iTunes 9 Breaks Palm Pre Syncing Once Again [Archive]

MacRumors

Sep 10, 2009, 10:48 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/10/itunes-9-breaks-palm-pre-syncing-once-again/)

PreCentral notes (http://www.precentral.net/itunes-9-breaks-itunes-sync-again-get-going-palm) that iTunes 9, launched yesterday (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/09/apple-releases-itunes-9-new-media-syncing-options-genius-mixes-iphone-app-organization/) at Apple's "It's Only Rock and Roll" media event, once again breaks media syncing for the Palm Pre.The big question on everybody's mind: does it break Palm Pre Sync? Pre users in this thread are downloading now and the verdict is yes, Palm Pre Sync appears to be busted.The Palm Pre was initially designed (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/05/28/palm-pre-to-sync-with-itunes-on-macs/) to allow users to sync media directly from their iTunes libraries via iTunes by presenting itself as an iPod. Apple disabled the functionality (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/15/itunes-8-2-1-reportedly-breaks-palm-pre-syncing/) for Pre users with the release of iTunes 8.2.1 in mid-July, but Palm fired back (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/23/palm-releases-webos-1-1-restores-itunes-media-syncing/) just a week later with the release of webOS 1.1, which re-enabled iTunes media syncing for the Pre.

Despite apparent violations of USB Implementers Forum regulations in its unauthorized use of Apple's USB Vendor ID Number to achieve media syncing, Palm also brazenly reported Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/24/palm-reports-apple-to-usb-compliance-organization-over-itunes-syncing-issues/) to the compliance organization for what Palm believes to be improper actions by Apple in preventing other vendors from accessing iTunes via USB.

Article Link: iTunes 9 Breaks Palm Pre Syncing Once Again (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/10/itunes-9-breaks-palm-pre-syncing-once-again/)

Bill Gates

Sep 10, 2009, 10:50 AM

This tit-for-tat is getting a bit ridiculous.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 10:51 AM

^^ I have a feeling Apple will win this one.

KnightWRX

Sep 10, 2009, 10:52 AM

You'd think Palm would've realised by now that all this wasted effort could've gone into a proper syncing solution.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 10:53 AM

iTunes 9 breaking Pre syncing.. iPhone 3.1 breaking unofficial tethering.

Apple seems to spend as much time these days breaking/disabling features as it does adding them..

Grimace

Sep 10, 2009, 10:54 AM

Face-Palm.

roland.g

Sep 10, 2009, 10:55 AM

No other player/phone except I think for the short lived deal with Motorola ever allowed syncing of a non-Apple device from iTunes. Not sure if Palm ever approached Apple about licensing. And even if they did, Apple may want to keep their system closed, in order to "keep it from falling prey to the pitfalls of supporting 3rd party devices in conjunction with their software." However, Palm has certainly taken the illegal steps in order to provide this functionality and their stance and actions are reprehensible, especially for a major company such as Palm.

Make your own software Palm, but don't insist that Apple open iTunes to your devices.

jaw04005

Sep 10, 2009, 10:55 AM

dwman

Sep 10, 2009, 10:55 AM

You'd think Palm would've realised by now that all this wasted effort could've gone into a proper syncing solution.

+1. Seriously, other companies manage to write software that works with itunes. How hard could it be for Palm to either write their own or license someone else's software.
This is just petty company politics and John Rubinstein & Co wanting to stick it to their old boss. Lame.:rolleyes:

sterlingindigo

Sep 10, 2009, 10:56 AM

Face-Palm.

:D

Mr. Gates

Sep 10, 2009, 10:58 AM

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 10:59 AM

dwman

Sep 10, 2009, 10:59 AM

Why would they do that? Then they wouldn't be in the tech news cycle every three days.

Notice no one focuses on Palm Pre sales anymore. Rubinstein knows what he's doing.

You pull yourself out of the mess that Palm is in by being innovative (Pre is a good start) and focusing on your long term strategy, not by dicking around and playing games with your competition.

Xavier

Sep 10, 2009, 10:59 AM

Palm will always be playing catch up on this one I am afraid.

I personally don't find anything wrong with having other devices besides the iPod or the iPhone sync with iTunes, but I can understand why Apple doesn't like it.

shareef777

Sep 10, 2009, 10:59 AM

iTunes 9 breaking Pre syncing.. iPhone 3.1 breaking unofficial tethering.

Apple seems to spend as much time these days breaking/disabling features as it does adding them..

I'm on 3.1 and tethering still works.

macslayer118

Sep 10, 2009, 11:00 AM

Way to go Apple! Show that retarded company who's boss... :p

By the way, I played with a Pre the other day... it sucks...

polaris20

Sep 10, 2009, 11:00 AM

+1. Seriously, other companies manage to write software that works with itunes. How hard could it be for Palm to either write their own or license someone else's software.
This is just petty company politics and John Rubinstein & Co wanting to stick it to their old boss. Lame.:rolleyes:

Yeah, this is what baffles me. The Blackberry Desktop syncs with iTunes just fine, allowing me to load iTunes stuff on my Curve. Why can't Palm do that?

djellison

Sep 10, 2009, 11:01 AM

So there is actually a feature one might notice in iT 9 then.

I was wondering if someone would find one.

KnightWRX

Sep 10, 2009, 11:01 AM

Kinda makes me dislike Apple policy. Why not let other media players use iTunes? What is the harm in getting more people exposed to the Apple way of doing things? \
" hey this iTunes is great,!, think I'll get a MAC !! "
more like ........"hey this sucks ...screw Apple"

I don't have a PRE but I do belive in fair play

Apple does allow interaction with iTunes. iTunes writes out a XML file with all the information contained in your library and where to look for the actual files. As a 3rd party software developer, all you need to do is read in that file into your syncing application and then sync the files and data accordingly to your device.

It's very understandable that Apple doesn't want to have to deal with devices presenting themselves as iPods when they aren't, and then running the risk of briking the device because its sync protocol isn't exactly like the iPod's.

I think users of Palm Pres would be pretty pissed at Apple if that happened, instead of being pissed at Palm for using subterfuges to get their device to sync up to iTunes instead of using the proper, documented way.

wildmac

Sep 10, 2009, 11:05 AM

Considering the trouble that Palm is in financially, I really wouldn't think they want to take on Apple it what looks to be leading to a court battle.

This is a last-gasp by Palm to stay relevant.

Airforcekid

Sep 10, 2009, 11:05 AM

Simple fix apple should sell a $20-$50 App for the pre then allow that app to sync if you dont want the app drag and drop like all the other no name mp3 players!

irun5k

Sep 10, 2009, 11:09 AM

No other player/phone except I think for the short lived deal with Motorola ever allowed syncing of a non-Apple device from iTunes.

Actually that is not correct. I used to sync iTunes with my Rio 500 back in the day. I did a quick google to confirm that my memory isn't trashed:

Itunes 4.2 or later has built-in support for Rio One, 500, 600, 800, 900, Nike PSA, S Series players, Fuse, and non-Mass Storage (MSC) Cali and Chiba.

John.B

Sep 10, 2009, 11:13 AM

Why isn't this on page 2 (http://page2.macrumors.com/)?

clmason

Sep 10, 2009, 11:14 AM

Actually that is not correct. I used to sync iTunes with my Rio 500 back in the day. I did a quick google to confirm that my memory isn't trashed:

Itunes 4.2 or later has built-in support for Rio One, 500, 600, 800, 900, Nike PSA, S Series players, Fuse, and non-Mass Storage (MSC) Cali and Chiba.

Yes, this goes back a *long* time, here's the list:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172

Note that support for most of these is in iTunes 2 on OS 9! Yes, you can buy an ancient RIO and sync it under OS 9. :)

jaw04005

Sep 10, 2009, 11:14 AM

You pull yourself out of the mess that Palm is in by being innovative (Pre is a good start) and focusing on your long term strategy, not by dicking around and playing games with your competition.

Nah. You hire disgruntled Apple employees, recruit the Apple executive that wasn't involved with the iPhone and move them all over to a dying company that's been bankrolled by a rock star (and run by Apple's former CFO) to wage a battle with their former employer.

Makes sense to me.

manu chao

Sep 10, 2009, 11:16 AM

Actually that is not correct. I used to sync iTunes with my Rio 500 back in the day. I did a quick google to confirm that my memory isn't trashed:

Itunes 4.2 or later has built-in support for Rio One, 500, 600, 800, 900, Nike PSA, S Series players, Fuse, and non-Mass Storage (MSC) Cali and Chiba.
And they stopped doing this years ago. (To be precise, they did not disable it for existing models, but they did not add new models.)

inkswamp

Sep 10, 2009, 11:16 AM

iTunes 9 breaking Pre syncing.. iPhone 3.1 breaking unofficial tethering.

Apple seems to spend as much time these days breaking/disabling features as it does adding them..

If it's unofficial, it's not a feature.

BornAgainMac

Sep 10, 2009, 11:20 AM

No other player/phone except I think for the short lived deal with Motorola ever allowed syncing of a non-Apple device from iTunes.

Well, I remember back in the early days of iTunes before the iPod, the Apple Store had a section of supported third-party MP3 players and on the website they listed what was supported. I used a Creative Labs Rio player and it worked fine. Just drag the songs you want from your library over to the player. The syncing is much better when the original iPod came out. Never went back to another player to test it since I got my 2nd generation iPod.

jdechko

Sep 10, 2009, 11:21 AM

Simple fix apple should sell a $20-$50 App for the pre then allow that app to sync if you dont want the app drag and drop like all the other no name mp3 players!

What an (http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac/palm-pre-sync-overview.html) awesome (http://www.salling.com/MediaSync/mac/) idea (http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt).

Seriously, if Palm can't do it themselves, they should license one of these products and give it to all of their customers.

Oh, and I agree with Inkswamp: If it's a hack job, then it can and probably will break in a future revision. Even though some things should be easier (like Safari plug-ins) you have to decide if it's worth it, knowing that a future update could break compatibility. That's the price you pay for using unsupported, undocumented methods (see also APE and Input Managers).

Jamie 360

Sep 10, 2009, 11:22 AM

Can anyone confirm if Itoner still works? :confused:

[img]http:

jmorrison0722

Sep 10, 2009, 11:23 AM

QCassidy352

Sep 10, 2009, 11:31 AM

Why would they do that? Then they wouldn't be in the tech news cycle every three days.

Notice no one focuses on Palm Pre sales anymore. Rubinstein knows what he's doing.

I agree with this. Palm is not only piggybacking off apple in that they're using itunes, they're piggybacking off tech journalists' fascination with apple to get themselves in the news by perpetuating this ridiculous game. Of course the right solution is for Palm to create their own software - I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard. But that wouldn't get any press.

sachamun

Sep 10, 2009, 11:32 AM

You'd think Palm would've realised by now that all this wasted effort could've gone into a proper syncing solution.

I agree - you can say all you want about Apple's designs here, but it's really pathetic that Palm is actually asking people to pay for a product that relies on strictly unofficial compatibility with a rival company's software.
Palm - make your own!

irun5k

Sep 10, 2009, 11:32 AM

And they stopped doing this years ago. (To be precise, they did not disable it for existing models, but they did not add new models.)

Right, I think the support might still be in there for old players.

Honestly, the trend has probably always been that iTunes has supported the most popular digital music players. Used to be, this was stuff like the Rio line. Now, it is some variety of iPod. Since it is their player and they control 75% of the player market, they really don't need to worry about anything else. There have to be tons of other media jukeboxes out there, even today. Why pick iTunes? If you're Palm, why not find something open source, LGPL, that you can add your own distinctive capabilities and branding to?

Nobody would care about this story if iTunes were some crap shareware I wrote myself. Nobody would complain about CrapTunes not supporting other players out of the box, or denying other players who try to hack themselves in, etc.

Everyone always wants to cut down the tall poppies.

err404

Sep 10, 2009, 11:33 AM

jmay

Sep 10, 2009, 11:33 AM

You see, to prevent Palm from syncing is not the goal. The goal is to disrupt the harmony of Pre owners and spoil the ownership experience. Apple wants Pre owners to regret buying it and regret not going with the iPhone....which just works.

Umm, what? Palm is the one who is "disrupting the harmony of Pre owners" by pitching a hack as a legitimate feature. It sure ain't Apple's fault that they disable the ability to pretend you're an iPod.

As previously stated by others, there are legitimate ways to make hardware sync with iTunes, but the way Palm is trying to do it is not one of them.

Rodimus Prime

Sep 10, 2009, 11:36 AM

Give it a week and Pre will be syncing again.

Personally I think it is pretty lame of apple to just keep wasting time on breaking it. Apple can say all the crap they want that they made changes for *blank* and it cause it not to work. No they are just adding a line of code do it.

Personally I do not see the problem with the Pre. Like others have pointed out Palm is a little short on money so the cheaper solution was to use something already out there that works really well.

alent1234

Sep 10, 2009, 11:36 AM

jmay

Sep 10, 2009, 11:37 AM

I don't care what the legal issues are, or whether it's within Apple's rights to block this access. In either case, spending time to develop code specifically to break/restrict user functionality is bad for consumers.

And why should Apple give a rat's *ss about the user functionality of a competing company's products?

The Pre is a rip-off from square one, and Palm gets exactly what they deserve.

Ade-iMac-177

Sep 10, 2009, 11:40 AM

You see, to prevent Palm from syncing is not the goal. The goal is to disrupt the harmony of Pre owners and spoil the ownership experience. Apple wants Pre owners to regret buying it and regret not going with the iPhone....which just works.

No it isn't. They are doing it because Palm are making the Pre masquerade as an iPod by using Apple Vendor IDs. Palm should not be doing this. It is against USB licensing guides. If they want to use iTunes media they should do the correct and documented way like Blackberry and others do; by making an app that uses the iTunes XML database.

I honestly don't know why Palm are doing this - Surely they can't be starting on a pointless war with Apple just to take a stab at them and get a bit of free publicity, all at the expense of the Pre users product experience.

I think Palm are in serious trouble. John Dvorak was right, the Pre is short for Pre-bankruptcy.

emulator

Sep 10, 2009, 11:40 AM

You see, to prevent Palm from syncing is not the goal. The goal is to disrupt the harmony of Pre owners and spoil the ownership experience. Apple wants Pre owners to regret buying it and regret not going with the iPhone....which just works.
true. even if it takes 3 days or a week to sync again, those Palm users who upgraded will have to revert back to a previous version that is very bad for the user experience.

Jimmetry

Sep 10, 2009, 11:41 AM

<scarcasm>I should totally be able to use Nokia PC Suite with my Motorola phone!</sarcasm>
<note>I do not actually own a Motorola and never would after my last experience. Ugh</note>

Apple has stated that they make next to zero profit on iTunes, and that their motivation is purely to drive hardware sales. While I'm generally for open-ness, in this case it's pretty ridiculous. Apple doesn't lock up your library, so there's no reason why Palm can't make their own solution to access the same data without pretending to be an Apple product.

As previously stated, Apple will get the blame if something goes wrong. It's like when people download browser plugins and then bitch about how unstable Safari is. I used to think it was true until I realised how ridiculously terrible Inquisitor and Flash Player are. So glad they're now external processes.

freediverdude

Sep 10, 2009, 11:42 AM

Blackberries and Winmo devices have apps to sync them to iTunes via the XML files, and it's blessed by Apple. It's not difficult. What Palm is doing is just attempts to get in the news and needle Apple in a desperate attempt at staying alive. Nothing to see here, move along...

ob81

Sep 10, 2009, 11:42 AM

Well, Palm is going to lose this one. Good try though. I really wanted the Pre to be a lot better than it is. Now Apple has no real reason to change up the iPhone. No competition for miles.

GQB

Sep 10, 2009, 11:42 AM

^^ I have a feeling Apple will win this one.

I think Apple has already won this one.
This 'whaaa... you have to let me use your football!!!' routine from Palm has painted them as a 2nd rate player. I'll buy PALM at 12 to prepare for its acquisition by Nokia or MS.
Decent technology... just a day late and a dollar short.

John.B

Sep 10, 2009, 11:43 AM

If you're Palm, why not find something open source, LGPL, that you can add your own distinctive capabilities and branding to?

Wouldn't Palm have to give that code back to the open source community, assuming they'd be willing to write their own code extensions in the first place?

What's really out of bounds IMO is that Pre owners are being forced to wait for a software update to WebOS 1.2 (http://www.precentral.net/webos-12-delayed) while Palm figures out a way around the latest in this cat-and-mouse game with Apple.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 11:44 AM

I think Apple has already won this one.
This 'whaaa... you have to let me use your football!!!' routine from Palm has exposed them as a 2nd rate player. I'll buy PALM at 12 to prepare for its acquisition by Nokia or MS.
Decent technology... just a day late and a dollar short.

I say "will" because you know Palm will retaliate, Apple will retaliate, and eventually this will go to court over USB usage and fairness, and Palm will lose because it is Apple's proprietary system, there are alternatives, and Pre is emulating an iPod.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 11:44 AM

Of course the right solution is for Palm to create their own software - I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard.

