USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/22/usb-compliance-organization-sides-with-apple-in-palm-pre-syncing-dispute/)

Digital Daily reports (http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090922/usb-if-slaps-palm/) that the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) has responded to Apple and Palm regarding the two companies' ongoing spat over Palm's attempts to allow its Pre smartphone to sync media directly via iTunes. Despite Palm's apparent misuse of Apple USB Vendor ID codes, Palm reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/24/palm-reports-apple-to-usb-compliance-organization-over-itunes-syncing-issues/) Apple to the USB-IF for improper use of its own Vendor ID to shut out the Pre.Palm had argued that Apple, by issuing an update to iTunes that used the USB Vendor ID number to prevent the software from automatically transferring content to any non-Apple USB device, had violated "the letter and spirit of the USB-IF Membership Agreement" which is "intended to facilitate interoperability between USB devices, not to regulate the content that flows between them."
Today's response from the USB-IF not only dismissed Palm's complaint against Apple, but also turned the tables on Palm by requesting an explanation of the company's apparent violation of USB policies in using Apple's USB Vendor ID. From the USB-IF's letter:I attach for your information the USB-IF's adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm's usage. Usage of any other company's Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm's expressed intent to use Apple's VID appears to violate the attached policy.

Please clarify Palm's intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.With several moves having been made by each side in the cat-and-mouse game over Palm Pre media syncing with iTunes, Apple currently holds the upper hand, having disabled Pre syncing (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/10/itunes-9-breaks-palm-pre-syncing-once-again/) yet again with the release of iTunes 9 earlier this month.

Article Link: USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/22/usb-compliance-organization-sides-with-apple-in-palm-pre-syncing-dispute/)

[noodle654]

Elvis has left the building!

[shneady]

Looks like Palm has their foot stuck in their mouth :apple:

[jaw04005]

This report is kind of funny considering the compliance organization told Engadget they wouldn’t comment publicly. It looks like someone leaked the letter to D!.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/apple-palm-hear-privately-from-usb-if-on-itunes-spat-involveme/

[machomer]

Everyone saw this one coming. Palm the next MSFT? Create your own stuff.

[machomer]

Today, Our strategy backfired when USB Compliance Organization ruled against us. FML

[mrkgoo]

Bummer sucks to be palm. I think they had the right idea, but they pushed it in the wrong way.

[Peace]

Looks like Palm has their foot stuck in their mouth :apple:


Or both feet..

And one ex-Apple employee's head in a different location.

[theb3freak]

Someone at Palm listened to the string of logic they wanted to hear. Namely, a minute violation in the letter of the USB standard would allow them to piggybank off of Apple's ecosystem, even if it meant they could in the process violate DRM agreements. It would have been a huge can of worms had the opinion/ruling gone the other way. Palm's argument defies common sense, but because the listened to what they wanted to hear, i.e. there is a loophole that entitles Palm to a shortcut, Palm instead ended up getting spanked.

[*LTD*]

Really now, was there ever any doubt?

[Ace134blue]

Good, they can burn to the ground for all i care. Make your on software Palm :mad:

[xIGmanIx]

page 2, who cares? i am sure "atta go apples" will drop from the sky and some how safari will be snappier

[designgeek]

Ha HA! Take that Palm... What were they thinking?

[ortuno2k]

Good the cards got turned.
Stop leeching off Apple.
You too, M$

[shawnce]

Really now, was there ever any doubt?

Seriously... I was surprise that Palm even tried to push this pathway given they clearly violated an explicit aspect of the agreement for VIDs while attempting to argue something not really addressed by the agreement.

[nwcs]

That's the right decision in this situation. Palm shouldn't use this means to achieve their end. If they are truly acting in the public's best interest they should file a suit against Apple. I suspect, though, that this will be quietly settled in the background.

[JoeG4]

ZOMG HOW DARE YOU .. YOU EVIL PALM COMPANY! HOW DARE YOU! EVERYONE NEEDS TO.. not compete with the iphone!

[tofagerl]

To be fair, it's not about the contracts and the letter of the law, it's about what's right in the eye of the consumer.

Still, I side with Apple. Their software, they decide.

[Peace]

To be fair, it's not about the contracts and the letter of the law, it's about what's right in the eye of the consumer.

Still, I side with Apple. Their software, they decide.


You do realize if there weren't a compliance standard the whole USB standard would be royally screwed up don't you?

[KnightWRX]

That's the right decision in this situation. Palm shouldn't use this means to achieve their end. If they are truly acting in the public's best interest they should file a suit against Apple. I suspect, though, that this will be quietly settled in the background.

