Why did Songbird stop supporting PowerPC users, does it dislike the Mac?

This is an absolutely stupid idea particular for an open source product. There seems no really good reason when you are providing 64-bit Linux support whose userbase must be vanishingly minimal. I can't afford a new Mac, and now I'm not let in on the fun?

I agree! at least make it posible to port songbird using macports... but even better is make us a ppc version cause I am not gonna trow out my beautiful, powerfull dual G5!

I thought a Fan did build an unofficial PPC Version?
http://blog.songbirdnest.com/2008/09/...

Doesn't this work well?

Very disappointing.

There are so many PowerPc mac users out there, I just don't buy that the numbers have dipped enough to completely abandon it from development. This is a sad day for backwards compatibility.

I mean, I know what you guys at Mozilla is doing is free and all for us, but it would just be nice to have... something. iTunes eats my system resources and Safari can't run flash to save its digital life. I thought I finally found something awesome -- and yes, what you made is pretty awesome. Yet to my surprise, I'm running an old, buggy, unsupported version of your awesome app.

So what happened between 0.6.1 and 0.7.0? Did your Mac team of developers decide to call it quits because they want to play with Boot Camp and Spaces? If I could afford one of those new Intel-based Macs, I'd buy it up in a heart beat. Ohh they're so nice... But, I can't. And the computer I have now (iMac G5 ALS) works great, even after three years with no hardware upgrades.

So basically, how many people do we need for our PPC numbers to stop taking a dip? C'mon, don't throw in the towel yet :)

I have no way of upgrading my beautiful G5. Have you seen what is happening with my pathetic pension fund and my 'wannahav' house? All I have is my G5 and a cat. C'mon, give us a break...

As an open source developer myself, I know how annoying it is when people feel entitled to having your software run on whatever configuration they have.

But I just wanted to cast in my vote; If there's no 10.4 PPC support there's no songbird in my future, because when I do upgrade to 10.5, I'll probably have found something else and will just keep using that.

I understand this is just the opinion of one user (or 7 at this site), so I suggest you put it to a poll. Include 64-bit/32-bit and PPC/x86 of all major linux distros, all windows versions 32 and 64, and all os x versions. It should say something to the effect of: "Choose the platforms on which you can use Songbird were it supported." And allow the user to select any number of platforms, the idea being that if it is not supported on any of the chosen platforms, the user would not use Songbird. Each user can only vote once, of course.
I don't know what software you would use to interpret the poll, but if it's not too much trouble, the correct method of interpretation would be:
1. The statistics show how many users you would gain by supporting each platform.
2. Choose one platform to support.
3. Drop that platform from the current statistics
4. Drop all users in the chosen platform from all platforms //you've already gained those users, don't re-count them in the second iteration
The other issue would be you would have to record votes as boolean-tuples of all platforms for each user-vote, not integers. (In practice, not that hard, ie an sql table with each platform as a boolean column and the votes as separate records, but you would need to make sure the voting software supports it)

You probably would just use a pre-made polling service, but as a quick suggestion for ensuring unique voters, I would say put a cookie when they vote, and don't allow anyone to vote with that cookie nor more than ~3 times per IP+UserAgent.

I just keep wondering: Why does nobody who complains about "no PPC support" say something about the PPC build, which already exits? (see my post above.)

Doesn't it work? Does this not satisfy you, because it's a contributed build?
I don't get it, but perhaps someone can help me out here...

Just wanted to add my disappointment as well. I have used Macs since '85, but I tend to wear them out rather than go out and buy the latest and greatest. I have 4 Macs and NO Intel. I don't know where you get your numbers from.

Uh? Seriously? Numbers dipped? That is the most jack ass response to a Mac issue I've heard lately. The users I know are exactly like you pH - MACS LAST. Therefore, other than hardware envy, most people don't trade up (also due to elevated expense). That seems like kind of a lazy (read: uninvestigated) response. The older your system, the more in need you are of something that IS NOT itunes. Seriously - have you seen how bloated it is?