Is that really the "right" solution? If I had an iPod, and a Pre, I wouldn't want to have two entirely separate syncing solutions. The whole point of syncing is to simplify things for the user, not complicate them.

If Apple were just a Mac & OS provider, they'd have an easy to use, open, centralised app for syncing with all 3rd party devices. Since they're more interested in selling their iPods & iPhones, they exclude 3rd party devices; thus compromising the OS experience of those who don't buy other Apple products.

Apple's not alone here, I have a living room full of devices all of which kind-of, but not quite, talk to each other. Small indy companies providing 3rd party solutions are the only ones offering enabling, rather than disabling technology these days.

emulator

Sep 10, 2009, 11:45 AM

What's really out of bounds IMO is that Pre owners are being forced to wait for a software update to WebOS 1.2 (http://www.precentral.net/webos-12-delayed) while Palm figures out a way around the latest in this cat-and-mouse game with Apple.
or don't upgrade to itunes 9.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 11:46 AM

or don't upgrade to itunes 9.

Best advice yet!

kildjean

Sep 10, 2009, 11:47 AM

As far as I know Palm has not signed a licensing agreement with Apple, to use iTunes for their Palm-Pre.

What most people need to understand is, that it is NOT Apple's responsebility if their software breaks unsupported hardware. The Palm Pre is unsupported hardware.

What Palm has to do is create an app for the Palm Pre, that allows the Pre to connect to iTunes, and sell it. That way when iTunes 200 comes around, Palm can put the resources to make it work.

This is IMHO what should be done. Instead Palm is trying to leech out from iTunes because they *want* to be like the iPhone, and without it, they can't compete.

Michael73

Sep 10, 2009, 11:47 AM

Apple could always take some of that pile of cash they're sitting on and buy Palm and then shut 'em down. Case closed :D

GQB

Sep 10, 2009, 11:48 AM

What an (http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac/palm-pre-sync-overview.html) awesome (http://www.salling.com/MediaSync/mac/) idea (http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt).

Seriously, if Palm can't do it themselves, they should license one of these products and give it to all of their customers.

???
They could (and should) have done this by now if they wanted. Not rocket science... its just parsing an XML file.
They don't because they want to piggy-back on the seamless integration Apple has worked very hard to establish between the iPod family and ITS UTILITY PROGRAM... ITUNES.
Distributing their own app only highlights the fact that their product is only half a solution.

nite41

Sep 10, 2009, 11:50 AM

I bet 1 week max and Palm will fix this. And then the cycle will go on and on..
Boring..

By the way, remove the 'r' and Palm Pre becomes Palm Pee ! hahaha

ChrisA

Sep 10, 2009, 11:52 AM

... However, Palm has certainly taken the illegal steps in order to provide this functionality

"illegal"? Really? Are you sure about this. I did not think there were any laws passed about what data can be sent over a USB cable.

It is in violation of the recommendation of a standards committee. Not the same as a "illegal"

irun5k

Sep 10, 2009, 11:52 AM

Wouldn't Palm have to give that code back to the open source community, assuming they'd be willing to write their own code extensions in the first place?

No, not if it is LGPL, Apache, BSD, etc. All of the licensees are non-viral and commercial friendly. GPL is the puddle they wouldn't want to step in.

aristotle

Sep 10, 2009, 11:52 AM

Best advice yet!
Better advice:
Get an iPhone 3GS instead of a Pre.

*LTD*

Sep 10, 2009, 11:56 AM

Apple breaks iTunes syncing with Pre.

So? Who really gives a sweet f about any third party wanting to use iTunes? They can either license rights from Apple, create their own iTunes knockoff, or just shut up.

I don't understand how someone can get upset over this. I for one don't care if Pre users are locked out, nor will I care if Palm and all of its products go up in smoke tomorrow.

Apple locking out the Pre has absolutely no impact on the iTunes user base. It's insignificant. Palm is simply a moocher that will continue to frustrate its customer base with this on-again/off-again "feature."

John.B

Sep 10, 2009, 11:57 AM

No, not if it is LGPL, Apache, BSD, etc. All of the licensees are non-viral and commercial friendly. GPL is the puddle they wouldn't want to step in.
Thx.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 12:01 PM

casik

Sep 10, 2009, 12:04 PM

I agree with the user experience thing. Palm has done something stupid here. They have left part of their phones user experience in the hands of a competing company. Apple is probably thinking that they have no obligation to support the Pre and could care less about making iTunes work with it. In turn the average Pre owner has a worse user experience with their device if they are trying to sync it with iTunes and it doesn't work.

+1 Apple.

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:05 PM

Its Apple's proprietary system. They can and will decide who can and cannot use it. There are alternatives for media syncing.

Yes, they can decide Palm can't use it. The question is whether they should. Apple is not hurting Palm very much--nobody buys a Palm with the #1 priority being iTunes synching. But Apple is annoying users. Companies rarely excel by annoying users. It's a dumb, petty move that Apple should be above. :confused:

pmjoe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:06 PM

How sad for Apple that this was the only memorable part of their announcements from yesterday ... unless you were already in the market for an iPod nano.

gnasher729

Sep 10, 2009, 12:06 PM

As far as I know Palm has not signed a licensing agreement with Apple, to use iTunes for their Palm-Pre.

What most people need to understand is, that it is NOT Apple's responsebility if their software breaks unsupported hardware. The Palm Pre is unsupported hardware.

It's not just unsupported hardware, it is unsupported hardware that pretends to be an iPod. It is only logical that if a device _pretends_ to be an iPod, then Apple's software would check very, very carefully if it really is an iPod to avoid compatibility problems, and stop it from working.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 12:06 PM

Better advice:
Get an iPhone 3GS instead of a Pre.

I still wouldn't recommend upgrading to iTunes 9! ;)

dacreativeguy

Sep 10, 2009, 12:07 PM

Actually that is not correct. I used to sync iTunes with my Rio 500 back in the day. I did a quick google to confirm that my memory isn't trashed:

Itunes 4.2 or later has built-in support for Rio One, 500, 600, 800, 900, Nike PSA, S Series players, Fuse, and non-Mass Storage (MSC) Cali and Chiba.

Don't forget that the iPod was in its infancy at this time, so Apple wanted to cater to everyone. Now that iPod/iphone is THE platform, they don't need (or apparently want) anyone else syncing.

FIJIGabe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:07 PM

Apple may want to keep their system closed, in order to "keep it from falling prey to the pitfalls of supporting 3rd party devices in conjunction with their software."

do you really believe THAT is the reason Apple doesn't want the Pre syncing with their software? I tend to think it's Apple trying to get people to use their products, and keeping everyone else from using it.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 12:08 PM

twoodcc

Sep 10, 2009, 12:09 PM

good. glad to see apple not just letting get away with it

Plutonius

Sep 10, 2009, 12:11 PM

I'm on 3.1 and tethering still works.

If you are on AT+T, tethering (which was not official anyways) is broken under 3.1

Rodimus Prime

Sep 10, 2009, 12:12 PM

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:14 PM

Palm is simply a moocher that will continue to frustrate its customer base with this on-again/off-again "feature."

I believe you'll find it's Apple that is frustrating the Palm user base with their thwarting of this feature. Apple has gone out of its way to be a pain in the butt instead of living and let live. I don't see Palm owners seeing it any differently, which means Apple is diminishing their public image with Mac owning Palm users...who may become ex-Mac users if Apple continues to torque them off. That will lead to reduced Apple sales which is dumb in anyone's book. :confused: :apple:

zaphon

Sep 10, 2009, 12:14 PM

"illegal"? Really? Are you sure about this. I did not think there were any laws passed about what data can be sent over a USB cable.

It is in violation of the recommendation of a standards committee. Not the same as a "illegal"

I'm actually surprised that it's "legal" to steal someone's USB ID's and put them in your own device. As that's what Palm is doing. Plus I'm amazed at the outrage against Apple regarding this, and on top of it Palm reporting Apple when clearly their breaking rules as well.

seedster2

Sep 10, 2009, 12:14 PM

Like the jailbreak community, users just sit and wait until the coast is clear to update now. I'm pretty sure Palm Pre users aren't auto updating to iTunes 9. These stories are tired and really benefit Palm (probably the plan).

I and many others dont see the urgency to update to the latest offerings from apple when they just got the outgoing OS/software working the way they like it. Obviously many others dont either as evidenced by their need to encourage the user base to update their iphones with texts and emails

Much ado about nothing...

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 12:25 PM

Lets face it. Apple is becoming the new Microsoft. Hell Microsoft is becoming more open to 3rd parties and Apple is becoming more closed.

I would argue that has more to do with Microsoft having been legally declared a Monopoly having to do with that. That and Microsoft's business model and arkets are very different than Apple's

I believe you'll find it's Apple that is frustrating the Palm user base with their thwarting of this feature.

Palm never should have marketed anything that they don't have an agreement with and can guarantee. They had no right nor any assumption that iTunes was an open platform or had any such licensing. None. They simply should not have advertised it at all. Users are going to find this out - Apple has already warned people that Palms hanky panky is not appreciated nor recommended by them. This thing is going to hurt Palm if they cannot provide something that they marketed and it is their fault.

Apple's biggest defense is the fact that there are already existing products that sync the pre with iTunes that they have no problem with and have made no efforts to block - The Missing Sync was even recommended by Apple's own website back with they touted iSync.

jdechko

Sep 10, 2009, 12:26 PM

I think a good analogy is this.

Imagine iTunes is a house. It belongs to Apple. Only Apple can go through the front door (iPod, & iPhone). Other people (RIM, Palm, MS/HTC) are allowed inside the house, but they have to use a side door. This side door is clearly marked and most people have no problem using it. Except Palm. They want to go in through the window. Apple doesn't want this, so they board up the window, hoping Palm goes through the side door. Palm tries going through another window, which Apple boards up.

Apple has every right to defend their house and secure it as they deem necessary. Hopefully Palm wises up and uses the side door like everyone else.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 12:26 PM

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 12:28 PM

If it's unofficial, it's not a feature.

For 'feature', read 'functionality', if that helps. :)

nkawtg72

Sep 10, 2009, 12:32 PM

Apple could always take some of that pile of cash they're sitting on and buy Palm and then shut 'em down. Case closed :D

yeah, that would go over real well with all the monopoly accusers on this forum :D

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:32 PM

Palm never should have marketed anything that they don't have an agreement with and can guarantee.
Again, technically and legally correct, but how is the public going to see it? They're going to say "This worked great until Apple went out of their way to break it" and Apple will take the P.R. hit. And Apple should have been savvy enough to realize that's what would happen and not do it. Therefore, fair or not, this is an Apple fail not a Palm fail.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 12:32 PM

Very good example.

Actually, I would think it would be more accurate if Palm was dressing up like Apple and trying to use the front door. Apple just added better security and screening measures so that Palm can't come through. Then Palm upgrades their costume and again Apple figures out a way to detect it...

Obviously, for one reason or another, Palm just doesn't want to use the side door.... everyone else is, so why can't / shouldn't they?

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 12:33 PM

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 12:33 PM

Actually, I would think it would be more accurate if Palm was dressing up like Apple and trying to use the front door. Apple just added better security and screening measures so that Palm can't come through. Then Palm upgrades their costume and again Apple figures out a way to detect it...

Obviously, for one reason or another, Palm just doesn't want to use the side door.... everyone else is, so why can't / shouldn't they?

Because they need some way to stay in the spotlight. Before this article, I had forget about that POS Pre. ;)
Apple don't own the house. Apple built the house, then sold it to me. If I want Palm to come through the window, the keyhole, or sliding down my chimney one day in December, then that should be my choice, not Apple's.

iTunes is free. They can manage it however the hell they want. Dont like it? Dont use it. There are alternatives.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 12:36 PM

Because they need some way to stay in the spotlight. Before this article, I had forget about that POS Pre. ;)

True, very true... sorta like a terrorist. No one cares one bit about them until they go and blow something up, now they get some media coverage and attention.

Palm, terrorist of the Cell Phones.... lol

madog

Sep 10, 2009, 12:37 PM

Some have stated Palm should spend more time creating their own sync solution, but why do that when iTunes is perfectly "capable" of that and users are already familiar with it as opposed to some other method which could never accomplish the same thing (for good and bad).

Apple does allow interaction with iTunes. iTunes writes out a XML file with all the information contained in your library and where to look for the actual files. As a 3rd party software developer, all you need to do is read in that file into your syncing application and then sync the files and data accordingly to your device.

It's very understandable that Apple doesn't want to have to deal with devices presenting themselves as iPods when they aren't, and then running the risk of briking the device because its sync protocol isn't exactly like the iPod's.

I think users of Palm Pres would be pretty pissed at Apple if that happened, instead of being pissed at Palm for using subterfuges to get their device to sync up to iTunes instead of using the proper, documented way.

The problem for Apple is that the Pre is presenting itself as an iPod for the syncing. The problem for Palm is that Apple designed a method in the first place that is possibly against USB policy. Since the 30-pin dock connecter is some proprietary or round about way to utilize what is essentially normal USB, then I sure hope Palm is correct in this one (though what would they do, take away Apple's USB rights or something? I doubt that).

While I hate the 30-pin connector I don't think it would be good to change it at this point (in fact it would probably be horrible). However, that shouldn't stop them from making it act as a "normal" USB cable that doesn't utilize whatever special code they have.

And why should Apple give a rat's *ss about the user functionality of a competing company's products?

The Pre is a rip-off from square one, and Palm gets exactly what they deserve.

Because then they are drifting towards actual legal issues that could screw them over if anyone cared that much. It could also drift more towards monopolistic practices. Even though they are already in that realm, no one that matters seem to care because of the size of their competition in the computer market. However, doing the same with the iPod/iPhone and thus iTunes, as those particular devices are dominating their particular markets, could be a potential nightmare for them. It would behoove them to play nicely with other companies in that case.

Apple can't play the poor underdog in everything they do, and I think these things will ultimately change whether Apple does it themselves or is forced to. However, it may happen later rather than sooner.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 12:37 PM

Apple don't own the house. Apple built the house, then sold it to me. If I want Palm to come through the window, the keyhole, or sliding down my chimney one day in December, then that should be my choice, not Apple's.

Read the licensing, you don't own the house, Apple does, you're just being allowed to stay there. But you still have to follow their rules.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 12:37 PM

Again, technically and legally correct, but how is the public going to see it?
Unless you can read the public's mind, nobody can answer that. I am of course speaking on a moral basis for Palm - its deceptive and morally wrong for you to advertise something that you cannot back. I hope that this is what the public sees. However the public will see different things based on their mentality regardless of Apple's actions.

You can assume what the public thinks, but there are alot of people that I have heard that Palm is in the wrong and are seeing through this AstroTurf method.

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:41 PM

Imagine iTunes is a house. It belongs to Apple. Only Apple can go through the front door (iPod, & iPhone). Other people (RIM, Palm, MS/HTC) are allowed inside the house, but they have to use a side door. This side door is clearly marked and most people have no problem using it. Except Palm.
True this an apt example....but one where Apple still takes the P.R. hit. Why? Because it's shades of pre-Civil Rights Movement blacks being allowed into buildings but having to use clearly marked separate water fountains. Or being allowed onto buses but having to sit in separate sections.
If one person (Rosa Parks/Palm) has a problem following the plan, and they have lots of sympathizers, how do you suppose that turns out for the status quo (Apple)?
If the public thinks you're on the morally-wrong end of an argument, having the law on your side doesn't help a whole lot in the quarterly sales figures.

(No, before you chastise me, I'm not saying this is as important as Civil Rights. I'm demonstrating that clearly marked does not always sway the public to your position.)

nkawtg72

Sep 10, 2009, 12:43 PM

Lets face it. Apple is becoming the new Microsoft. Hell Microsoft is becoming more open to 3rd parties and Apple is becoming more closed.

At some point I expect the courts to come down hard on apple and the locking people out of iTunes. This is just the beginning of the cat and mouse game. I bet the real reason Apple removed DRM from the iTMS was because they knew the courts were starting to brew and chances of a law suit going through and succeeding were increasing. So they removed DRM to hold it off.

It is only a matter of time before it happens.

have you really thought that out clearly?! if what you are saying is true, that apple is simply becoming less open to 3rd party whatevers, then explain to me why they would waste time doing it at the level of iTunes? why not at the hardware level?

they could just as easily go back to a proprietary connector that they can control the licensing on, and forever be able to prevent someone from connecting non apple hardware to an apple computer or apple software.

it's not complicated, apple spends untold millions on itunes app development. and as it has already been pointed out, provides an open source way for 3rd parties to tap into it through XML. if they were hateful to 3rd parties, they would get rid of the XML too.

for good reasons, apple just isnt taking too kindly to Palm hacking their intellectual property in an attempt to avoid having to write their own software to either tap into the XML or a stand alone piece of software that would have to compete head to head with iTunes.

palm is being pretty stupid here about the whole thing. apple as all but said that the pre is a nock off of the iphone, and they dont like that. so how does palm react? by making the pre call itself an iphone/ipod!!!! great idea guys, genius. thatll really work wonders for your argument that the pre isnt a nock off.

weezer160

Sep 10, 2009, 12:43 PM

Rodimus Prime

Sep 10, 2009, 12:43 PM

I will be blunt. A lot of the apple fan boys here do not get it and either struggle or can not see it from a customer point of view.