File a suit against Apple for what exactly ?

If Palm is truly acting in their user's best interest, they should just write some syncing software already.

[haunebu]

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

[KnightWRX]

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

Yeah, screw that, iTunes should be apple to sync with my printer! After all, it's a USB device. And what about the USB humping dog :

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/action/large/212a1a8.jpg

iTunes should sync with that also, it's USB too!

Face it. USB interoperability doesn't say anything about particular software interfacing with particular hardware. It just says how a device should present itself to software so that the programmer can decide if it's something that's supported or not. I don't see why Apple would have to invest years into iTunes and then just let some other company profit from it.

Palm is free to write their own.

[*LTD*]

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

What did you expect, that the USB-IF was going to force open Apple's own software?? :confused:

[fleshman03]

I wonder how much Apple paid the USF-IF.....

[nagromme]

RIM has long had Blackberries syncing with iTunes via Apple's more official method (the XML database) for supporting 3rd-party access to your music library.

Palm can do the same. Instead they cut corners and made their customers be the guinea pigs in a (technologically clever) experiment they knew from the start was likely to fail.

All of which is fairly harmless in the end especially if you're not a Palm user. But it's a very weird choice for them to have made.

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

Then just ask Palm to do what RIM did, and enjoy syncing your iTunes library to your Palm hardware :) The method Palm used (pretending to be an Apple device) is simply the wrong method. A clever concept, but not smart.

It avoided Palm having to write any companion software of their own, but that's what they need to do. Then that software CAN talk to your iTunes library (see also Blackberry) and you can enjoy both iTunes and your Palm Pre together.

I'm sure Palm will do that, but it's weird that they've spent so long and so much effort/money to avoid it.

[RazHyena]

Apple doesn't play well with others. :cool:

Oh well.

[kirky29]

This is great! Apple should be allowed to play 'God' over there own software.

[*LTD*]

RIM has long had Blackberries syncing with iTunes via Apple's more official method (the XML database) for supporting 3rd-party access to your music library.

Palm can do the same. Instead they cut corners and made their customers be the guinea pigs in a (technologically clever) experiment they knew from the start was likely to fail.

All of which is fairly harmless in the end especially if you're not a Palm user. But it's a very weird choice for them to have made.

Testing the waters against Apple has become a popular pastime among technnological underachievers. If you can't beat 'em, mess with their IP.

[MalibuMatt98]

I side with Apple, doesn't anyone respect proprietary software anymore. They spent the money to acquire iTunes, develop it, and deal with the record companies to get the music.

[jav6454]

Doesn't surprise me.

[nagromme]

Apple doesn't play well with others. :cool:

Oh well.

Actually the decision went they OTHER way: Palm is the one who didn't play by the USB standards.

Palm can access iTunes, just as RIM does. Palm went about the wrong way, when a RIGHT way always existed (known as "iTunes Music Library.xml").

[supremedesigner]

Until DVD JON get hired working at Palm. ;)

[bytethese]

Actually the decision went they OTHER way: Palm is the one who didn't play by the USB standards.

Palm can access iTunes, just as RIM does. Palm went about the wrong way, when a RIGHT way always existed (known as "iTunes Music Library.xml").

This.

WTG USB-IF, smack Palm like a bad kid. :)

[atris]

Falcon punch!

[xIGmanIx]

Testing the waters against Apple has become a popular pastime among technnological underachievers. If you can't beat 'em, mess with their IP.

or in most cases, just buy out the IP, and yes apple is just as guilty read:ipod

[i.mac]

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

no no no... les interoperability for palm users because they bought a device that yada yada yada... and palm yada yada... got it?

since you want to sync with iTunes with any device, hack away... your devices, your computers, your time, your money, your freedom to do so.

[i.mac]

Apple doesn't play well with others. :cool:

Oh well.

funny, I was thinking that others do not play well with Apple.

I am glad that Apple won this round.

[NT1440]

why didn't they just use isync like everyone else? Thats what its there for!

[pmjoe]

While "legally" technically correct, it's disappointing that the USB-IF didn't take this opportunity to scold Apple for not behaving in the spirit of why the USB spec was created in the first place.

This may just be the first round where USB device makers lock out their devices to $$$$ from the highest bidder. Big hint to Microsoft, if they ever want to knock Apple out of the computer industry.

[HLdan]

Can't believe Palm had the audacity to complain about Apple when they were hacking Apple's stuff. FAIL. It's obvious not many people want or care about Pre which is why Palm is so insecure about making their own software. :rolleyes: They need a brand name with proven technology to ponder off that crap of a phone.

