like that. I don't think I've seen a fake of iTunes yet. Does it work with all the knock off iPods that are out there? Just curious. Maybe that two days would have been better spent designing something, I don't know, original maybe? Just a thought. Good luck in your impending court case when Apple sues the pants off you!

Yeah, kinda snotty, but I've had a bad at work today and felt like venting on a rip-off artist. Same "Look deeper." response though. Maybe it is tongue in cheek, if it is they need to do a better job at showing it. Oh well, still funny.

Reply

It strikes me that, in the Mac community, a claim that it "took two days to design" would be a strong indication to stay away. I think we understand that truly great design takes more than two days.

Er, unless someone's already done your design for you :-)

Reply

It looks to me like a comment on patenting something that would be produced inevitably, such as the look of iTunes. That's the joke behind the slow transition of the way it looks, from something generic, to something that looks almost but not quite like iTunes.

Reply

Look again.

http://songbirdnest.com/

It took two days to implement because it's built from the potent declarative XML dialectic XUL atop the Mozilla platform, the same as Firefox.

Reply