I the customer do not care what Apple reason are it annoys me that I have to install a 2nd piece of software to sync up my music. Or even run another piece of software to sync up with my library. I would rather plug in my phone (BB, Palm what ever) and have me be able to control what playlist/ songs go into the phone threw iTunes. I do not want to have to use some other software to do all those controls and it feels inconvenient to have to do so. I want a single piece of software than handles everything.

iTunes already links into Outlook to copy calendar events. Apple should not do that I mean they want everything in house BUILD YOUR OWN FOR THE PC. But no they link into the largest calendar program out there for PC users. Palm does it as well.

Either way as a consumer I rather have to use a few piece of software to manage my daily stuff as possible. iTunes handles music and I can do all the setting from in there.

I feel Apple does not need to support them but they should not be going out of there way to block them. But no Apple goes out of there way to block them.

Xian Zhu Xuande

Sep 10, 2009, 12:45 PM

iTunes 9 breaking Pre syncing.. iPhone 3.1 breaking unofficial tethering.

Apple seems to spend as much time these days breaking/disabling features as it does adding them..
That's a pretty silly statement. It probably requires only a minimal effort to break something like the Palm tethering, and patching an exploit is on the to-do list anyway. It isn't like they canceled important features to make it happen...

spritelyjim

Sep 10, 2009, 12:46 PM

This is important to me because I want a serious alternative to the iPhone. The iPhone is the only product of it's caliber (whether real or perceived) and because of that, Apple can get away with its iron grip business practices. I want a serious alternative so that when I am ready to jump ship, I have a product to jump to.

But Palm, your not offering that solution until you get it together!!! You can't be taken seriously until you stop doing shady crap like this. I see a lot of potential in the Pre. I hope you have enough money to build some better looking hardware, because I am interested. But I'm not interested in buying a product with hack features.

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 12:47 PM

Apple needed to block the Pre and will need to continue doing so. Aside from the fact that iTunes drives Apple hardware sales, by allowing the Pre to piggyback on iTunes what's to stop every other vendor from doing the same? Would iTunes generate enough income from additional hardware vendors to compensate for the loss of Apple hardware sales?

jellomizer

Sep 10, 2009, 12:48 PM

Palm is leaving a nasty taste in my mouth.

Lets hire Apple Employees to make a competing that looks and works almost exactly like apples product and use this inside information to make it compatible with Apples products.

It is very shady business practices bordering on bad business ethics. I would call Apples lock down of iTunes and their iPhone apps just bad business but Palm is bad ethics. If they are going legal they are pressing the line as close it can get.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 12:50 PM

The problem for Apple is that the Pre is presenting itself as an iPod for the syncing. The problem for Palm is that Apple designed a method in the first place that is possibly against USB policy. Since the 30-pin dock connecter is some proprietary or round about way to utilize what is essentially normal USB, then I sure hope Palm is legally correct in this one.

While I hate the 30-pin connector, but I don't think it would be good to change it at this point (in fact it would probably be horrible). However, that shouldn't stop them from making it act as a "normal" USB cable that doesn't utilize whatever special code they have.

It has nothing to do with the connector, it has to do with the ID values stored within the device. Every USB device has two things, a Vendor ID (VID) and a Product ID (PID). The Vendor ID indicates who created the device, and the product ID indicates what product this is. These ID's are licensed from the USB Consortium for a fee -- well, the VID is. The VID is unique for every company; the company is then free to create PID's as they see fit.

What Palm is doing is, instead of using their own VID, they are using Apple's VID and the PID for the iPhone to get their device to sync to iTunes. This is a clear violation of the USB Specification and the licensing agreement with the USB association. It CAN cause other issues because when you plug a device into the USB, the operating system reads the VID and PID values and then tries to load the device driver associated with those VID or PIDs. This *could* cause some confusion in the system and prevent valid Apple products from getting the correct driver loaded. I don't see that as too much of the problem, but the real fact is that for the average consumer, it could cause some issues that would eventually cause problems for Apple or make them look bad.

I do not agree with Palm doing this, and I do think that they should follow the rules.

Legality wise, I think there isn't much there. Sure they are using Apple's VID, and Apple legally licensed that ID. But are they breaking any laws? I don't think so. Maybe if Apple could prove loss of reputation in court, but I think it would be a long shot.

Think of the VID as the brand name when it comes to USB. If Palm decided to take the Palm Pre and sell it as "Apple iPhone" people would be all over them about it. But from the "USB" view that is exactly what they are doing. Imagine if you purchased a new BMW 325i, only to find out that it is really a Saturn with the BMW logo glued over the name. Then when you took it to the BMW dealer and they refused to work on it, do you blame BMW? No, it's not their car.

Am I making sense or just babbling?

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 12:50 PM

iTunes is free. They can manage it however the hell they want. Dont like it? Dont use it. There are alternatives.

I'm not disputing Apple have the right to change iTunes as they choose (at least, until such time as they have a monopoly in the industry, and seek to abuse it).

I'm just disappointed they choose to break Pre compatibility. I'm just tired of vendors trying to tie you into their other products at the expense of interoperability and ease of use. It seems to me this parochial mindset is holding back what's technically possible.

It's not just Pre users who are affected, they're also iTunes/Mac users.

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 12:51 PM

Yes, they can decide Palm can't use it. The question is whether they should. Apple is not hurting Palm very much--nobody buys a Palm with the #1 priority being iTunes synching. But Apple is annoying users. Companies rarely excel by annoying users. It's a dumb, petty move that Apple should be above. :confused:

I'm like 99.9% sure Apple doesn't care about Palm customers. And if it wasn't a top #1 feature, why is palm fighting to the death to savor this small little feature?

Apple's message : Want itunes sync? GET AN IPHONE. Easy. I understand that if you ran a business you would have no problems pimping your IP all over the community and not getting paid for it, but you wouldn't be in business very long.

Again, technically and legally correct, but how is the public going to see it? They're going to say "This worked great until Apple went out of their way to break it" and Apple will take the P.R. hit. And Apple should have been savvy enough to realize that's what would happen and not do it. Therefore, fair or not, this is an Apple fail not a Palm fail.

LoL Apple is going to take a P.R. hit? Anyone with half a brain knows that Palm is the one in the wrong. All of these changes are transparent to the 30+ million iphone users out there. Same thing with video consoles. Those who run legitimate operations will NEVER be affected by anti piracy efforts that game makers use to thwart known chips. Even all the tech blogs are wondering why the hell Palm is doing this.

We know nothing of how Apple implemented their syncing mechanisms this time around, just like last time, they changed to looking towards the vendor ID to authenticate a legitimate ipod. This time? Probably serial number hash checks or file system checks, who knows. But how much does palm have to fake before you realize their pettiness. Its damn near identity theft, plain and simple.

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 12:54 PM

It's not just Pre users who are affected, they're also iTunes/Mac users.

How is my Mac and iPhone affected? Apple hasn't yet released any versions specifically to break a new hack, atleast its always been rolled up in bug fixes or a major version with new features (itunes 9). Anyone who is using itunes legitimately will not be affected be it thorugh apple hardware or XML sync. Palm users should have no reason to believe that their experience should be a pleasant one :)

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 12:55 PM

iTunes drives Apple hardware sales
Remember, Apple sells computers too, not just iPods/iPhones. So when Apple alienates Mac-owning Pre users who want to synch their Pre with their Mac, do you think it's more or less likely those users are going to buy another Mac when it's time to upgrade their desktop hardware?

Treq

Sep 10, 2009, 12:55 PM

Rodimus Prime

Sep 10, 2009, 12:57 PM

Then you should have bought an iPhone.

Thank you for proving my point on the blind apple following.....

*LTD*

Sep 10, 2009, 12:57 PM

I will be blunt. A lot of the apple fan boys here do not get it and either struggle or can not see it from a customer point of view.

You mean YOUR point of view.

"Customers" seem just fine with the way things are. RIM can play nicely with Appe. iPods as we know are fine. iPhones as we know are fine as well. Silly rabbit, iTunes is for Apple products.

Pre customers aren't Apple's responsbility, and unless they have iPods or iPhones as well, don't make up Apple's user base. iTunes, whether on Windows or Mac, is for customers who use Apple devices or devices that implement their own connectivity software. This has never been a problem, is not a problem now, and looks like it cetainly won't be a problem in the immediate future, no matter how many unfortunate Pre users bellyache about it and no matter how many trolls keep putting forwrad the phantom "openness" argument that doesn't seem to resonate with the vast majority of users.

This is Palm's problem, and any sort of angst, complaints, or general discontent should be aimed squarely at them.

Or next time, just get an iPhone. You're probably going to, anyway.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 12:59 PM

How is my Mac and iPhone affected? Apple hasn't yet released any versions specifically to break a new hack, atleast its always been rolled up in bug fixes or a major version with new features (itunes 9). Anyone who is using itunes legitimately will not be affected be it thorugh apple hardware or XML sync. Palm users should have no reason to believe that their experience should be a pleasant one :)

I'm not talking about you. :)

I'm saying the people affected by Apple's decision aren't just "Pre users", they're "Pre, and iTunes/Mac users". Apple isn't just annoying customers of another company, they're also annoying their own customers who happen to have a Pre.

(Incidentally, didn't Apple announce Pre compatibility was being broken, the last time this happened?)

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 01:00 PM

I will be blunt. A lot of the apple fan boys here do not get it and either struggle or can not see it from a customer point of view.
I disagree. I seriously do know and understand what is going on around here.

I the customer do not care what Apple reason are it annoys me that I have to install a 2nd piece of software to sync up my music. Or even run another piece of software to sync up with my library. I would rather plug in my phone (BB, Palm what ever) and have me be able to control what playlist/ songs go into the phone threw iTunes. I do not want to have to use some other software to do all those controls and it feels inconvenient to have to do so. I want a single piece of software than handles everything.

And I want a pony. We don't live in an ideal world. Just because you want something to work a particular way doesn't mean that it will ever happen.

iTunes already links into Outlook to copy calendar events. Apple should not do that I mean they want everything in house BUILD YOUR OWN FOR THE PC. But no they link into the largest calendar program out there for PC users. Palm does it as well.

Microsoft has a framework to allow this to happen - but their business model and framework is very different from Apple's. Hey, why not ask them why nobody can use the Zune software to sync their player?

Either way as a consumer I rather have to use a few piece of software to manage my daily stuff as possible. iTunes handles music and I can do all the setting from in there.
So would I. Why not build a superior model. Nobody has and thats too bad. But that's hardly Apple's fault. They built a better widget by their own rules. Not even Microsoft can beat them. If there is market demand for a player that does everything to anybody, then where is it and why has it not taken over iTunes? Apple certainly isn't stopping anybody. It may be difficult to pull off but thats your (g) problem. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

I feel Apple does not need to support them but they should not be going out of there way to block them. But no Apple goes out of there way to block them.

The problem is that there is implied support if Apple allows it. What happens when Apple gets deluged by callers asking why their movies and TV shows won't sync. It doesn't matter if Apple doesn't advertise it - it is important to Apple and they don't want to have to deal with the burden of supporting a third party like that. Palm making their own software shifts the support burden over to Palm properly. It's not worth the extra effort to support a competitor for free software.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 01:01 PM

I know it falls on deaf ears but I'm going to say it anyway, name calling helps no one and is counter productive. Stick to the facts.

1) Palm is using an Apple product ID in violation of an agreement they signed.
{Poorly worded}2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products.{/Poorly worded}
2) Apple only allows Apple devices to synch with iTunes which could result in the inability for you to listen to your legally purchased music on a competitor's device without the use of 3rd party software.
3) Both companies can afford to hire lawyers, programmers, and engineers to endlessly play this game.
4) Competition makes a market more responsive to its consumers.

Draw any conclusion you want from the facts, and add new ones as you discover them, but just make sure you don't add any flavour words, words that express opinion instead of fact. For instance I could have written #2 as "Apple UNFAIRLY blocks the use..." but that now makes it an opinion. You think it's unfair while someone else doesn't. It's opinion. But saying that Apple is blocking the use of legally purchased products on a competitor's products is not an opinion it is a fact.

You may agree or disagree with philosophy but you can't disagree with facts so let's start off with facts. Base your opinions on the facts instead of starting off with opinions and trying to make up "facts" to support them. If you can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to listen to you.

Thank you for your time.

iphones4evry1

Sep 10, 2009, 01:01 PM

Hahaha. Steve Jobs has to love this.
He's just playing around with Palm and I'm sure this is plenty of fun for him. :) :apple:

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 01:02 PM

I'm like 99.9% sure Apple doesn't care about Palm customers.
They care enough to keep breaking Palm customers' functionality. Therefore I'm 99.9% sure you're wrong. They're using Palm customers as pawns to pressure/punish Palm. But very important pawns. They care about Palm customers--perhaps not for their well-being, but about their existence as tools in Apple's little game.

Anyone with half a brain knows that Palm is the one in the wrong.
It takes two to tango. Any time there is a back-and-forth as has been going on between Apple and Palm, the likelihood of either party being entirely in the right or wrong is very small. Anyone with half a brain knows that. :D

kiantech

Sep 10, 2009, 01:03 PM

Its fair to emulate an iPod to bypass iTunes regulation? Oh yeah.
Its Apple's proprietary system. They can and will decide who can and cannot use it. There are alternatives for media syncing.

I see what you are getting at, but imagine if sony and microsoft made a system where you could never use their console with any third party controller.

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 01:03 PM

Remember, Apple sells computers too, not just iPods/iPhones. So when Apple alienates Mac-owning Pre users who want to synch their Pre with their Mac, do you think it's more or less likely those users are going to buy another Mac when it's time to upgrade their desktop hardware?Synching and iTunes piggybacking are different issues. Are they going to switch to PC and synch it to Zune? :D I just don't see this subset of users having any impact on Mac sales. Would Pre owners buy more Macs if they could access iTunes on Mac and PC? Strange situation all around.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 01:04 PM

Thank you for proving my point on the blind apple following.....

And if you want to play that XBox 360 game; don't buy a PS3.

Treq

Sep 10, 2009, 01:04 PM

Thank you for proving my point on the blind apple following.....
I'm not blind. You are. You bought a phone from Palm, that doesn't do what you wanted/needed it to do, and now you blame Apple?

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 01:05 PM

I know it falls on deaf ears but I'm going to say it anyway, name calling helps no one and is counter productive. Stick to the facts.

1) Palm is using an Apple product ID in violation of an agreement they signed.
2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products.
3) Both companies can afford to hire lawyers, programmers, and engineers to endlessly play this game.
4) Competition makes a market more responsive to its consumers.

Draw any conclusion you want from the facts, and add new ones as you discover them, but just make sure you don't add any flavour words, words that express opinion instead of fact. For instance I could have written #2 as "Apple UNFAIRLY blocks the use..." but that now makes it an opinion. You think it's unfair while someone else doesn't. It's opinion. But saying that Apple is blocking the use of legally purchased products on a competitor's products is not an opinion it is a fact.

You may agree or disagree with philosophy but you can't disagree with facts so let's start off with facts. Base your opinions on the facts instead of starting off with opinions and trying to make up "facts" to support them. If you can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to listen to you.

Thank you for your time.

Apple does not lock you out of your music. It's there on the HD and even accessible by parsing the XML file.

MacFly123

Sep 10, 2009, 01:05 PM

You'd think Palm would've realised by now that all this wasted effort could've gone into a proper syncing solution.

Why would they do that? Then they wouldn't be in the tech news cycle every three days.

Notice no one focuses on Palm Pre sales anymore. Rubinstein knows what he's doing.

The more I think about it, the more I think I agree this has to be about publicity! How could Palm be so stupid otherwise? They are screwing their customers over either way, and Apple has every right to do what they are doing. Palm needs to just grow up and make a real sync client like the one BlackBerry has coming out. :rolleyes:

gnasher729

Sep 10, 2009, 01:06 PM

Again, technically and legally correct, but how is the public going to see it? They're going to say "This worked great until Apple went out of their way to break it" and Apple will take the P.R. hit.

I don't think so. People will say "Wow, Palm is clever, they use Apple's iTunes for downloading music to their player, so Apple had to do all the work. I'm sure Apple won't like that". A week later "Oh, it doesn't work anymore. Bugger. Maybe Palm should have written their own software". A week later "Palm made it work again. I wonder for how long". A week later "Oops, broken again. I think I should have bought another player".

nkawtg72

Sep 10, 2009, 01:06 PM

Rodimus Prime is a tool. the rest of you should ignore him like i decided to do

tomozj

Sep 10, 2009, 01:07 PM

Apple is a hardware company, and the software is there simply to help the hardware sell. If they give access to other companies to use their software, why would someone buy an Apple product over the product of a different company? It's fair game, Apple created it and they can control it as they wish - what Palm is doing is pretty wrong. I'd be annoyed if I was a Pre user but err, I wouldn't buy a Pre in the first place..

If you want to use the iTunes ecosystem with the whole syncing and such, get an Apple product to go with it, that's how it works and that's how it'll always work probably. The same goes to Mac OSX being exclusive to Apple hardware.