[NT1440]

While "legally" technically correct, it's disappointing that the USB-IF didn't take this opportunity to scold Apple for not behaving in the spirit of why the USB spec was created in the first place.

This may just be the first round where USB device makers lock out their devices to $$$$ from the highest bidder. Big hint to Microsoft, if they ever want to knock Apple out of the computer industry.

Uh, they do let anyone they want have access the itunes , via isync. Theres no reason they have to allow direct access to itunes.

[karlfranz]

Folks, this is yet another feeble attempt by Palm to keep the Pre from fading into obscurity by keeping the buzz about their product alive in the tech blog world.

Palm has probably had their own sync client in the lab the whole time. But of course if they release it, it would take about a week for the world to forget that the Pre exists. Creating controversy keeps people talking about them and the Pre.

Remember:

Good News => Good News
Bad news => Good News
No News => Bad News

I think Palm has met its goal once again.

[nickXedge]

page 2, who cares? i am sure "atta go apples" will drop from the sky and some how safari will be snappier

I don't quite know how to say this... I think I love you.

[drtimhill]

I'm sympathetic to Apple to keep iTunes closed, but blocking someone from emulating vendor IDs really sets a dangerous precedent.

PCI devices also use Vendor IDs (in fact this is where they started). Applications like VMware and Parallels *have* to emulate Vendor IDs for PCI devices they emulate (like north/south bridges). Many other applications and devices work by emulating existing devices for backward compatibility.

Blocking this kind of emulation seems to me a very dubious action. Good for Apple perhaps but very bad for users.

[Thex1138]

Ain't got no green card Palm, sawry.

[xIGmanIx]

I don't quite know how to say this... I think I love you.

ha! thanks, but my wife got dibs :D

[NT1440]

I'm sympathetic to Apple to keep iTunes closed, but blocking someone from emulating vendor IDs really sets a dangerous precedent.

PCI devices also use Vendor IDs (in fact this is where they started). Applications like VMware and Parallels *have* to emulate Vendor IDs for PCI devices they emulate (like north/south bridges). Many other applications and devices work by emulating existing devices for backward compatibility.

Blocking this kind of emulation seems to me a very dubious action. Good for Apple perhaps but very bad for users.

Do they do it with permission.....

[LAS.mac]

I'm really sad about this. I've been a loyal Palm user since 2001 to 2008, when I gave up when I clearly saw that their amazing OS and PDA line were dying in agony. I could not stand that. Maybe someone remember the Foleo announcement, in the summer 2007. That was, according to Palm, the next step of portability, the Treo companion, etc. About a month later, right before the supposed launch, the project was canceled. That was the last nail in the coffin. Actually, it wasn't: I think the Palm Pre, and the incapacity to create a software to sync with, is definitively the last nail.
Palm is now a sort of zombie, trying to steal the last breath of oxygen from itunes.

[.Andy]

Maybe someone remember the Foleo announcement, in the summer 2007. That was, according to Palm, the next step of portability, the Treo companion, etc. About a month later, right before the supposed launch, the project was canceled.
To be fair they weren't actually too far off with the Foleo. Although it was critically slapped down it wasn't long after that netbooks took off. There certainly was a market there that many (including palm in the end) didn't appreciate.

[a.gomez]

oh well, my girl got a Pre... so parked at 8.2 anyway :D

[pmjoe]

Uh, they do let anyone they want have access the itunes , via isync. Theres no reason they have to allow direct access to itunes.
What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

In any case, before you write it a third time, iSync is calendar/address/to-do sync, not music.

[NT1440]

What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

In any case, before you write it a third time, iSync is calendar/address/to-do sync, not music.

I've been lied to by MR members!:(

Anyway, yes there is something that apple lets developers use (not itunes), as many others have

[tbobmccoy]

I wonder how much Apple paid the USF-IF.....

Probably nothing? This was a no-brainer decision. Palm already violated their terms of being in the USF-IF with spoofing a VID, and software doesn't necessarily have to offer interoperability to all hardware; USB is about the other way around. Man...

[dguisinger]

I'm sympathetic to Apple to keep iTunes closed, but blocking someone from emulating vendor IDs really sets a dangerous precedent.

PCI devices also use Vendor IDs (in fact this is where they started). Applications like VMware and Parallels *have* to emulate Vendor IDs for PCI devices they emulate (like north/south bridges). Many other applications and devices work by emulating existing devices for backward compatibility.

Blocking this kind of emulation seems to me a very dubious action. Good for Apple perhaps but very bad for users.