This is probably the wrong place to ask, but this post seems to get a lot of notice. How hard would it be to pump out a Songbird Lite? Something on the simplicity scale of Winamp. Just a small playlist, using minimal resources. I'd settle for that over an old version of Songbird or a new, user-created, unsupported version. Just a suggestion :)

My cents is that my Power G4 Quicksilver is so slow running Songbird I really don't see the point. Maybe if your running a G5 this is different. I think this is not just the Songbird developers, but all software. Stuck on 10.4, and seeing all new software becoming less supported. Open Office 3 isn't PPC. Not buying another mac, rather get myself a PC running linux. Bought two revisions of Mac OS X, and I've had enough. No more money. Mac rant over.

i have G5 PPC and would love an alternative to itunes. any alternative sofware to Apple software is offered and better i would take instaed of being lockedin cage like apple wants us to be. although i don't understand why everyone is so quickly abandoning PPC. there is still a lot of users out there. not everyone out there quickly bought an intel mac the day they came out.

Your software looks like a great alternative to itunes i would love to use it instead of itunes

How do you calculate the 'dip' in PPC usage is significant enough to forget about it? Is the noticeable fall in usage monitored with user agent requests by Mozilla? I work as an Apple support technician and I reckon there's got to be millions of PPC units out there working away all the time. I have 4 PPC Macs in this house and none will be retiring anytime soon. I might not use Songbird on every machine but I certainly would like to use it on one at least. I use Songbird with GNU/Linux already, and will download it for my PC too. I regret your decision.

'm gonna me too this thread. You guys have got to realize the not supporting the PPC platform is not going to endear you to Mac users, regardless of whether they own an Intel in their Mac collection or not.

Typical... "do the right thing" means ignoring the people who downloaded your app FIRST.

I'd love to give the latest version of Songbird a try but all our household GUI user machines are PPC Macs and they won't be replaced in the foreseeable future unless one or all of them completely die.

This seems like a typical open source decision made without realizing how the Mac community works. It is not a good idea to drop official support and releases for systems that still run the current (for the moment) version of OS X. Mac users have long memories.

My developer side doesn't understand it, either. OS X is largely the same on PPC and Intel and cross-compiling code has always been a snap for me. I think an official PPC version is still a good idea if you really want to support the platform.

Having "developer community" support will always mean the latest version won't be available for weeks or months after the official version is released and PPC users just won't use it. If they don't use it on PPC, they won't use it on Intel if/when they switch or if they switch to another platform. There are still choices and, right now, Songbird doesn't appear to be the right choice for what I suspect are millions of PPC Macs still in use.

I won't pretend to understand the logic behind this so you go do whatever you want but I won't be along for the ride.

Does Songbird internally make use of Java 6.0? If so, that explains it, as Apple hasn't released a Java 6 VM for Tiger (OS X 10.4), although the wording should be a little different ("No support for OS X 10.4", not "No support for PPC", since technically, Leopard supports PPC, even if most PPC computers have trouble with it).

Since Songbird is Open Source Software, all you need to do is build XUL Runner and Songbird against a PPC version of macports, isn't it? It's supposed to be quite simple.

Open source is not only about free beer, it's free as in freedom, and if you're not happy with something you are free to do whatever suits your needs, such as compiling for the PPC architecture. This might even take you one step closer to the codebase and the development team so that you can contribute work to the project.

Just my 2c,

Alex

Yeah would love a PPC version of the software but have no programming skills - so just have to hope against hope that some kind soul out there with said skills will port the shiny that is 1.0 Songbird. My PC loves it - my PPC would love to as well :)

I am very disappointed to see that there is no PPC and 10.4 Version. It is just not true that there are not a lot of PPC machines anymore. A lot of people still work with their old Powerbooks or G5 Imacs or Powermacs. So your statement is a false one. I would say that because Apples last much longer than other PCs there are more PPCs at working places and at home than Linux boxes everywhere (no linux bashing implied, I use it for my servers, too).

So if you want a succesfull product you should support PPC and 10.4. If not you will disappear in a small open source niche for geeks but unknown to everybody else.

Another user here who would appreciate a 10.4/PPC build. I have a perfectly serviceable Power Mac G5 running 10.4 and no plans to upgrade or replace it anytime soon. It would be great to be able to play FLACs on it using Songbird.

You know, i'm a web designer and i always have to fix my job for ie6. I don't like it but, i have to do it, because, out there, so many people still use it...

Songbird is open source, but, i don't that it means no business... so, if we think that the "long tail" it's important, you have do do it also for PPC.

Anyway, i try Songbird on a Mac Intel, and ii think that it's gorgeous!