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 01:07 PM

1) Palm is using an Apple product ID in violation of an agreement they signed.
2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products.

Draw any conclusion you want from the facts, and add new ones as you discover them, but just make sure you don't add any flavour words, words that express opinion instead of fact. For instance I could have written #2 as "Apple UNFAIRLY blocks the use..." but that now makes it an opinion. You think it's unfair while someone else doesn't. It's opinion. But saying that Apple is blocking the use of legally purchased products on a competitor's products is not an opinion it is a fact.

You may agree or disagree with philosophy but you can't disagree with facts so let's start off with facts. Base your opinions on the facts instead of starting off with opinions and trying to make up "facts" to support them. If you can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to listen to you.

Thank you for your time.

Number 1 is correct.
Number 2? not so much.

Link to where Apple uses a proprietary database? Or wait, is it merely a jumble of folders sorted (for the convenience of the user) by artist and album, stored in an unprotected format (for plus purchases)?

It's the latter.

I believe you need to take a look at this (Where are the iTunes library files?) (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660), this (DoubleTwist) (http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt), oh and this (Blackberry Media Sync) (http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/media/mediasync.jsp) before you confuse any more fiction with fact.

ktappe

Sep 10, 2009, 01:08 PM

Just because you want something to work a particular way doesn't mean that it will ever happen.

It did happen. Apple went out of its way to make it un-happen. That's the uncool part.

The problem is that there is implied support if Apple allows it. What happens when Apple gets deluged by callers asking why their movies and TV shows won't sync.
Don't answer the questions. Give out Palm's support number. Whatever. But fear of "having to answer the phone" is a very lame excuse for removing in-use functionality.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 01:09 PM

2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products.

Well except DRM content (which is not something that Apple can be blamed for so we will limit this to iTunes Plus music here), Apple offers at least three ways on the Mac to get at iTunes content the most popular being SyncServices which they advertise on their own developer page. Heck, any developer can get at the XML file that iTunes uses which contains all the information on file locations. There are tons of products on the internet that use this (I again mention The Missing Sync (http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac/palm-pre-sync-overview.html) - which was actually promoted by Apple). Apple has never stopped these developers. Your claim that Apple is blocking the use of legally purcahsed content on competitors products is absolutely false.

Treq

Sep 10, 2009, 01:11 PM

It did happen. Apple went out of its way to make it un-happen. That's the uncool part.

No, Apple fixed a security hole in their software. Palm made it un-happen by doing it wrong in the first place.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 01:11 PM

It did happen. Apple went out of its way to make it un-happen. That's the uncool part.
Only because Palm hacked the USB standards - thats like cheating and complaining you were ejected from the game.

Don't answer the questions. Give out Palm's support number. Whatever. But fear of "having to answer the phone" is a very lame excuse for removing in-use functionality.
It doesn't work out that way in real life.

nkawtg72

Sep 10, 2009, 01:14 PM

Don't answer the questions. Give out Palm's support number. Whatever. But fear of "having to answer the phone" is a very lame excuse for removing in-use functionality.

that approach never worked for Gateway. anytime my former boss had problems with his Gateway machines, they would always blame it on MS OS, or on XYZ drive manufacturer, etc.

at the end of the day it was still gateway's machine. same for apple. at the end of the day it's apple software. when a user has a bad experience with it, whether it was an officially supported function/feature or not, apple will take the heat. this isn't the only reason, but apple is simply not wanting to officially support a direct competitors product on its own software.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 01:14 PM

Apple does not lock you out of your music. It's there on the HD and even accessible by parsing the XML file.

Thank you for your reply but I did not say "lock" I said "block." Semantically totally different things.

A lock implies total control, if you don't have the key you aren't getting through, while a block is an attempt to stop you but you can get around a block. It may not be easy and it may take you a long way out of your way, like taking a detour at a road block, but you can do it.

I've actually written software myself to get around the block so I could use my iPhone with multiple iTunes libraries so I'm moderately familiar with the process.

NinjaHERO

Sep 10, 2009, 01:15 PM

At what point do these two companies realize syncing helps them both and come to an arrangement?

dejo

Sep 10, 2009, 01:15 PM

I the customer do not care what Apple reason are...

I would rather plug in my phone...

I do not want to have to use some other software...

I want a single piece of software...

I rather have to use a few piece of software...

I feel Apple does not need to support them...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85938&d=1190738859

Nym

Sep 10, 2009, 01:19 PM

I bet the real reason Apple removed DRM from the iTMS was because they knew the courts were starting to brew and chances of a law suit going through and succeeding were increasing. So they removed DRM to hold it off.

DRM was a requirement from the record labels. Apple's wish has always been to offer non-DRMed media and they were one of the first online music stores which managed to convince the biggest record labels to sold their songs unprotected.

About this whole Apple/Pre thing, and although I wouldn't object if Palm users had the ability to sync with iTunes, I still have to side with Apple because we're talking about their software (which probably cost a buttload of money and human resources to develop).

Practical example:
Let's say I buy a Wacom tablet which comes with a neat Wacom software to setup the tablet preferences and etc.

Am I expecting that this software works with any tablet available? Of course not.

Am I expecting Wacom to support other brand's tablets which are hacking their way to work with the software? The answer is the same.

I also (like many here) would like every device (including my PS3) to connect directly to iTunes and to stream Movies just as it does with the Apple TV but the truth is that Apple has no obligation to implement and support such feature and if Sony found a hack to do it and Apple cut them off I wouldn't be surprised for one bit because... well, it is THEIR software.

The truth is, if iTunes was called iPhone Sync this would be a non-issue.

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 01:20 PM

Oh by the way. If iTunes just isn't that big a deal for palm, why are they fighting so hard to get sync, especially since all their users bash it for being a resource hog.

http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pre/202223-itunes-9-does-break-pre-sync-4.html

Some are still very unhappy. They are even saying that their Pre update 1.2 was DELAYED because palm wanted to get their hands on iTunes 9 first. If that isn't the epitome of ignorance I don't know what is.

jweinraub

Sep 10, 2009, 01:20 PM

skeep5

Sep 10, 2009, 01:21 PM

Yawn

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 01:23 PM

So out of curiosity, what kind of iPod does iTunes think the Pre is? When you see the about this ipod, what kind of hardware is showing up?

Anyone have a Pre and post a screenshot of that I would be interested in seeing it.

I believe when you plug it into an itunes 8 app it'll come up as the very first ipods (with the small screen and all that).

In iTunes 9 it doesn't show up at all.

Anywho, the palm pixi (http://www.palm.com/us/products/phones/pixi/index.html) supports itunes syncing too...oh boy

Take pictures with the built-in 2 megapixel camera and LED flash, then share them by uploading to Photobucket or Facebook—or by sending from Email or Messaging.3 Download songs from the Amazon MP3 store and play them complete with their own album art. You can also easily transfer your DRM-free iTunes music, videos, and photos right to your Palm Pixi.6

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 01:23 PM

Well except DRM content (which is not something that Apple can be blamed for so we will limit this to iTunes Plus music here), Apple offers at least three ways on the Mac to get at iTunes content the most popular being SyncServices which they advertise on their own developer page. Heck, any developer can get at the XML file that iTunes uses which contains all the information on file locations. There are tons of products on the internet that use this (I again mention The Missing Sync (http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac/palm-pre-sync-overview.html) - which was actually promoted by Apple). Apple has never stopped these developers. Your claim that Apple is blocking the use of legally purcahsed content on competitors products is absolutely false.

Thank you for your reply and the excellent information about synching. I must reiterate my point though and let me expand.

Would you agree that I can not plug a Pre into iTunes and have it synch? Why? Because Apple is actively blocking that functionality. Again that is a fact not an opinion as this article is about exactly that. There is nothing incorrect in my assertion. You may then argue that you can get around it but that does not negate the fact.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 01:26 PM

I see what you are getting at, but imagine if sony and microsoft made a system where you could never use their console with any third party controller.

Wrong, this is like Sony trying to make their controllers work with an Xbox through USB. Sure its USB and it should be compatible, but MS would never allow it.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 01:26 PM

Number 1 is correct.
Number 2? not so much.

Link to where Apple uses a proprietary database? Or wait, is it merely a jumble of folders sorted (for the convenience of the user) by artist and album, stored in an unprotected format (for plus purchases)?

It's the latter.

I believe you need to take a look at this (Where are the iTunes library files?) (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660), this (DoubleTwist) (http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt), oh and this (Blackberry Media Sync) (http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/media/mediasync.jsp) before you confuse any more fiction with fact.

Thank you for your reply and the excellent information about synching. I must reiterate my point though and let me expand.

Would you agree that I can not plug a Pre into iTunes and have it synch? Why? Because Apple is actively blocking that functionality. Again that is a fact not an opinion as this article is about exactly that. There is nothing incorrect in my assertion. You may then argue that you can get around it but that does not negate the fact.

madog

Sep 10, 2009, 01:29 PM

It has nothing to do with the connector, it has to do with the ID values stored within the device. Every USB device has two things, a Vendor ID (VID) and a Product ID (PID). The Vendor ID indicates who created the device, and the product ID indicates what product this is. These ID's are licensed from the USB Consortium for a fee -- well, the VID is. The VID is unique for every company; the company is then free to create PID's as they see fit.

What Palm is doing is, instead of using their own VID, they are using Apple's VID and the PID for the iPhone to get their device to sync to iTunes. This is a clear violation of the USB Specification and the licensing agreement with the USB association. It CAN cause other issues because when you plug a device into the USB, the operating system reads the VID and PID values and then tries to load the device driver associated with those VID or PIDs. This *could* cause some confusion in the system and prevent valid Apple products from getting the correct driver loaded. I don't see that as too much of the problem, but the real fact is that for the average consumer, it could cause some issues that would eventually cause problems for Apple or make them look bad.

I do not agree with Palm doing this, and I do think that they should follow the rules.

Legality wise, I think there isn't much there. Sure they are using Apple's VID, and Apple legally licensed that ID. But are they breaking any laws? I don't think so. Maybe if Apple could prove loss of reputation in court, but I think it would be a long shot.

Think of the VID as the brand name when it comes to USB. If Palm decided to take the Palm Pre and sell it as "Apple iPhone" people would be all over them about it. But from the "USB" view that is exactly what they are doing. Imagine if you purchased a new BMW 325i, only to find out that it is really a Saturn with the BMW logo glued over the name. Then when you took it to the BMW dealer and they refused to work on it, do you blame BMW? No, it's not their car.

Am I making sense or just babbling?

I got ya. I didn't think it was any legal issues with the connector in general, but rather that simply preventing others from using iTunes itself as it is becoming quite popular because of iPods/iPhones.

Yeah, I didn't quite understand how the USB was working, only that it was so I tried to be vague so thanks for that explanation =).

they are using Apple's VID and the PID for the iPhone to get their device to sync to iTunes. This is a clear violation of the USB Specification and the licensing agreement with the USB association.

Also, with the Pre "spoofing" the Apple ID to work with iTunes, what I was trying to say is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to make that a requirement for iTunes. Sure they can at this point, but again they aren't the underdogs in this area anymore. They can get away with that sort of thing with computers because their competitors are so huge, but that's not the case with Apple's other products.

Once a case is brought up or someone important starts seeing this as a problem it would be awful for Apple, and they should just allow other devices to work with it rather than "requiring" methods against USB specs. iTunes has become far more than just their application to sync/play music.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 01:33 PM

Thank you for your reply but I did not say "lock" I said "block." Semantically totally different things.

A lock implies total control, if you don't have the key you aren't getting through, while a block is an attempt to stop you but you can get around a block. It may not be easy and it may take you a long way out of your way, like taking a detour at a road block, but you can do it.

I've actually written software myself to get around the block so I could use my iPhone with multiple iTunes libraries so I'm moderately familiar with the process.

I wouldn't call SyncServices a block - Apple has complete documentation on how to use it and recommends it. Its not like you are hacking a complete solution otherwise any writing of software for any purpose would be a "block" because there is not a direct A to B route.

Sehnsucht

Sep 10, 2009, 01:37 PM

:rolleyes:

Nothing to see here. Moving on...

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 01:38 PM

Once a case is brought up or someone important starts seeing this as a problem it would be awful for Apple, and they should just allow other devices to work with it rather than "requiring" methods against USB specs. iTunes has become far more than just their application to sync/play music.

MS Office is the dominate word processor, so everyone should be able to use it without getting a license from MS?

If you wanted to buy a license from MS and they said it is $299; and you offer them $15, will they still give you a license? No, should they have to? No.

If Palm said to Apple, let us license syncing to your iTunes, and Apple said, Ok, that will be $1,000,000 per year and Palm said, "No thanks!" Should they then be allowed to use it? Nope.

Has Palm approached Apple to find out about allowing sync? I'm guessing they did and Apple either said, "No thanks" or that it would cost more then Palm wanted to pay. But that doesn't give them the right to do it anyway, especially some way that is kinda sleazy.

I'm wondering if Apple could Trademark their VID; then go after Palm for Trademark Violation.

cjmillsnun

Sep 10, 2009, 01:39 PM

Thank you for your reply and the excellent information about synching. I must reiterate my point though and let me expand.

Would you agree that I can not plug a Pre into iTunes and have it synch? Why? Because Apple is actively blocking that functionality. Again that is a fact not an opinion as this article is about exactly that. There is nothing incorrect in my assertion. You may then argue that you can get around it but that does not negate the fact.

Apple is doing that because Palm is doing something they shouldn't. Apple has to protect its IPR and its bottom line.

iTunes is free software... Why? to sell iPods and iPhones. They make maybe 1 cent from every music download. The rest goes to the record companies. iTunes exists right now to sell Apple hardware. Why should they let another company use it for free and take their sales.

If Palm were to pay a fair licence fee for the ability to sync with iTunes then Apple may reconsider. Effectively Palm has broken the DMCA.

Lunchbox700

Sep 10, 2009, 01:43 PM

Yeah, this is what baffles me. The Blackberry Desktop syncs with iTunes just fine, allowing me to load iTunes stuff on my Curve. Why can't Palm do that?

Me too and obviously you don't use Itunes to sync it but it still does what I want it too via it's own software which is how it should be.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 01:43 PM

At what point do these two companies realize syncing helps them both and come to an arrangement?

When Apple needs something from Palm? Currently, Apple holds all the cards (unfortunately, IMO).

Rodimus Prime

Sep 10, 2009, 01:44 PM

I'm not blind. You are. You bought a phone from Palm, that doesn't do what you wanted/needed it to do, and now you blame Apple?

Umm please read my post again

I do not known a Palm pre or an iPhone nor do I want one. I own a blackberry. yes Blackberry software can do it but I would rather do it though iTunes but then again it does not really effect me since I perfer my media center stuff (iPod) and phone to be separated.

What I was trying to point out was from a consumer point of view. Maybe I should of included in that list of phones to say iphone and had it say (Blackberry, Palm, iPhone ect) instead of (BB, Palm ect). I was trying to point out that the consumer does not care who makes what phone. They just want it to work with the main peice of software with out having to use a huge amount of 3rd party software.
But what to expect people who prove my point very easily with blind apple following to understand the logic... No that is asking to much.

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 01:46 PM

Me too and obviously you don't use Itunes to sync it but it still does what I want it too via it's own software which is how it should be.

can I have your account password so I can post as you because thats how I want it to be and I shouldn't have to be tied to my account to post on these boards when yours is better.

charlituna

Sep 10, 2009, 01:46 PM

Despite apparent violations of USB Implementers Forum regulations in its unauthorized use of Apple's USB Vendor ID Number to achieve media syncing, Palm also brazenly reported Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/24/palm-reports-apple-to-usb-compliance-organization-over-itunes-syncing-issues/) to the compliance organization for what Palm believes to be improper actions by Apple in preventing other vendors from accessing iTunes via USB.

the issue comes down to:

1. Palm put Apple's vendor ID on their devices to 'fix' the issue. This is a violation of the codes of the USB-IF right there. so they have some balls for saying anything.

2. The only way Palm will come out the winner is if Apple put code in itunes with their vendor id that basically says "you see this vendor, ignore the device". If instead they put their vendor code in and said "this is us, recognize anything with this code" to ensure that all generations of ipods are recognized they are likely fine. and I would suspect this is what they did because it explains why Palm mocked the Apple vendor code to 'fix' the first break

Palm should seriously just give up and develop their own software to read the openly accessible XML that itunes creates. can it really be that hard

zacman

Sep 10, 2009, 01:49 PM

Apple already broke the AAC standard, so Itunes Plus songs don't play on Nokia devices. So it isn't really surprising that they are now breaking the USB standard as well.

charlituna

Sep 10, 2009, 01:52 PM

Kinda makes me dislike Apple policy. Why not let other media players use iTunes?

for the same reason they control the computer hardware you can use MacOSX with. easier to revise and to fix when you have a limited number of device hardware configurations to support. If they opened up itunes syncing to every possible device they would have to test all changes on every device to ensure each thing works on everything.