I'm somewhat disappointed as well. I knew that people were going to drop their support of powerpc macs, but I didn't realize open source programmers were going to do that.
The one reason I can do anything is because people out there program things for the small groups of users that support them. The loyal Apple fan base will be using their computers for a long time, and this includes those with powerpc computers. I for one will not be turning in my computer every 2 years for a new one, it is completely ridiculous.
I have no clue why everyone is dropping support for powerpc. It should be the open source programs at the very least that support powerpc.

It's bums on seats, and sadly PowerPC going out the window. My Quicksilver 2001 is now approaching eight years old. This is seriously old. I'm planning on upgrading this year, and although I was intially annoyed by the dropping of PowerPC I've had a good run. Next stop Linux I think, and some juicy Intel Quad Core chips. Not restricting myself with PPC again, anyone who's ran PPC Linux will know what I mean. Graphics drivers? Forget it.

I for one welcome the transition, just wish it didn't burn my pocket.

Well my G4 and my G5 aren't sooo old and still work, the G5 is still fast enough for my music producing stuff on OS X. So I won't switch the next 1-2 years.

Apple is dropping support for PPC with the OSX 10.6 update coming this year.

so what? Most PPCs in use still run on 10.4 (because it is faster than Leopard on PPCs) and OS X 10.4 is still a very good OS. I know dozens of mac users and still over 50% use G5s or fast G4s and 10.4 . Some will switch, sure, like I will do perhaps at the end of 2009ev or next year to a new mac but there will be lots who use the old machines for years to come. This is open source software and not some monopolistic or closed source proprietary software project.

Back to iTunes then!

Why this? Thankfully Macs last longer than PCs. My PowerPC iMac is 3 1/2 years old and fresh as on its first day. It will last more months and years with any problem. If you are interested to make people use Songbird instead of iTunes, you should make it available for PowerPC, too.

here i was thinking that i had found an open-source answer to my digital prayers. But alas, rather than leave up a older version, (and admitting you no longer support it) you bury your planned obsolescence on a forum page. with out so much as link to why. I had to find it on google. Way to go! Hackers of the world unite against corporate greed! (Unless, of course, you're using older hardware.)

Why doesn't everybody just use the unofficial build?

http://www.the-eleven.com/tlegg/

Yes, an official build would be better but hey maybe I'm selfish but there's plenty of things for the developers to be working on. I.e. making podcasts actually work! That would be something I could show my friends on their window laptops, and none of them run any ppc hardware.

Please support PPC/10.4, we're still out here.....

This whole thread reminds of when the Audacity developers stopped supporting Mac OS 9. Their mailing list used to be full of requests. Time went on to, and most eventually switched over to OS X, and the requests became less frequent. Perhaps because of that Audacity is a better audio editor today because of it.

PPC for desktop being dead is unfortunate, however that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'm certainly not throwing out any of my PPC CPU machines, that I worked very hard to pay for.

This is a hardware and code base switch, particularly for those who have lots of money to bleed in the current U.S. economy (It might be different, if the economy wasn't in the shape it's in).

Apple states that there are over 10 million OS X PPC users currently (that's not counting the pre-OS X PPC users on machines like upgraded Power Mac 8600s and 9600s, that Apple ignores also).

This is NOT like Mac OS 9.x.x users switching over (or, more accurately in most cases I know, adding the booting of versions of OS X to their PPC machines already booting Mac OS 9.x.x);

The dual-booting G3 and G4 PPC CPU machines could boot either OS X or Mac OS 9.x.x (even the officially "OS X only" G4 CPU machines could actually boot Mac OS 9.2.2 via having Apple's "Custer v1.1f1" installed), and G5 CPU machines could run Mac OS 9.2.2 via Emulation under OS X, as could also G3 and G4 PPC CPU machines...

Note: Ubuntu PPC is now a community supported platform
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCDownloads

Note: Many users have called on Apple for many years to release the code for Mac OS 8.x / Mac OS 9.2.2 as open source, so Mac OS 8.x / Mac OS 9.2.2 can be community supported platforms.

Note: Users are calling on Apple to release the PPC code for OS X 1.0 - OS X 10.4.11, so PPC OS X can also be a community supported platform.

IF Apple released both Mac OS 8.x / Mac OS 9.2.2 code (supposedly "dead" in terms of Apple support - so what's the issue?) and the OS X PPC code (supposedly "dying" in terms of Apple support - so what's the issue?) as open source, it would allow the Mac communities to provide support...

However, as long as Apple refuses to release the PPC codes as open source, it stymies the Mac communities in these regards...

In terms of OSX being open sourced, the base (darwin) already is, and has been for years. That includes the PPC and Intel code and kernels (minus the apple hardware verification code, certain patches, and anything to do with Aqua). Barely anyone has touched darwin though, and it has only been used by:
1) Other operating systems and upstream to add extra functionality
2) To make OSX86 possible without serious hacks.
Nobody else has really fiddled with the code much.. There used to be a small community movement to work seriously on Darwin, but as far as I know, nothing was ever really accomplished, and the only reason they did so, was to try to get employed by Apple.

Apple wont release the FULL OSX 10.4 code for many obvious reasons:
1) 10.4 was cross intel/PPC anyway. Its release would allow a free version of OSX that runs on any hardware. They would be handing over their OS on a silver platter for free. Even if only 10.3 was released, people could blend it with 10.4 to run OSX legally on any PC for free.
2) The first thing the source code would be used by is Linux, to add full OSX compatibility (which would give Linux a huge boost, because even ancient versions of ilife and such being available would address many of Linux's shortcomings).
3) Making a project open source doesn't mean much. The latest release of Xorg was delayed by many months due to lack of developers, despite being a core technology. And many projects regularly lose maintainers (DevFS was another VERY serious one). Songbird is open source too, and I'd imagine only an incredibly small number of check-ins are by the community. And Songbird provides developers with goodies....
4) No benefit for Apple. It wont increase their market-share, only only act as a catalyst to lose control of their market.
Apple ignores the requests to open source their code because the base of it already is, and it would be like shooting themselves in the foot. Its common sense..

10 million users or not:
1) Barely any extension developers own a PPC, so many extensions wont work. Even POTI probably don't have any.
2) PPC will die sooner or later. Now that parts for macs are almost unattainable, and their warranties have expired, the user-base will drop like a brick. Its no longer viable to repair them (except for a museum).
3) You wouldn't build a business on a gold mine which yields only small deposits of gold, so why would you throw tens of thousands of dollars into supporting a platform which wont grow? In fact, the latest PS3's don't even allow Linux to run any more apparently.
3) You forget that it costs POTI money to support a platform. Tens of thousands of dollars. Supporting PPC isn't a good long term strategy, and its simply smarter to support the hundreds of millions of PC's, and improve features. I think its quite clear that more users would want Video/podcasting support then PPC support.
4) People with ancient computers tend to use what they have anyway and probably wont rush out to use Songbird. Furthermore, the most popular portable media player amongst Apple users are the iPods, a device which is difficult to support well from a third party perspective.
5) I don't think you can apply the "economy argument" here. Its a bit hypocritical to spend 50% more (in some cases) on hardware, and then go and complain that people are living tough. You implied you own a few though. How many people really living rough own a few PPC macs?
5) Songbird is open source. So you are free to take over the PPC port any-time.

Sorry, supporting PPC is like a post-humorous execution. Costs money to set up, but long term, nothing is accomplished.

Just my opinion though, I don't work for POTI. As mentioned though, you are free to help port Songbird though, or set up a bounty for PPC support. I just think that features are more important!

I was clearly addressing global Mac issues, which are more than just the Songbird PPC support issue...

I'll just make a few points (I'm not in the mood right now to list everything, and it would be a huge list if I did...), including about needed OS X and Mac OS code not being made available by Apple:

1) Even when programmer Gwenole Beauchesne publicly requested needed OS X code and technical data from Apple regarding the OS X "Classic" Emulation Environment, so he could improve his freeware Sheepsaver emulator, so it could run Mac OS 9.1, Mac OS 9.2, Mac OS 9.2.1 and Mac OS 9.2.2, Apple refused;

2) Even when Allume Systems (owned by Smith Micro) publicly requested needed OS X code and technical data from Apple, so they would have what they needed to port the shareware ShrinkWrap for Macintosh (originally created by programmer Chad Magendanz http://www.linkedin.com/in/magendanz) to OS X, Apple refused (so, you cannot open Macintosh ShrinkWrap archives natively under OS X);