Simple fix apple should sell

why should Apple have to sell anything that supports someone else's hardware.

no the "simple fix" is for Palm to pull a Blackberry and write the software themselves.

Kobekes

Sep 10, 2009, 01:53 PM

Hey, when I installed iTunes 9 the installer started with: "installing apple mobile device"
Is this maybe Apple's new trick?

Treq

Sep 10, 2009, 01:54 PM

Umm please read my post again

I do not known a Palm pre or an iPhone nor do I want one. I own a blackberry. yes Blackberry software can do it but I would rather do it though iTunes but then again it does not really effect me since I perfer my media center stuff (iPod) and phone to be separated.

What I was trying to point out was from a consumer point of view. Maybe I should of included in that list of phones to say iphone and had it say (Blackberry, Palm, iPhone ect) instead of (BB, Palm ect). I was trying to point out that the consumer does not care who makes what phone. They just want it to work with the main peice of software with out having to use a huge amount of 3rd party software.
But what to expect people who prove my point very easily with blind apple following to understand the logic... No that is asking to much.

iTunes is the third party software here. Pre owners should't complain to Apple, they should complain to Palm for not creating software for their device. That's all. And as for being a blind apple follower? FU. I don't follow anything blindly.

madog

Sep 10, 2009, 01:54 PM

MS Office is the dominate word processor, so everyone should be able to use it without getting a license from MS?

If you wanted to buy a license from MS and they said it is $299; and you offer them $15, will they still give you a license? No, should they have to? No.

If Palm said to Apple, let us license syncing to your iTunes, and Apple said, Ok, that will be $1,000,000 per year and Palm said, "No thanks!" Should they then be allowed to use it? Nope.

Has Palm approached Apple to find out about allowing sync? I'm guessing they did and Apple either said, "No thanks" or that it would cost more then Palm wanted to pay. But that doesn't give them the right to do it anyway, especially some way that is kinda sleazy.

I'm wondering if Apple could Trademark their VID; then go after Palm for Trademark Violation.

I see what you mean, but I don't think the analogy is correct. Office is just software and file formats. iTunes is more than that and the problem is it working with other hardware. While Apple is doing that with their OS in the computer market, all I'm saying is that it might not work so well in a market they nearly control, ultimately limiting the competition (there aren't many other music apps on the scale of iTunes for Mac). People are free to make other file formats or try to compete with Word, but Word works on various platforms, works with other formats, and is readable with free alternatives such as OpenOffice.

Palm could make their own if they wanted to, but what I personally have a problem with is that the iPod can work on other music players (though not so well), but no other music player can work with iTunes. iTunes isn't only sold with iPods anymore, is included on every Mac, and is the central location for audio and video on the Mac and many PCs.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 01:55 PM

iTunes is free software... Why? to sell iPods and iPhones. They make maybe 1 cent from every music download. The rest goes to the record companies.

1 cent? Apple's gross cut is more like 30-35 cents, which on $8.5 billion sales (songs only, not including movies) is nearly $3 billion in revenue. You won't see Steve Jobs in the queue for the homeless shelter for some time yet.. :)

BRLawyer

Sep 10, 2009, 01:56 PM

^^ I have a feeling Apple will win this one.

Of course it will, for three reasons:

- pirates cannot win, especially those that disguise themselves behind a false image of correctness;

- the Pre is an utter failure that has barely impacted iPhone margins; not to mention Palm's desperate move to launch a lower-cost model now;

- in case Apple gets really pissed off, it can buy Palm with some change money it has in its pocket.

The Pre sucks big time. And Palm IS DEAD.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 01:58 PM

Apple already broke the AAC standard, so Itunes Plus songs don't play on Nokia devices. So it isn't really surprising that they are now breaking the USB standard as well.

Doesn't look like Apple did much wrong with the AAC and they didn't violate the standard. The Pinf atom of the AAC from iTunes is listed as Sibling, where one created from Quicktime (which works on the Nokia devices) is listed as Child. They are basically the same; but the Sibling tag is not supported by Nokia; it is a valid tag (almost every other device works fine with it). Thus it really is a Nokia problem.

In this case, Apple is NOT doing anything wrong with the USB ID information; but Palm is.

charlituna

Sep 10, 2009, 01:58 PM

Apple already broke the AAC standard, so Itunes Plus songs don't play on Nokia devices.

are you sure you are putting the blame on the right folks. can you show that Apple made a change to the standard and keep those details from people. and not that Nokia simply didn't bother to ask for the details to test that they had everything correct.

So it isn't really surprising that they are now breaking the USB standard as well.

and how exactly did Apple do that. where in the code of conduct does it say that you have to allow anyone to use your software however they want even if you don't want them to. cause that's the only thing Apple might have 'broken'. when you plug a pre in it is recognized as a USB device on the desktop, allowing you to treat it like a hard drive and drag whatever you want into it. if Apple had actually broken the standard, the Pre would not mount

TuffLuffJimmy

Sep 10, 2009, 01:58 PM

1 cent? Apple's gross cut is more like 30-35 cents, which on $8.5 billion sales (songs only, not including movies) is nearly $3 billion in revenue. You won't see Steve Jobs in the queue for the homeless shelter for some time yet.. :)

Wow. First off: we know that the record companies got 70-75 cents for each song sold (who knows what it's at now that they have songs at $1.29). Second: Apple has to pay for the hosting and bandwidth. Third: they pay for the credit card charges. Apple is barely skimming money off of each sale. They also must staff support for the store. I'd bet that they lose a penny for each song sold, and make it up with iPods.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 01:59 PM

for the same reason they control the computer hardware you can use MacOSX with. easier to revise and to fix when you have a limited number of device hardware configurations to support. If they opened up itunes syncing to every possible device they would have to test all changes on every device to ensure each thing works on everything.

why should Apple have to sell anything that supports someone else's hardware.

no the "simple fix" is for Palm to pull a Blackberry and write the software themselves.

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

It's actually less work for Apple.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 02:00 PM

Why? Because Apple is actively blocking that functionality. Again that is a fact not an opinion as this article is about exactly that. There is nothing incorrect in my assertion. You may then argue that you can get around it but that does not negate the fact.

Apple can hardly actively block something they never supported in the first place. As far as APple is concerned, this is closing a security hole to block a hacker.

tbrinkma

Sep 10, 2009, 02:00 PM

Also, with the Pre "spoofing" the Apple ID to work with iTunes, what I was trying to say is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to make that a requirement for iTunes. Sure they can at this point, but again they aren't the underdogs in this area anymore. They can get away with that sort of thing with computers because their competitors are so huge, but that's not the case with Apple's other products.

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you actually saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to check what the hardware is before trying to sync to it?

If that actually *is* what you mean, then iTunes would be forced to try syncing music/videos/etc to *every* USB device plugged into the computer (printers, scanners, thumb drives, cameras, speakers, etc.)

The idea behind those USB IDs is that they are supposed to enable the computer (and software on it) to uniquely identify any particular type of device. If Apple shouldn't be allowed to use those IDs for their intended purpose, how would you recommend they distinguish an iPod from a USB microphone?

Apple is intentionally blocking the Pre's (and now Pixi's) ability to pretend to be an iPod because doing otherwise opens them up to much more painful risks in the future. If Apple were to simply allow it, here's a few scenarios that would happen.

Scenario 1) Apple silently allows the Pre to sync with iTunes by pretending to be an iPod. Apple makes a change to the protocol (say encrypting it to allow syncing across the internet). Suddenly, the Palm devices that worked for years stop working. Apple can't send an update out for the Pre, and since Palm didn't actually license the syncing protocol, they have no access to the new encryption keys. Apple gets a real black eye on this one because they've 'supported' syncing to a Pre for years. Users sue because *Apple* has disabled some functionality.

Scenario 2) Apple silently allows the Pre to sync with iTunes by pretending to be an iPod. Palm makes a change to the Pre's firmware, and in a small percentage of cases this change causes iTunes to trigger a glitch which bricks the Pre. Again, Apple gets the bad press, because plenty of *other* users aren't having any problems with their Pre, so it must be *Apple's* fault.

Scenario 3) Apple does its best to actually support syncing with the Pre with the iPod sync protocol. Then one day Apple updates iTunes the same day Palm pushes a firmware/OS update to the Pre. Users who update one but not the other have no problems, but users who update *both* run into an issue where a small number have their Pre irrevocably bricked during the sync. Who should the users be upset with?

Apple is actually unable to *support* syncing with the Pre, because they can't control what the software on the Pre does or how it behaves. If Palm wants their users to be able to use iTunes as their media library, they should go the route RIM (and several other phone manufacturers) went, and create a utility that uses one of the documented *and supported* interfaces Apple provides to allow 3rd parties to interact with iTunes. Instead, they decided to pass the support responsibility off onto Apple.

If Apple needs to change the sync protocol for iPods in order to enable new functionality, but they aren't allowed to break syncing with the Pre, you've just created a constraint where Palm is allowed to restrict Apple from providing new.

Palm advertises functionality which is not, and never was, within its ability to guarantee, but somehow this is Apple's fault? How?

kdarling

Sep 10, 2009, 02:00 PM

Nah. You hire disgruntled Apple employees, recruit the Apple executive that wasn't involved with the iPhone and move them all over to a dying company that's been bankrolled by a rock star (and run by Apple's former CFO) to wage a battle with their former employer.

Heck, it worked for Jobs , back when Apple was a dying company run by a soft drink exec. Jobs brought back employees he stole for NeXT and took over again. If an untrained salesman who lives off the innovation of others can do it, so can smarter people.

As for iTunes, there's no doubt that Palm should've come up with their own solution by now. The first time was fun and clever. Now it's just silly and wasteful.

karlfranz

Sep 10, 2009, 02:01 PM

Apple don't own the house. Apple built the house, then sold it to me. If I want Palm to come through the window, the keyhole, or sliding down my chimney one day in December, then that should be my choice, not Apple's.
Sounds to me like someone needs to understand the concept of a "software license". Apple didn't "sell" you iTunes (in fact, it's free). By clicking on the "I Agree" button during the installation process, you consent to play by their rules. Or to use the house analogy: Apple built the house and owns it. They are the landlord and they allow you live in it rent-free as long as you follow their rules and don't destroy or vandalize the place. If you violate these terms, it is Apple's right to evict you.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 02:01 PM

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

It's actually less work for Apple.

Except by not doing something, there can be implicit support from the end user. That is work for Apple because they have to train their people on how to treat users making unreasonable requests.

theBB

Sep 10, 2009, 02:05 PM

Is that really the "right" solution? If I had an iPod, and a Pre, I wouldn't want to have two entirely separate syncing solutions. The whole point of syncing is to simplify things for the user, not complicate them.

All you need is hitting a button on a separate piece of properly written program. You may have to re-enter which playlists or movies to sync, but unless you want to use the exact same syncing options for both devices, you need to do that anyways.

silverwarloc

Sep 10, 2009, 02:06 PM

zacman

Sep 10, 2009, 02:07 PM

are you sure you are putting the blame on the right folks. can you show that Apple made a change to the standard and keep those details from people. and not that Nokia simply didn't bother to ask for the details to test that they had everything correct.

Yes I am sure. It's very well documented. In the AAC standard the pinf atom is a child of esdf. If you create an AAC file with Itunes, or Quicktime or whatever software it always will create pinf as an child. However only ITunes Plus songs have pinf in it as a sibling and not as a child of esdf. As the Nokia player (and TiVO and XBox etc.) expect pinf to be a child and not a sibling they don't recognize an Itunes Plus song as a legimitate AAC file and won't play it. There is a fix available though.

More information is available here: http://techtransit.blogspot.com/2007/06/putpinfinitsplace-itunes-plus-fixer-for.html

Or google for pinf and Itunes plus.

FakeWozniak

Sep 10, 2009, 02:08 PM

can I have your account password so I can post as you because thats how I want it to be and I shouldn't have to be tied to my account to post on these boards when yours is better.

Very good point and funny too! Palm is doing corporate sponsored identity theft. I hope they loose the priviledge of using USB and are sued until the ports are removed from every manufactured Palm device. Nice class action lawsuit material... "They advertised it would be compatible with iTunes syncing!" :-(

I bet many of the ignorant youngsters posting communist views in this thread (you know the ones, they don't own any phone themselves yet, but by golly gee, they won't buy an apple product now) would change their stance after having their identity stolen. BTW, if any of you want to send me your credit card numbers and give me permission to sign your name, I would be happy to run up your personal account balances for you. :-) Oh wait, you are too young to have credit, let alone a paying job.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:11 PM

Wow. First off: we know that the record companies got 70-75 cents for each song sold (who knows what it's at now that they have songs at $1.29). Second: Apple has to pay for the hosting and bandwidth. Third: they pay for the credit card charges. Apple is barely skimming money off of each sale. They also must staff support for the store. I'd bet that they lose a penny for each song sold, and make it up with iPods.

Not according to every figure I've seen quoted, which states the record companies receive 60-65 cents.

As I stated, that was Apple's gross cut. Out of which comes their costs.
I'd be astonished if they were losing money on that revenue.

TuffLuffJimmy

Sep 10, 2009, 02:13 PM

Not according to every figure I've seen quoted, which states the record companies receive 60-65 cents.

As I stated, that was Apple's gross cut. Out of which comes their costs.
I'd be astonished if they were losing money on that revenue.

So you're ignoring how much they have to pay for bandwidth, staff, upkeep, serving and credit card charges.

You really think it's cost them any less than 3 billion to keep this running for the past 6 years? Please. :rolleyes:

aristotle

Sep 10, 2009, 02:13 PM

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

It's actually less work for Apple.
Wow. You are totally not getting the issue. They are fixing security holes in their software. Palm is trying to exploit those holes. Apple is not breaking compatibility with legitimate compatible devices.

karlfranz

Sep 10, 2009, 02:15 PM

I'm not disputing Apple have the right to change iTunes as they choose (at least, until such time as they have a monopoly in the industry, and seek to abuse it).

I'm just disappointed they choose to break Pre compatibility. I'm just tired of vendors trying to tie you into their other products at the expense of interoperability and ease of use. It seems to me this parochial mindset is holding back what's technically possible.

It's not just Pre users who are affected, they're also iTunes/Mac users.
Apparently many of you don't seem to understand the concept of protecting your intellectual property. You seem to think that Apple is doing this to be mean, piss off Pre owners, piss off Palm or some other ridiculous reason. The fact is that Apple may be legally required to do whatever it can to disable Pre-syncing. If they don't they are establishing a precedent—essentially saying that it is OK to do this. Given enough time, Apple will find itself losing the rights to its intellectual property and, worse yet, may be required to provide support for competing products.

You may find it petty on Apple's part that they are doing this, but understand that they may have no choice. Palm, on the other hand, does have a choice. They could very easily have a solution that plays by the rules and chances are that they already have a syncing app written in-house. However, the amount of free publicity from the tech media and blogs may be worth the controversy for them because it keeps them relevant. How quickly would the tech world forget about the Pre if they simply released their own syncing app? Palm would probably get 2 days of publicity from articles, blogs and press releases stating that the Pre now has its own app and then the Pre would fade into obscurity until their next model comes out.

HLdan

Sep 10, 2009, 02:16 PM

Kinda makes me dislike Apple policy. Why not let other media players use iTunes? What is the harm in getting more people exposed to the Apple way of doing things? \
" hey this iTunes is great,!, think I'll get a MAC !! "
more like ........"hey this sucks ...screw Apple"

I don't have a PRE but I do belive in fair play

You logic fails for one big reason, Palm is a big company, very big. They can easily afford software engineers to create their own software for the Pre, especially as much advertising has went into it. We are not talking about a small mom and pop deal like many of the developers for the app store, we're talking about Palm. It's shameless and embarrassing for them to feed off another company's success. They did not license iTunes with Apple to use the Pre on it. I would expect this kind of behavior from a small time developer and I might actually side with the small time developer but not Palm.

They already took Apple's idea of the Newton when Apple dropped it, now they want to use Apple's own iTunes to compete with Apple's iPhone, are you serious?

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:17 PM

So you're ignoring how much they have to pay for bandwidth, staff, upkeep, serving and credit card charges.

No. I'm saying I doubt Apple is dumb enough to make a loss on a service which has the potential to scale to a such a massive size. There's no guarantee that if iTMS sales double, iPod sales will too; hence Apple would be taking a big risk if they were making a loss on every iTMS sale.

charlituna

Sep 10, 2009, 02:17 PM

No they are just adding a line of code do it.

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

you two (and others) seem so sure that is what they are doing. so prove it. find and share with us, the 'line of code' (or probably lines) that specify search for, detect and block a Pre from syncing with itunes.

I agree with the user experience thing. Palm has done something stupid here. They have left part of their phones user experience in the hands of a competing company. Apple is probably thinking that they have no obligation to support the Pre and could care less about making iTunes work with it. In turn the average Pre owner has a worse user experience with their device if they are trying to sync it with iTunes and it doesn't work.

+1 Apple.

now there is a nice argument that isn't just "Palm isn't playing by the rules". I agree 100%. Palm is being stupid for leaving their experience in the hands of another company.

But Apple is annoying users.