3) When very long-time users (I date back originally to the CISC CPU Macintosh PLUS and Macintosh Operating System 3.0 in the mid-1980s...) have already made years-long large investments in PPC computers, hardwares and softwares - upon which we can run softwares and/or hardwares dating back to 68K on up to the present by running OS X 10.4.11 PPC with the "Classic" Emulation Environment (many of us didn't switch to OS X 10.5.x solely because if you need to run even one pre-OS X app requiring Mac OS 9.1 - Mac OS 9.2.2 on say a G5 CPU machine, you need the "Classic" Emulation Environment) - raise issues, we should be listened to:

a) Apple wouldn't even be here without our decades-long support, period;

b) When we point out that we lose the ability to have backwards compatibility, while the Windows / Intel users still have 80% + backwards compatibility for programs and hardwares dating back decades, this is a real issue (for years, Microsoft software developer / engineer Raymond Chen has pointed out this issue about ALL computing Platforms, and has also fought about this issue inside Microsoft regarding Windows OS builds...);

4) I - and other users - are currently able to (and have) upgraded PPC G4 and/or G5 tower machines - including CPUs (G4 towers only), graphic cards, RAM, hard disks, PCI cards for other expansion... (ask Other World Computing, where I and others have bought upgrades from for years, if you doubt me);

5) Remember that Robert X. Cringely predicted that the era of any and all mainframes being used, would cease after January 1, 2000? That wasn't true either...

I'll end by quoting my late grandfather:

"There are always five or six sides to issues, not just two; The world is three-dimensional, not two-dimensional, so we can agree that we disagree and still continue to work together, and it is always healthy to have more than just two points of view..." - Lidumil E Totusek (February 14, 1899 - October 28, 1989), Spokane, Washington, U.S.A.

1+2) Hand it over to someone who worked for Mandriva linux for years? Brilliant idea! Gee, that would really inspire me to hand over the code (when a developer from a competitors company asks for help). Btw, stuffit supports Shrinkwrap images apparently..

3) Thats true, but OS9 to OSX was a serious change, which did not provide an easy means of adding native OS9 application support. I think we both know why Apple drew the line where they did..

4) Apple computer third party upgrades still cost considerably more then PC upgrades. Cheaper then a brand new mac, yes, but still, I severely doubt that those living in poverty rushed out to purchase macs.

5) Computers are like cars. Just because a model is out of date doesn't mean that the manufacturing process should be handed out for free.

Either way, good luck if you succeed. But:
1) The first thing people would use the OSX code for would be for things that disadvantage apple. That's obvious..
2) PPC still wont spring back (it will still be a dying platform)
3) I went to the Apple tech talks and such and spoke to Apple's developers (and have been to plenty of Apple sales conferences). From someone who has seen both sides, I don't see it happening..
4) Even if the 10.3 OSX PPC source were released, people wont exactly rush out to do anything serious with it. They didn't with Darwin either..

Because PPC wont suddenly get bigger, as mentioned, its still makes a lot more sense to target the billion Intel-based computers out there, rather then sacrifice features for a paltry 10million users whose numbers are dwindling.

And as mentioned, PPC advocates are free to support PPC themselves. But don't underestimate the time it takes to do so. I can't complain about additional compatibility if its free. But PPC support doubles testing time for POTI, so its only feasible for the community to support such a build...

Respectfully:

ShrinkWrap under Mac OS 7.1.1, 8.x, and 9.x.x supports some StuffIt archives, but ShrinkWrap does not work under OS X; StuffIt still has some issues with mounting some ShrinkWrap images under Mac OS 7.1.1, 8.x, and 9.x.x, where ShrinkWrap v3.5.1 for Macintosh Operating System 7.1.1, OS 7.1.1, 8.x, and 9.x.x, does not.

I have it straight from Allume Systems staff - in person at Mac Expos I've gone to - that the publicly requested OS X code and technical data from Apple needed to port the shareware ShrinkWrap for Macintosh to OS X, was denied to Allume by Apple.

The refusal of Apple to make the pre-OS X Mac OS 8.x.x and 9.x.x code open source and available to users (after then Apple CEO Gil Amelio making Macintosh Operating System 6.x.x and Macintosh Operating System 7.5.5 freeware years ago), is ridiculous at this point - including regarding Gwenole Beauchesne's request regarding the OS X "Classic" Emulation Environment data, so he could improve his freeware Sheepsaver emulator, so it could run Mac OS 9.1 - Mac OS 9.2.2 (and that would be under both PPC and Intel) - besides the other issues of needed technical information about OS X not being made available (programmers - including the original ShrinkWrap author - have written me, that back in the days of pre-OS X Macintosh Operating System 6.x.x and 7.x.x, they never had any problems getting the needed code and technical data, quite unlike today after Steve Jobs came back *).

Note: "The manufacturing process" of making cars (i.e. the pre-full-of-PowerPC-chips cars) has been about physical manufacturing, and all of the information on the basic physical manufacturing process of making many types of pre-full-of-PowerPC-chips cars, is right at my public library (I also see so many models of cars "out of date", driving on the roads every day).

Robert Dinse (the founder and owner of the Eskimo North ISP, and one of the "bleeding edge" Linux guys for many years) pointed out to me some other types of issues entirely, including that the real-time computing he does on PPC CPU machines cannot be done on Intel CPU machines, because of all of the Intel CPUs' number of interrupts per minute, and that there are some security issues with Intel chips that do not happen with PPC chips.

We are also surrounded by PPC technology. Besides the Apple G3, G4, and G5 PPC CPU computers, the Sun Microsystems PPC CPU computers, etc., in use:

The embedded PPC market is huge - a market whose technology would never have existed, except for the 1991 Apple / IBM / Motorola PPC RISC architecture coalition (aka "AIM") - Motorola's part of that, is now spun off into the independent company Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., via the divestiture of the Semiconductor Products Sector of Motorola in 2004.

Apple recently bought a PPC chip manufacturer (PA Semi), to enter the embedded PPC market itself, and is also in a legal dispute with IBM over Apple hiring Mark Papermaster (IBM's top expert in PPC architecture and technology development).

Modern cars often have anywhere from 10 to 40 PPC chips in them.

Many of the cell phones today use PPC chips.

Many modern electronic musical instruments / MIDI controllers use PPC chips.

Many satellites in orbit today around our world, use a special version of an IBM G3 PPC chip.

Nintendo has been using PPC chips in their game consoles since November of 2001.

The Microsoft Xbox 360 uses a PPC chip core.

- Martin

* Linus Torvalds stated that he turned down working for Apple, in part because of Steve Jobs' extreme secrecy policies and restrictions on providing technical data - I consider that a great loss of what might have been; Imagine if Linus had been leading OS X development...

Yes, we are also surrounded by QNX embedded systems too, but it doesn't change much.

1) Aren't you confusing ARM and PowerPC? I'm having trouble finding a single PowerPC based phone.. And the hardened radiation Atmel chips are Sparc based too.
2) I was under the impression Ultrasparc was its own unique architecture. Either way, even sun appears to be mainly peddling Xeon's/Opteron's these days. Of course IBM would be pushing PowerPC, but they are only probably doing so in select markets.
3) Its totally irrelevant if your car, midi controller or satelites run a PowerPC chip. At the end, its almost impossible to go out and buy a PowerPC computer brand new. Yes, Xbox360 and Nintendo use PowerPC, but you can't run songbird on there anyway.. They are all locked down.
4) OS9 being released as open source will have no impact on Songbird (because Songbird wont be able to run on OS9 anyway). Either way, if you worked for a billion dollar corporation, would you just go and release source code without checking it? NO! Apple would first have to look through the code and ensure its clean for public release. That costs money. And Apple really don't owe it to anyone. Just because something is old doesn't mean they should give it away.
5) Once again, you want Apple to release OSX for PPC. Wont happen, because its code tree is blended with the intel (and iPhone embedded one).
6) Sorry, but I doubt that was the only reason Linus turned down Apple. And I don't believe it was a big loss. There are a lot of talented developers out there, and Linus is just yet another one.

Sorry, but at the end of the day, your best bet would be to start a petition for a PPC version of Songbird again or/and a bounty (bounty would be the best bet). Out of the 2 people I knew with a PPC as their main computer recently, 1 of them broke (about a year ago), and the last one (an ibook) is in terrible condition.

Yet, I know dozens of people with Intel based computers....

In the true spirit of open source, couldn't a few developers band together and build a PPC binary, host it themselves, and do their best to keep it current? It may lag some, but it should be enough to keep folks happier.

There are quite a few of us who are upset, but let's rechannel our anger in a productive direction. Let's build it ourselves as hackers have done since the days of big iron.

I'd just like to throw another PPC voice in the sea here. iTunes9 is intolerably slow, and I'd much prefer to run Songbird before downgrading to the old iTunes, which more and more is looking like my only option.