Palm users, who they don't make any real money off of. so why would Apple care.

and I believe they are making an example of them.

to some degrees I believe you are correct. they are likely not just giving up on this little game as an example. Because if they let this slide, what's to stop Palm or someone else from doing something nastier.

it's not unlike continuing the fight with Psystar. they need to have the courts toss out all possible arguments so that someone with more resources doesn't try the same game later, and win.

I bet the real reason Apple removed DRM from the iTMS

Apple never wanted DRM. that was the labels condition for allowing the music to be sold. Once Apple was able to show that their store was, for the labels, a success, they have the power to argue that it was time to dump the protection. And if they can ever convince the studios of the same thing, it will be gone from tv shows and movies as well. this whole 'mock dvd' itunes extras could be a step in that direction

Palm never should have marketed anything that they don't have an agreement with and can guarantee. They had no right nor any assumption that iTunes was an open platform or had any such licensing. None. They simply should not have advertised it at all.

so I wonder if I can go buy a Pre, which advertises that it syncs with itunes and then sue them when it doesn't.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:21 PM

Wow. You are totally not getting the issue. They are fixing security holes in their software. Palm is trying to exploit those holes. Apple is not breaking compatibility with legitimate compatible devices.

How does this security hole work? If someone malicious has physical access to your machine in order to plug a USB device in, you have bigger problems. I don't buy the security argument.

agbot

Sep 10, 2009, 02:22 PM

TuffLuffJimmy

Sep 10, 2009, 02:23 PM

No. I'm saying I doubt Apple is dumb enough to make a loss on a service which has the potential to scale to a such a massive size. There's no guarantee that if iTMS sales double, iPod sales will too; hence Apple would be taking a big risk if they were making a loss on every iTMS sale.

So if the iTunes Music Store has produced 3 billion in revenue, as you stated, they've still lost money. There's no way that iTunes has cost them less than 3 billion to keep going for 6 years.

dernhelm

Sep 10, 2009, 02:27 PM

So what's the over/under on the number of days until the Pre is able to sync again?

I'm giving 3.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:28 PM

you two (and others) seem so sure that is what they are doing. so prove it. find and share with us, the 'line of code' (or probably lines) that specify search for, detect and block a Pre from syncing with itunes.

I'd love to post the code here, but you know how fussy Apple is about their IP... :p

You're absolutely right, I don't know for certain why compatibility is broken, nor does anyone else on this thread. I'm speculating based on Apple's likely motivations, as is everyone else here. There's no shortage of people on this thread spouting unwarranted certainties, myself included. :)

madog

Sep 10, 2009, 02:30 PM

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you actually saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to check what the hardware is before trying to sync to it?

Not that broad. Apple can check what they want all day, but I personally don't think it should limit other hardware to be used with iTunes to such a great extent. I don't know how they allow other devices to work with it "legally", but it is a free application that is included with all of their computers, is on many PCs, and essentially dominates the market because of the iPod/iPhone. Not that they can't do it, but that I don't think they should.

I don't think it's great what Palm is doing for the reasons you have mentioned, either.

Mr. Gates

Sep 10, 2009, 02:34 PM

Mr. Gates,

If you are so kind, please, post your home address on this forum. While your at it, turn off all security alarms and monitors. Inform your security guards that I will be coming around and to let me in without questions while driving my empty 18-wheeler to your front door. And, don't forget to leave your door unlocked.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do this. So, would you expect this from any company, not just Apple? I think not.

JEEEZ All I am saying is that its just a media player and letting other people without Apple hardware use it isn't going to anything but expose more people to Apple and that is a good thing. Everybody gets SO Defensive on this site.

HLdan

Sep 10, 2009, 02:34 PM

You see, to prevent Palm from syncing is not the goal. The goal is to disrupt the harmony of Pre owners and spoil the ownership experience. Apple wants Pre owners to regret buying it and regret not going with the iPhone....which just works.

This whole post is ridiculous, that would be pointless of Apple to do that when they have the dominant market share, they are not trying to kill off the Palm.:p

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:37 PM

So if the iTunes Music Store has produced 3 billion in revenue, as you stated, they've still lost money. There's no way that iTunes has cost them less than 3 billion to keep going for 6 years.

I've no idea how much it costs to run. I just don't think Apple would run such a massively scalable business as a loss-leader; when (for instance if someone bought music on iTunes on a PC and used another music player) they get no revenue in return.

(Also, that figure isn't all-inclusive, that's song revenue only).

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 02:38 PM

JEEEZ All I am saying is that its just a media player and letting other people without Apple hardware use it isn't going to anything but expose more people to Apple and that is a good thing. Everybody gets SO Defensive on this site.

Except for the fact that the tiny amount of media that a Pre user may potentially buy does not outweigh the loss in Apple hardware sales.

agbot

Sep 10, 2009, 02:38 PM

How does this security hole work? If someone malicious has physical access to your machine in order to plug a USB device in, you have bigger problems. I don't buy the security argument.

I wouldn't call it "security", but if, say, I'm a software developer who maintains some proprietary database of media files, I wouldn't want some third party masquerading as an authorized device syncing data in ways that I don't have direct control over. Could this third party device possibly corrupt the database? I have no idea, and what's my motivation to allow them to even present the possibility? Isn't my first (and only?) priority to make sure my own software works and to do all I can to maintain the integrity of the data?

This all sounds like a nice rational cover story, but it still doesn't mean Apple just wanted smack Palm around for brazenly and publicly flaunting their iTunes syncing hack. :)

pondosinatra

Sep 10, 2009, 02:40 PM

The iTunes 9 'application' (great another inconsistent interface) looking like a webpage equals EPIC FAIL! :mad:

iLeoMarc

Sep 10, 2009, 02:42 PM

1 cent? Apple's gross cut is more like 30-35 cents, which on $8.5 billion sales (songs only, not including movies) is nearly $3 billion in revenue. You won't see Steve Jobs in the queue for the homeless shelter for some time yet.. :)

Wrong. Looking at Apple's current 10Q you can clearly see that "Other music related products and services (d)" has a sales of 3,018 million for the past 9 months ended on June 27, 2009. This section includes music, movies, tv, applications, iPod services and Apple-branded and 3rd party iPod accessories.

Rodimus Prime

Sep 10, 2009, 02:43 PM

you two (and others) seem so sure that is what they are doing. so prove it. find and share with us, the 'line of code' (or probably lines) that specify search for, detect and block a Pre from syncing with itunes.

Umm do you understand anything about programing there. To do what you are demanding it would require the source code. Once it has been compiled it is in machine language (010011001....) Apple does not provide the source code so I could go go though and find the If...Then statement that is doing the check.

Chances are good it is a simple If then statement in the code that is running the check something like. All it takes to break it is figure out what Palm is doing then write a simple If then statement to break it.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 02:44 PM

Apple can hardly actively block something they never supported in the first place. As far as APple is concerned, this is closing a security hole to block a hacker.

"Apple can hardly actively block something they never supported in the first place."
Why not? They do it now. Are you saying because they didn't do something in the past they can't do it now? How does that make any logical sense? I've never jumped out of an airplane does not mean I can't do it this very today? If I've never cooked food on a gas stove does it mean I'll starve to death if I move into a house with gas appliances?

And to directly address you repeated false assertion:
Are you are saying that you can hook up a Pre to iTunes and have it synch? Are you saying iTunes do not block non Apple products from synching with iTunes? Are you saying this article about Pre not synching with iTunes does not exist?

If you can answer "Yes" to those questions then you are correct, if you can not then you are wrong. As a programmer that has actually worked with the system I have first hand knowledge and that is what I am sharing with you. Apple actively blocks non-Apple equipment from synching with iTunes. This is not my opinion it is a fact.

You're welcome to your own opinions but you are not welcome to your own facts.

"As far as Apple is concerned..."
Exactly, as far as Apple is concerned, but not other people. That is Apples OPINION that it's a security hole not a fact. Palm has a different opinion. But let me help you out on this one.

You could argue that Pre using Apple's ID is a security problem much more easily than you could argue that anyone using iTunes to synch with any device is a security hole. But even then you have to very careful how you phrase the statement.

With that being said I'm not interested in your opinions if you are incapable of basing them on facts. Most of all if you are incapable of admitting your error then there is no reason to converse with you. It would be like trying to convince a Christian that evolution is real; pointless and futile.

Good day.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 02:45 PM

Not that broad. Apple can check what they want all day, but I personally don't think it should limit other hardware to be used with iTunes to such a great extent. I don't know how they allow other devices to work with it "legally", but it is a free application that is included with all of their computers, is on many PCs, and essentially dominates the market because of the iPod/iPhone. Not that they can't do it, but that I don't think they should.

I don't think it's great what Palm is doing for the reasons you have mentioned, either.

I am guessing that other devices sync to it without a problem because they went through the proper channels and paid Apple the money needed to get the licensing rights. This is Apple's IP and if you want to play with it, you need to pay for it.

Palm obviously isn't taking that approach, they are just trying to pretend they are Apple and thus get a free ride. It is very possible that Apple just doesn't like them and doesn't want their stuff talking to their IP. Well, it is their IP and they can do with it what they want.

If you have a nice movie collection in your house, but you won't let me in to watch them, should I break in and then cry when you throw me back out? Nope. Also I shouldn't go around telling people that I can get them movies from your collection either.

Could Palm make a device that looks exactly like an iPod (or whatever device they are mimicking) and thus preventing Apple from detecting them? Sure they can, and it would work and there would be nothing Apple could do to stop them. IF they made it look EXACTLY like one of the Apple devices. But it looks like the device isn't perfect, otherwise there would be NO way for Apple to detect the difference.

It is in Apple's interest, as others have pointed out, to keep out intruders because it does start the slippery slope thing.. one does, it, so does everyone else, etc... before you know it Apple is forced to maintain compatibility with old devices just to keep them happy. And then it becomes a support nightmare.

Palm has a few choices.
a) Give up on iTunes syncing
b) Make their device IDENTICAL to the iPod (or whichever device they are using)
c) License the interface from Apple
d) Write their own software

I know from experience that b) is VERY hard to do; not impossible mind you, but hard. AMD did it to Intel a long time ago. Ensoniq did it to Creative Labs. (those are the two I know did it) Sometimes it is easier to just pay the money and make everyone happy -- but if Apple still says, "No" then their choices become more limited.

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:46 PM

Wrong. Looking at Apple's current 10Q you can clearly see that "Other music related products and services (d)" has a sales of 3,018 million for the past 9 months ended on June 27, 2009. This section includes music, movies, tv, applications, iPod services and Apple-branded and 3rd party iPod accessories.

8.5b is the total sales figure; mentioned during yesterday's event.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 02:48 PM

Not that broad. Apple can check what they want all day, but I personally don't think it should limit other hardware to be used with iTunes to such a great extent.
Thats nice, but that is a decision for Apple to make - iTunes is closed source proprietary software that is owned by Apple. If you do not like it, one is free to create or use another device of their choosing. I can tell you though, it isn't going to be an ideal situation.

I don't know how they allow other devices to work with it "legally", but it is a free application that is included with all of their computers, is on many PCs, and essentially dominates the market because of the iPod/iPhone. Not that they can't do it, but that I don't think they should.

Linking hardware with software is how the computer industry was founded on - it happens all the time. Heck, even MS does it with the Zune. The popularity of the iPod gets people to seek out iTunes - even on Windows where you actively have to download it. Second, the only reason that iTunes supported other players was from a legitimately licensed (and now obsolete) API that companies licensed from Apple. Nowadays it's all legacy code back from it's origins as SoundJam

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 02:48 PM

Except for the fact that the tiny amount of media that a Pre user may potentially buy does not outweigh the loss in Apple hardware sales.

Best post of the year?

If you think AAPL should let PALM piggy back on itunes keep reading the above until you understand why it isn't a viable business strategy. If you have no intention on buying an iPod or an iPhone, Apple has no intention on keeping you happy. Get it?

whooleytoo

Sep 10, 2009, 02:50 PM

I wouldn't call it "security", but if, say, I'm a software developer who maintains some proprietary database of media files, I wouldn't want some third party masquerading as an authorized device syncing data in ways that I don't have direct control over. Could this third party device possibly corrupt the database? I have no idea, and what's my motivation to allow them to even present the possibility? Isn't my first (and only?) priority to make sure my own software works and to do all I can to maintain the integrity of the data?

This all sounds like a nice rational cover story, but it still doesn't mean Apple just wanted smack Palm around for brazenly and publicly flaunting their iTunes syncing hack. :)

Oh, even I admit Palm's "solution" is an ugly kludge; and wish it were done a better way.

Unfortunately it's not in companies' interests to interoperate when they're No. 1 in their industry. Great for them, not as good for those of us wanting tidy, compatible devices & services.

iLeoMarc

Sep 10, 2009, 02:50 PM

8.5b is the total sales figure; mentioned during yesterday's event.

Sorry when I read gross I assumed you meant year :)

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 02:53 PM

I wouldn't call SyncServices a block

I don't care what YOU would call it. You are admitting in your opening statement that that is your OPINION. I don't care about your opinions because you have stated no facts.

I think Unicorns are awesome and if they could fly that would be the bestest ever; but that doesn't make 'em real and it certainly doesn't mean they should pilot aircraft.

Worst of all you have failed to admit you are wrong and instead are attempting to run the "truth blockade" but I will not allow you to do that.

I will not allow you to repeat a falsehood immediately after I have disproven it.

You are wrong. I have proven you wrong. Admit it or not but that is a fact.

Good day.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 02:53 PM

8.5b is the total sales figure; mentioned during yesterday's event.

That's items sold, not dollars earned.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 02:57 PM

I don't care what YOU would call it. You are admitting in your opening statement that that is your OPINION. I don't care about your opinions because you have stated no facts.

I think Unicorns are awesome and if they could fly that would be the bestest ever; but that doesn't make 'em real and it certainly doesn't mean they should pilot aircraft.

Worst of all you have failed to admit you are wrong and instead are attempting to run the "truth blockade" but I will not allow you to do that.

I will not allow you to repeat a falsehood immediately after I have disproven it.

You are wrong. I have proven you wrong. Admit it or not but that is a fact.

Good day.

Sync Services is an Apple designed and documented service that has been available for years that actually pre-dates the iPhone (its the successor to iSync). Heck, its built in to the OS and is designed for teh purpose that you want. You are calling it a block, however your definition of a block is flawed. You have proved nothing.

jovanboi

Sep 10, 2009, 02:58 PM

I don't see what all the hullabaloo is over this syncing. Technically, can't you just drag and drop the music to the Pre...? It works for me quite nicely. Don't see why that would be so difficult for people to do, as we do it with USB flash drives all the time.

nzoMD

Sep 10, 2009, 02:59 PM

who cares if it syncs..

honestly, the pre only has 8GB. Why would I want to sync my media to an 8GB device? Most people have WAY more than 8GB of music...

With any 8GB device, you have to be selective on what media you transfer over. You can't just tell your system to sync up because there wont be enough room. The pre can still transfer media directly from itunes.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 03:00 PM

I am guessing that other devices sync to it without a problem...

Your entire post is based on your guess. What's a guess? Is a guess a fact? Or is it your opinion on what reality should be. You may be right but it's a logical fallacy to base your opinion on a guess.

Why not look it up first and see if you are correct before building an entire belief system based on no actual knowledge?

Cleverboy

Sep 10, 2009, 03:01 PM

*LTD*

Sep 10, 2009, 03:03 PM

I was trying to point out that the consumer does not care who makes what phone. They just want it to work with the main peice of software with out having to use a huge amount of 3rd party software.

Ok. I'm quite confident that the Pre works with Palm's "main piece of software", whatever that might be.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 03:11 PM

Why not look it up first and see if you are correct before building an entire belief system based on no actual knowledge?

Because it is completely irrelevant to the information in the rest of the post; who cares if other things can sync or not. The point is that they still have the same set of options in front of them. Either do it through the proper channels or not. I also mentioned that they may not have access to the proper channels and thus it would lower their options.

Again, the initial statement that it's a guess was just that, because it didn't matter, and thus didn't constitute additional time to research the information.

Besides, what believe system are you talking about. I gave very specific choices that Palm has in front of them. Some of which are under their control, some aren't. They can develop their own software, license the interface, perfectly mimic the iPod/phone, or give up. No one said that they can't write their own software, no reason they couldn't. The licensing may or may not be a path to explore -- who knows, maybe Apple thinks they smell funny? Mimic the iPod (their current approach); they will need to do it perfectly, otherwise it will be detectable. Or give up.

Which one is a belief? Did I miss an avenue which they could explore?

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 03:14 PM

Sync Services is an Apple designed and documented service that has been available for years that actually pre-dates the iPhone (its the successor to iSync). Heck, its built in to the OS and is designed for teh purpose that you want. You are calling it a block, however your definition of a block is flawed. You have proved nothing.

You are not even address the issue. Yes you have stated another fact that is true but it is not relevant to my statement of fact.

I stated, "2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products."

When challenged I demonstrated that Apple blocks the Pre from synching with iTunes. That fact proves the truth of my statement.

You then go on to discuss ways AROUND it but that does not negate the previous statement. It's like saying, "My dog can't eat brand X or he'll get diarrhea so I feed him brand Y." Feeding your dog brand Y does not stop it from having diarrhea if it eats brand X. That is a fact. Do you understand?

I have no problem with you saying, "Yeah, but..." as long as you acknowledge what I have said as true. Saying there are ways around the fact does not negate the fact. "My wife was shot but the doctor saved her life." The doctor saving her life does not mean the shooting never happened. Get it?

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 03:15 PM

Which one is a belief? Did I miss an avenue which they could explore?

Ohh.. I guess I did miss one, they could force / convince Apple to open the doors to their IP to all their competitors for free. (I think I just heard the Devil Shiver)

HLdan

Sep 10, 2009, 03:21 PM

Companies need to go to the source if they want to use the other company's technology to profit from it. I wondered how Apple managed to get the iPod Touch, iPhone and Snow Leopard to have Exchange support without any additional software. What did they do? They licensed it from Microsoft. What didn't Apple do? They didn't go telling their customers that Snow Leopard and the iPhone have Exchange support because they hacked their way into Microsoft's framework unknowingly by Microsoft only to have Microsoft find out later and break it for Apple's customers. At that point it would Apple who burned their customers, not Microsoft.
A company has a responsibility to properly license stuff if they want to take care of their customers. If they can't get the license then "F" it, but don't go advertising on your own website that your new product (Pre) has iTunes support when it really doesn't.

slackpacker

Sep 10, 2009, 03:24 PM

Why would they do that? Then they wouldn't be in the tech news cycle every three days.

Notice no one focuses on Palm Pre sales anymore. Rubinstein knows what he's doing.

This is quite negitive actually I would not want to purchase a phone that I could never be sure it could reliably sync. Or one that I would have to upgrade the firmware everytime itunes gets patched.

Not good press....for Palm

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 03:26 PM

You are not even address the issue. Yes you have stated another fact that is true but it is not relevant to my statement of fact.

I stated, "2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products."

When challenged I demonstrated that Apple blocks the Pre from synching with iTunes. That fact proves the truth of my statement.

You then go on to discuss ways AROUND it but that does not negate the previous statement. It's like saying, "My dog can't eat brand X or he'll get diarrhea so I feed him brand Y." Feeding your dog brand Y does not stop it from having diarrhea if it eats brand X. That is a fact. Do you understand?

I have no problem with you saying, "Yeah, but..." as long as you acknowledge what I have said as true. Saying there are ways around the fact does not negate the fact. "My wife was shot but the doctor saved her life." The doctor saving her life does not mean the shooting never happened. Get it?

The only fallacy in your arguments (all of them it seems) is the fact that you want to yell your First Law of Kludge420 that states that if you are forbidden from accomplishing a task one way it cannot be done irregardless of any alternative methods that serve the same purpose.

You can spin it the way you like, but your statement was that "Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products", which implies that if I purchase unprotected (plus) music on itunes, there is absolutely no way for me to utilize it on competitors products. Is this your position? I truly hope not as it will illuminate your inability to uphold logic and reason in your arguments.
Your statement would have been true if you said "Apple blocks the use of their proprietary syncing model on competitors' products".

Using generic, broad terms doesn't make your argument any better, and its quite silly.

Erwin-Br

Sep 10, 2009, 03:29 PM

If you'd replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this news story, the people who are now applauding would be criticizing. :rolleyes:

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 03:30 PM

Because it is completely irrelevant to the information in the rest of the post {So you start off your post with a totally irrelivant belief? How is that helpful?}; who cares if other things can sync or not. The point is that they still have the same set of options{No they don't because one of them is just your belief} in front of them. Either do it through the proper channels or not. I also mentioned that they may not have access {So you don't KNOW, you are guessing?} to the proper channels and thus {drawing a false conclusion based on assumptions} it would lower their options.

Again, the initial statement that it's a guess was just that, because it didn't matter, and thus didn't constitute additional time to research the information. {Then why state it if it's so unimportant?}

Besides, what believe system are you talking about. I gave very specific choices that Palm has in front of them. Some of which are under their control, some aren't. They can develop their own software, license the interface, perfectly mimic the iPod/phone, or give up. No one said that they can't write their own software, no reason they couldn't. The licensing may or may not be a path to explore -- who knows, maybe Apple thinks they smell funny? Mimic the iPod (their current approach); they will need to do it perfectly, otherwise it will be detectable. Or give up.

Which one is a belief? Did I miss an avenue which they could explore?

You believe that you can license the Apple interface and even though you say it's not important to your argument you go on to say that is a valid choice for Palm. So you ARE basing your argument on that supposition.

You state:

"c) License the interface from Apple"

Do you KNOW that or do you believe that? You may be right, you may be wrong, but until you actually research it you don't KNOW it you only BELIEVE it. That is the belief I'm talking about.

These are not personal attacks. I just want people to argue logically. Look at your own arguments first before replying and make sure you are addressing what I said, not your own personal beliefs.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 03:31 PM

If you'd replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this news story, the people who are now applauding would be criticizing. :rolleyes:

Nice generalization, too bad you are incorrect.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 03:32 PM

You can spin it the way you like, but your statement was that "Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products", which implies that if I purchase unprotected

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have clarified my position. You don't seem to want to address the actual meaning but instead want to start your a new argument that is irrelevant.

Notice that no one has actually bothered to answer my questions about the Pre being blocked. This is a classic logical fallacy. Avoid the issue by bringing up a similar but unrelated argument.

Please use logic when you address me. Not emotion.

Unspoken Demise

Sep 10, 2009, 03:33 PM

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have proven you wrong.

Classic.
In case you're wondering, thats called a straw man arguement.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 03:35 PM

"c) License the interface from Apple"

Do you KNOW that or do you believe that? You may be right, you may be wrong, but until you actually research it you don't KNOW it you only BELIEVE it. That is the belief I'm talking about.

How about reading the section that says, that this is out of Palms hands because Apple for one reason or another may not want to License it.

Palm obviously isn't taking that approach, they are just trying to pretend they are Apple and thus get a free ride. It is very possible that Apple just doesn't like them and doesn't want their stuff talking to their IP. Well, it is their IP and they can do with it what they want.

or
The licensing may or may not be a path to explore -- who knows, maybe Apple thinks they smell funny?

Again, not a personal attack, why bother nit picking minor details when the meat is on the table.

madog

Sep 10, 2009, 03:39 PM

If you have a nice movie collection in your house, but you won't let me in to watch them, should I break in and then cry when you throw me back out? Nope. Also I shouldn't go around telling people that I can get them movies from your collection either.

.

But that's the difference between breaking into someones house and breaking the law, versus Palm bypassing "policy" because they don't think it's right/fair and accessing material that you already own. You can't steal what you already own in the sense that all the music in your iTunes library is already your music, your just accessing it with a different device (or playing it on a different media player).

That doesn't make what they are doing a great thing, but also doesn't make it close to your analogy. It might be reversed from the IE/MS monopoly, but I could see it being similar because of how big iTunes is now.

Again, I'm not saying it is the case, or this is the law. All I'm saying is that I think Palm, as well as other devices, should be able to utilize iTunes in some fashion as it is the main app for Macs and many PCs for audio and video.

HLdan

Sep 10, 2009, 03:42 PM

If you'd replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this news story, the people who are now applauding would be criticizing. :rolleyes:

Wrong, this is the one time I would side with Microsoft. As I mentioned earlier about Exchange support in SL and the iPhone, if Apple just hacked it without licensing it from Microsoft I would be counting the days when my Mac got bricked while logged into Exchange. I would be pissed off at Apple, not Microsoft for bricking it.

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 03:44 PM

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 03:45 PM

But that's the difference between breaking into someones house and breaking the law, versus Palm bypassing "policy" because they don't think it's right/fair and accessing material that you already own. You can't steal what you already own in the sense that all the music in your iTunes library is already your music, your just accessing it with a different device (or playing it on a different media player).

Ok, agree, that the analogy isn't perfect; would be better if my movie collection was stored at your house. I couldn't break in to get a movie for a friend.

Again, I'm not saying it is the case, or this is the law. All I'm saying is that I think Palm, as well as other devices, should be able to utilize iTunes in some fashion as it is the main app for Macs and many PCs for audio and video.

Yes, that would be NICE. But there is no real reason why Apple would need that, and many people have pointed out it could hurt them.

My biggest complaint about what Palm is doing is that they are using someone else's license without their consent. That bothers me more then anything else. In this case Apple's VID. I know legally it may not be illegal, but morally it is kinda scummy.

BUT, I also say that if they can make the Pre look exactly like an iPod, more power to them. But it is damn hard to do that. The funny thing is, that they look like one of the old iPods. What would really mess them up is if Apple decided iTunes 10 won't support that iPod at all (including Apple's).

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 03:48 PM

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have clarified my position. You don't seem to want to address the actual meaning but instead want to start your a new argument that is irrelevant.

Notice that no one has actually bothered to answer my questions about the Pre being blocked. This is a classic logical fallacy. Avoid the issue by bringing up a similar but unrelated argument.

Please use logic when you address me. Not emotion.

Emotion? Me? Nah. I've been in academia too long to try to pull that off. My peers would tear me apart if I didn't provide evidence.

But since you don't really know what's going on from a technical standpoint, i'll start with this.

http://nanocr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/palm_pre-usb_info.png

This was the first time around. This is the important part that DVD Jon mentions : However, it’s only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod. The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above). This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.

What did Apple do in return? They did not block the pre as you *want* to believe, Apple simply put in code that verified the device as an iPod made by Apple.

What did Palm then do? They identified themselves as an iPod manufactured by Apple, instead of an iPod manufactured by Palm.

Absorb the above. Apple did not block other devices. Again, Apple does, not, block other devices. Apple is simply verifying their own devices by device type and vendor ID before initiating the syncing process.

We have no data on how they did it this time, but i'd bet it was in the same fashion. In fact i'm pretty sure its by serial number hash or file system checks, point is, Apple doesn't have to specifically block Palm, and they havn't. They have been verifying and connecting their own devices, of which they are fully allowed to do. You can question their motives, but it doesn't change the fact that palm isn't being blocked, but Apple is enhancing their own verification measures and Palm is playing catch up by sitting on the side lines and reverse engineering legitimate devices.

I believe you are ignorant to the true technical facts that are taking place. Again, Apple isn't saying "Block all devices that say palm". They are saying "allow all devices that appropriately authenticate as Apple, after the following verifications". No different than a vehicle that uses transponder based keys (doesn't work with a copy that fits in the ignition but only a key that fits and has the appropriate signal)

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 03:50 PM

I'm failing miserably at conveying my meaning.

How about reading the section that says, that this is out of Palms hands because Apple for one reason or another may not want to License it.

Again that is an OPINION. "It may or may not want to... " but you don't KNOW. Then going on from there you draw conclusions based on that assumption. The very first assumption that Apple would even license their product is used to argue that Palm should.

The point I'm trying to make is you can't state an opinion as fact then build an argument based on it. If you don't see how you based at least part of your argument on that statement when you use it in your conclusion then I am out of my depth and cannot help you understand.

Again, not a personal attack, why bother nit picking minor details when the meat is on the table.

Logic and facts are not a minor detail. Would you say to a police officer, "You arrested 2 guys and you know one is the murderer, why not kill them both, why sweat the details. You know you'll get the killer."

Would you say, "Iraq, Iran. Bomb one, it doesn't matter. 'N' or 'Q' why sweat the details?"

Sorry but I can't allow someone to say truth is a minor detail; the truth is the most important thing behind the logical application of those truths.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 03:51 PM

I stated, "2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products."

But they do not. They don't open up iTunes for that role, but there is nothing stopping you from using any number of other methods that Apple does approve of. You seem to imply that iTunes is the only means to this. That is not true.

When challenged I demonstrated that Apple blocks the Pre from syncing with iTunes. That fact proves the truth of my statement.

Your initial statement made no mention of iTunes. You simply stated that Apple blocks the Pre. In fact Apple has never granted anything to Palm in the first place. Its only "blocked" by the nature that they do not publish the API that you want. You essentially are claiming that iTunes is something that it is not. You cannot block something that is not offered. My camera doesn't sync with iTunes nor does my printer. Of course thats because iTunes was not designed to interact with those devices. Is Apple blocking my camera's ability to sync with iTunes? No. Same with my Printer. Apple does not enable nor publish the software to do that. Could it, perhaps, but Apple has to define iTunes as something. It does. That definition does not include third party devices.

Again, iTunes is not the exclusive gateway to Syncing. In fact it only one way of several. Apple has it's own syncing of its own devices for obvious reasons - it's interaction with iTunes is quite unique. Apple provides a generic sync system to make sure other devices can be covered but so that APple doesn't have to do anything. Sync services offers everything that iTunes Sync could offer besides having an icon (which doesn't relate to anything Palm anyway).

I ask you to properly define what you mean by "block" and not have it include "stuff that Apple doesn't support out of box". That is not blocking. Blocking involves a malicious intent to prevent an action. Apple doesn't open up iTunes. That is their choice. Palm is using backdoor security holes to get access to something that they were never granted. Last time I checked, I can't just barge into the Oval office - that doesn't mean that the White House is blocking me, it just means that they haven't allowed me to be there even though I elected the president.

How is Apple stopping Palm from interacting with the iTunes content that they would be naturally be able to get? My music is not locked into iTunes. You imply that if there is not a a direct A to B path - there is a block. No. There isn't. There just isn't a direct path. For there to be a block, Apple would have to push out an update that says "anything with the word "Palm" in the hardware is 86'ed. That is not happening. OSX still picks up the Pre as a hardware device. That's the only concern Apple needs to have. ITunes interaction is farther down the road.

You then go on to discuss ways AROUND it but that does not negate the previous statement.
You need to read up on what Sync Services is for - Apple built it so that other companies can tie into Apple technologies to save Apple the effort of supporting other systems. It was designed to provide a direct method of syncing that can work with any device maker.

I have no problem with you saying, "Yeah, but..." as long as you acknowledge what I have said as true. Saying there are ways around the fact does not negate the fact. "My wife was shot but the doctor saved her life." The doctor saving her life does not mean the shooting never happened. Get it?

Except thats not what happened. If Apple said "Sure Palm come on in" and changed their minds, you can claim that. But that never happened. Apple never welcomed Palm in. They did the equivalent of dressing up as the president to get into the oval office and later tried to say that they were the president but they were impeached. Your analogy is flawed.

madog

Sep 10, 2009, 03:58 PM

Thats nice, but that is a decision for Apple to make - iTunes is closed source proprietary software that is owned by Apple. If you do not like it, one is free to create or use another device of their choosing. I can tell you though, it isn't going to be an ideal situation.

Linking hardware with software is how the computer industry was founded on - it happens all the time. Heck, even MS does it with the Zune. The popularity of the iPod gets people to seek out iTunes - even on Windows where you actively have to download it. Second, the only reason that iTunes supported other players was from a legitimately licensed (and now obsolete) API that companies licensed from Apple. Nowadays it's all legacy code back from it's origins as SoundJam

That's why I would like Apple to allow it because it's the only ideal solution on a Mac. I'm not saying they must or have to or that I will cease to use their products if they didn't because I like iTunes, I like my iPhone. I just don't see anything wrong with them allowing other devices to utilize iTunes and don't think it would suddenly destroy their market in this regard.

Everyone does it, yes. MS does it with the Zune, but the Zune is just a tiny fraction of the digital player market. I think their developers head's would explode if they tried to make their own software compatible with each other (specifically their DRM nonsense. Plays for sure doesn't play for ****).

I just imagine that because of the size of iTunes, they might have to start playing nicely with others out there.

So... it sounds like you're saying that there should be an anti-dog-eat-dog rule proposed in congress, forbidding "destructive competition" by companies in certain fields... eliminating competition and forcing them to be interoperable and use each other's resources (so that NO company has an advantage no matter how hard they work, or how much they've done for consumers). Or, better... forces the railroad... er, corporation with the most seniority to get all the business in a particular field (as competition hurts consumers).

Seriously. There is NO LOCK-IN. Customers can come and go from iTunes as they please. If there was a better deal, I'd jump ship in a hot second. I like polish though.

~ CB

iTunes can still have the advantage and play nicely with others. I never suggested that they make full interoperability with every device out there.

I like iTunes and how it works for me. I'm just imagining that iTunes could get so big it eliminates competition for digital players on the market because of the role iTunes currently plays. Competition helps customers and I never suggested that either. If iTunes could be used to transfer just music and videos to other devices, it would ultimately only encourage the use of iTunes and essentially the Mac as a whole.

Apple has always been about consolidation and design. All I'm saying is that iTunes should work with other players at a basic level, the same way iPhoto works with digital cameras (though that's not to the same scale as Apple doesn't have their own digital camera line).

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 04:01 PM

Again that is an OPINION. "It may or may not want to... "

Sorry, that's a fact. They either DO want to license their interface, or they DON'T. There is no gray about it. Either they have a licensing program and it is very possible to license it, or they don't. Or do they license it only on even days of months with the letter B in them?

The point I'm trying to make is you can't state an opinion as fact then build an argument based on it. If you don't see how you based at least part of your argument on that statement when you use it in your conclusion then I am out of my depth and cannot help you understand.

/sigh, not everything has to be written out 100% perfectly.

Options
a) You give up
b) You legally license the tech, if it is possible; and if it is not possible you ignore this option because it isn't there.
c) You make your stuff perfect thus completely undetectable -- although very difficult to do, it is not impossible.
d) Write your own software and do whatever you want with the information given to you such as the XML file.
e*) Make Apple open up and give you everything you need to make your stuff work flawlessly with their software, even though it may not be in their best interest (see other arguments why it may not be in their best interest).

* Added later

Logic and facts are not a minor detail. Would you say to a police officer, "You arrested 2 guys and you know one is the murderer, why not kill them both, why sweat the details. You know you'll get the killer."

I think I was walking on the left side of the street on the other side of town when the murders occurred. <- minor detail that doesn't matter.

Sorry but I can't allow someone to say truth is a minor detail; the truth is the most important thing behind the logical application of those truths.

It is when it is almost irrelevant to the rest of the information provided.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 04:02 PM

Using generic, broad terms doesn't make your argument any better, and its quite silly.

Exactly. Just saying the word "blocked" is meaningless without context. Not proving a direct solution to a problem is not a legitmate use of blocked. The fact that my teachers won't tell me the answer to a quiz doesn't mean that I am being blocked from the answers since I could (and very legitimately should get them on my own). Her answer key is only built for grading purposes, not for taking the test.

If I tried to demand an answer key, my prof would laugh at me and tell me that I now have 59 minutes instead of the hour that I was given.

There are right ways to do things and wring ways. Doing things the wrong way and approaching barriers is not a block. If I want to get into my buddies house properly, I use the front door. I don't try to climb a tree to get in thorough the window that he mistankely left open last night. I don't get to break in if he forgot to provide me access.

pdjudd

Sep 10, 2009, 04:08 PM

I just imagine that because of the size of iTunes, they might have to start playing nicely with others out there.

How? Market size does not mean much if it was legitimately obtained. The iPods and iTunes are supremely successful products on their own merits. I remember sycing an iPod on a PC before iTunes existed. The software options stank until iTunes came out, but that didn't stop me from buying the hardware. I even went out of the way to buy a fire-wire card for my PC to get it. I even seem to recall that sales of the iPod exploded after it was made available on the PC.

The only legal problem that Apple could have is if it could be argues that they were using one monopoly to create a unrelated monopoly. That just isn;t happening because the demand for both products are high on their own merits.

Chimpy

Sep 10, 2009, 04:13 PM

It seems so petty of Apple to keep breaking it. Does it make good business sense? I guess so. Does it seem "right"? Not to me...

Mr. Gates

Sep 10, 2009, 04:14 PM

Except for the fact that the tiny amount of media that a Pre user may potentially buy does not outweigh the loss in Apple hardware sales.

thats kinda silly, the pre users have already bought the pre

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 04:25 PM

thats kinda silly, the pre users have already bought the preOnly thing silly is that Palm promised iTunes synching.

creon

Sep 10, 2009, 04:35 PM

Imitation...or stealing is the best compliment.

CylonGlitch

Sep 10, 2009, 04:43 PM

Only thing silly is that Palm promised iTunes synching.

We all know that companies (many) promise things before they know if they can fully deliver the goods. Often this is done to see if there is demand for it and if there is, then produce the product. Seems like Palm is trying this, not wanting to fully fund the effort, but trying to see if it is something that people really want and if they can do it easy enough. At least that is how it appears.

rxse7en

Sep 10, 2009, 04:44 PM

We all know that companies (many) promise things before they know if they can fully deliver the goods. Often this is done to see if there is demand for it and if there is, then produce the product. Seems like Palm is trying this, not wanting to fully fund the effort, but trying to see if it is something that people really want and if they can do it easy enough. At least that is how it appears.
I used to love Palm. I really hope that that is the case and they have a fantastic Palm Desktop/Synch app being readied in the wings.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 04:53 PM

Emotion? Me? Nah. I've been in academia too long to try to pull that off. My peers would tear me apart if I didn't provide evidence.

But since you don't really know what's going on from a technical standpoint, i'll start with this.

http://nanocr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/palm_pre-usb_info.png

This was the first time around. This is the important part that DVD Jon mentions :

What did Apple do in return? They did not block the pre as you *want* to believe, Apple simply put in code that verified the device as an iPod made by Apple.

What did Palm then do? They identified themselves as an iPod manufactured by Apple, instead of an iPod manufactured by Palm.

Absorb the above. Apple did not block other devices. Again, Apple does, not, block other devices. Apple is simply verifying their own devices by device type and vendor ID before initiating the syncing process.

We have no data on how they did it this time, but i'd bet it was in the same fashion. In fact i'm pretty sure its by serial number hash or file system checks, point is, Apple doesn't have to specifically block Palm, and they havn't. They have been verifying and connecting their own devices, of which they are fully allowed to do. You can question their motives, but it doesn't change the fact that palm isn't being blocked, but Apple is enhancing their own verification measures and Palm is playing catch up by sitting on the side lines and reverse engineering legitimate devices.

I believe you are ignorant to the true technical facts that are taking place. Again, Apple isn't saying "Block all devices that say palm". They are saying "allow all devices that appropriately authenticate as Apple, after the following verifications". No different than a vehicle that uses transponder based keys (doesn't work with a copy that fits in the ignition but only a key that fits and has the appropriate signal)

Thank you for the excellent response.

I need clarification.

Are you saying if the Pre didn't lie about who it was it could synch?

I THINK I understand you to say, "Apple only allows Apple products to synch with iTunes."

But it also sounds like you're saying the only problem is the Pre lies about who it is and that violates some internal checksum. From that I infer that if they had not "lied" in their ID's there would be no problem. Is that what you meant to imply?

If not I understand the statements as such:

I said, "The bouncer blocks non-Apple employee's from getting into the bar."
Where you more accurately state, "The bouncer only allows Apple employee's in the door."

or

I said, "Heads I win."
And you said, "Tales you lose."

I see the result as the same. I'm not getting in the door and I lost the coin toss.

As a programmer I see arguing HOW it's done as irrelevant (obviously I'm simplifying parsing an array of ID combinations for simplicity):

if (x != AppleID)
{ return;}
Synch();
return;

Vs.

if (x == AppleID)
{ Synch(); }
return;

What I think you may have been confused about is you might have though I was saying:

if (x == BlockedID)
{ return; }
Synch();

That would make no sense and would be a really silly way to do it so it never occurred to me that anyone would think I meant that. My fault for not being clear enough.

So, are we saying the same thing but just from opposite sides of the door?

Thanks again.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 04:55 PM

Only thing silly is that Palm promised iTunes synching.

Now that's an opinion I agree with...

Bjohnson33

Sep 10, 2009, 05:01 PM

aarond12

Sep 10, 2009, 05:02 PM

It seems so petty of Apple to keep breaking it. Does it make good business sense? I guess so. Does it seem "right"? Not to me...
Why not? Apple put a significant amount of R&D and money into the development of iTunes. Remember that iTunes was designed primarily as a way to seamlessly sync music between your iPod and your Mac. Yes, other devices were supported back in the OS9 days, but the primary motivation for the development of iTunes was the iPod.

BlackBerry has a separate sync client that "connects" to iTunes to allow the synchronization of music to their devices. This "connection" is utilized by a number of programs, such as iVolume and Fetch Art. There is no reason at all that Palm didn't make their own sync client, like BlackBerry. If they did, we all wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Palm tried to take the easy way out and engineer their OS to sync with iTunes rather than creating a separate application to do so. I think that was a short-sighted and poor business choice.

-Aaron-

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 05:05 PM

Thinking about it some more...I think the problem that I'm having with your original statement [aside from blocked/locked :D] Is that your stating that Apple intentionally blocks the user from legally obtained media, when in fact they are just blocking a device that is accessing it inappropriately, no? There lies the difference. It's gotta be upsetting for Pre owners to lose that excellent functionality, but Palm knew what they were doing when they set out on this path.

YES! You are correct. I intentionally said it that way to get the point across but it was very, very poor wording on my part as it was incredibly easy to misconstrue.

Bjohnson33

Sep 10, 2009, 05:08 PM

You see, to prevent Palm from syncing is not the goal. The goal is to disrupt the harmony of Pre owners and spoil the ownership experience. Apple wants Pre owners to regret buying it and regret not going with the iPhone....which just works.

I hadn't thought of that, but it's an interesting point! It would certainly annoy Pre users, perhaps enough to make them regret not going with an iPhone.

Mal

Sep 10, 2009, 05:09 PM

Are you saying if the Pre didn't lie about who it was it could synch?

I THINK I understand you to say, "Apple only allows Apple products to synch with iTunes."

But it also sounds like you're saying the only problem is the Pre lies about who it is and that violates some internal checksum. From that I infer that if they had not "lied" in their ID's there would be no problem. Is that what you meant to imply?

If the Palm Pre didn't lie about it's USB ID it wouldn't be able to sync, because it's not an iPod. iTunes looks for an iPod to connect via USB, and then syncs to it. It doesn't block other devices, it just ignores them (in the same way that iPhoto ignores all non-camera devices, plus cameras that it doesn't recognize as support).

While your argument about the difference between not allowing them in and only allowing in Apple's devices makes sense in some ways, it does make a huge difference when the rule is that you can't block a device by it's USB ID. What you are allowed to do (and have to do in order to design functional software) is look for specific ID's or types of devices (also identified in a similar way) and only recognize those devices (ignoring everything else).

jW

Bjohnson33

Sep 10, 2009, 05:13 PM

I agree - you can say all you want about Apple's designs here, but it's really pathetic that Palm is actually asking people to pay for a product that relies on strictly unofficial compatibility with a rival company's software.
Palm - make your own!

Agreed!

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 05:21 PM

If the Palm Pre didn't lie about it's USB ID it wouldn't be able to sync, because it's not an iPod. iTunes looks for an iPod to connect via USB, and then syncs to it. It doesn't block other devices, it just ignores them (in the same way that iPhoto ignores all non-camera devices, plus cameras that it doesn't recognize as support).

While your argument about the difference between not allowing them in and only allowing in Apple's devices makes sense in some ways, it does make a huge difference when the rule is that you can't block a device by it's USB ID. What you are allowed to do (and have to do in order to design functional software) is look for specific ID's or types of devices (also identified in a similar way) and only recognize those devices (ignoring everything else).

jW

Yes thank you for the more succinct clarification. I thought I said that at the end of my post.

I've changed my "fact" to

2) Apple only allows Apple devices to synch with iTunes which could result in the inability for you to listen to your legally purchased music on a competitor's device without the use of 3rd party software.

But it just doesn't have the same ring...

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 05:30 PM

I said, "The bouncer blocks non-Apple employee's from getting into the bar."
Where you more accurately state, "The bouncer only allows Apple employee's in the door."

or

I said, "Heads I win."
And you said, "Tales you lose."

I see the result as the same. I'm not getting in the door and I lost the coin toss.

As a programmer I see arguing HOW it's done as irrelevant (obviously I'm simplifying parsing an array of ID combinations for simplicity):

if (x != AppleID)
{ return;}
Synch();
return;

Vs.

if (x == AppleID)
{ Synch(); }
return;

What I think you may have been confused about is you might have though I was saying:

if (x == BlockedID)
{ return; }
Synch();

That would make no sense and would be a really silly way to do it so it never occurred to me that anyone would think I meant that. My fault for not being clear enough.

If you are not trying to say that Apple is using this code (simplified version of course):

if (x == BlockedID)
{ return; }
Synch();

Then i'm not really sure what you are trying to say. The fact of the matter is that Apple IS using the first instance you describe :

if (x == AppleID)
{ Synch(); }
return;

Which is why palm is changing their spoof every time a new version comes out. Apple wouldn't be in the wrong for using the above. How the heck else could they distinguish an iPod from a keyboard or a webcam? But now, like I said, Apple is probably just upping the ante on their own verifications, so:
{
if (x == AppleVendorID) && (y == AppleDeviceID) && (NumCheck(z) == "true")
{Synch();}
else
{out.println("Go to hell");}
}

Even if the end result is the same, the fact that Palm keeps changing their metrics to match the above is where the problem lay. Apple can enhance their verification procedures legitimately for a myriad of reasons.

Excuse my weak code example. I havn't programmed a thing in about two years.

archipellago

Sep 10, 2009, 05:32 PM

Sehnsucht

Sep 10, 2009, 05:32 PM

{
if (x == AppleVendorID) && (y == AppleDeviceID) && (NumCheck(z) == "true")
{Synch();}
else
{out.println("Go to hell");}
}

Now that Steve is back, it's probably more like

{
if (x == AppleVendorID) && (y == AppleDeviceID) && (NumCheck(z) == "true")
{Synch();}
else
{out.println("****** off!");}
}

:D

Bjohnson33

Sep 10, 2009, 05:40 PM

Bjohnson33

Sep 10, 2009, 05:41 PM

Eddyisgreat

Sep 10, 2009, 05:42 PM

Now that Steve is back, it's probably more like

:D

Oh yes. I'm VERY excited to see how Jobs will respond now that he is back in the drivers seat. Rubenstein must be pretty angry now that his advisary has the liver of some guy in his twenties(mentioned in the keynote). I wonder how many benjamines he had to drop to skip the queue.

Bjohnson33

Sep 10, 2009, 05:48 PM

dejo

Sep 10, 2009, 05:49 PM

I wonder how many benjamines he had to drop to skip the queue.
None. Unless you think the hospital where he had the transplant is lying.

http://www.methodisthealth.org/methodist/About+Us/Newsroom/News/Steve+Jobs+Receives+Liver+Transplant

KnightWRX

Sep 10, 2009, 05:58 PM

Yes thank you for the more succinct clarification. I thought I said that at the end of my post.

I've changed my "fact" to

2) Apple only allows Apple devices to synch with iTunes which could result in the inability for you to listen to your legally purchased music on a competitor's device without the use of 3rd party software.

But it just doesn't have the same ring...

It doesn't have the same ring because it doesn't sound like Apple's the bad guy anymore. It sounds like the competitor is being lazy. And that is precisely what Palm are and why people found your initial statement to be erroneous.

Apple didn't pour 9 years of manpower into iTunes to have Palm just piggy back onto it for free and then cause them headaches for it. If Apple lets the Palm Pre sync with iTunes, Palm Pre users will call Apple about syncing problems. This will result in more manpower being used to answer said calls and questions, even with only "we never intended for that to work, call Palm".

In the end, the facts are pretty simple : Palm has been using hack after hack in order to get a free ride in iTunes.

Oh yes. I'm VERY excited to see how Jobs will respond now that he is back in the drivers seat. Rubenstein must be pretty angry now that his advisary has the liver of some guy in his twenties(mentioned in the keynote). I wonder how many benjamines he had to drop to skip the queue.

The price of a private jet + the fuel to put in it. It's pretty easy to get any organ transplant in a short delay if you can travel anywhere in the county in under a few hours.

The problem most people face with waiting lists is that they can only be one, because once your turn comes up, you only have a few hours to get to the hospital and get your transplant before the organ is wasted.

Steve, with his vast ressources, can just fly anywhere in the country to get his transplant, so he can put himself on any number of waiting lists.

KnightWRX

Sep 10, 2009, 06:01 PM

double.

Kludge420

Sep 10, 2009, 06:05 PM

If you are not trying to say that Apple is using this code (simplified version of course):

if (x == BlockedID)
{ return; }
Synch();

Nope, not saying that. I though you might be thinking that's what I meant but it's not.

Then i'm not really sure what you are trying to say. The fact of the matter is that Apple IS using the first instance you describe :

if (x == AppleID)
{ Synch(); }
return;

Yep that's what I was saying they use. They use an allow list, not a block list, so I can see how the use of the word "block" was a terrible choice in my statement. I would never use a block list for an unknown set. Especially when I already have an all inclusive allow list. It just never occurred to me that someone would think I meant that so I failed to clarify where it was needed.

Which is why palm is changing their spoof every time a new version comes out. Apple wouldn't be in the wrong for using the above. How the heck else could they distinguish an iPod from a keyboard or a webcam? But now, like I said, Apple is probably just upping the ante on their own verifications, so:
{
if (x == AppleVendorID) && (y == AppleDeviceID) && (NumCheck(z) == "true")
{Synch();}
else
{out.println("Go to hell");}
}

Yes, I would agree that this example would be a more accurate representation of what was going on as we know it's not a single ID number. I was just simplifying my example to make sure I was focusing on the idea of a block list verses an allow list.

What's going to suck is if Pre starts using legitimate, but stolen, serial numbers in an attempt to get back in and that causes legitimate devices to break. Though that would be legally brilliant of Apple to force Palm to make such a stupid move because then Apple would have a clear argument for the Pre's synching hurting Apple's business.

Even if the end result is the same, the fact that Palm keeps changing their metrics to match the above is where the problem lay. Apple can enhance their verification procedures legitimately for a myriad of reasons.

I completely agree. Apple has the right to do whatever they want with their software as long as it does not break any laws or contracts.