I'm sorry, you speak of which you do not know.
Yes, VMWare and Parallels present the OS with a virtual machine with common hardware vendor IDs and device IDs. They don't need licenses for this, because:
1) They aren't selling hardware, which is where the IDs normally reside
2) Because they aren't building hardware, there isn't actually a USB or PCI bus, its all virtual, there is no license to sign, which means they don't have to be compliant with anything.

On the other hand, Palm signed a license to obtain their own ID. The whole reason for the IDs is that a device can be properly identified. Maybe you grew up using computers post-2000, but it use to be a royal pain in the ass when there was no official way to identify devices. Vendor and Device IDs came about with the movement to make plug-n-play in the early 90s.

If we let anyone walk over each others device and vendor IDs, that would be the dangerous precedent. You would no longer have the guarantee that a device is what it says it is, that drivers would work with hardware, and we would once again have Plug-and-Pray

[gmeddles]

With Apple's dominant position in iPods (approaching genericized trademark territory) and music sales, Palm would be better served by pursuing anti-competitive interdictions with the EU primarily and DOJ secondarily than by bothering with an industry-funded standards consortium. There is nothing novel or interesting about iTunes as software, except that it is the front end to the most popular extant music distribution system for the most popular devices.

While Apple and Palm are trying to protect each's interests, open standards and interoperability are always better for the consumer than vendor lock-in. In the long run, the consumer ultimately is the loser in this feud. Between the entertainment cartels, the hardware/software vendors and their lobbies, its amazing that file conversion and transfer between a single person's devices isn't a capital offense.

[polaris20]

RIM has long had Blackberries syncing with iTunes via Apple's more official method (the XML database) for supporting 3rd-party access to your music library.

Palm can do the same. Instead they cut corners and made their customers be the guinea pigs in a (technologically clever) experiment they knew from the start was likely to fail.

All of which is fairly harmless in the end especially if you're not a Palm user. But it's a very weird choice for them to have made.



Then just ask Palm to do what RIM did, and enjoy syncing your iTunes library to your Palm hardware :) The method Palm used (pretending to be an Apple device) is simply the wrong method. A clever concept, but not smart.

It avoided Palm having to write any companion software of their own, but that's what they need to do. Then that software CAN talk to your iTunes library (see also Blackberry) and you can enjoy both iTunes and your Palm Pre together.

I'm sure Palm will do that, but it's weird that they've spent so long and so much effort/money to avoid it.

Exactly. BB's can sync with iTunes. The Missing Sync does this as well, and with many devices (and it works, I've set it up for a few people).

Palm needs to stop using their customers in their experiments.

[Rot'nApple]

PREcisely why one should go with the iPhone! :D

[Porco]

Universal Truths of Computing #48764658, (subsection b):
Whenever a 'Compliance Organization' sides with Apple, you know the other party has had an Epic FAIL with a side helping of LOL.

[KnightWRX]

While Apple and Palm are trying to protect each's interests, open standards and interoperability are always better for the consumer than vendor lock-in. In the long run, the consumer ultimately is the loser in this feud. Between the entertainment cartels, the hardware/software vendors and their lobbies, its amazing that file conversion and transfer between a single person's devices isn't a capital offense.

What a load of nonsense. Interoperability has never been about piggy backing on someone else's effort. It's about documentation being available in order for you to make a compatible device. In this case, Apple offers a framework for people that want to Sync the contents of the iTunes library to other vendors for their devices. This is all documented.

What Palm did here was abuse Apple's efforts on iTunes so they wouldn't have to spend time implementing their own solution.

There is no anti-competitive measures. There is no abuse of inexisting monopoly positions.

Palm supporters sure have an entitlement complex.

[polaris20]

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

Have at it.

http://www.markspace.com/

[DUSTmurph]

I had no idea that the USB-IF even existed until this battle started.

I just read up about USB-IF on wikipedia:

"It was formed in 1995 by the group of companies that developed USB. Notable members include Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, NEC, Microsoft, Intel, and Agere Systems."

Maybe that has something to do with why Apple won. Just a thought, I could be wrong.

[haunebu]

since you want to sync with iTunes with any device, hack away... your devices, your computers, your time, your money, your freedom to do so.

Palm did that, remember? The initial release of the Pre identified itself as such, and THEN Apple explicitly blocked the device from syncing. THEN Palm introduced the USB spoof.

Palm played by the rules, and Apple abused their position by locking out their device. Then Palm used a questionable workaround by identifying itself as an Apple device - but Apple forced that by otherwise locking them out.

People have such short memories.

[mccoma]

Palm was wrong from the start. Messing with the contract signed with a standards group is eight ways of stupid. The sad part is that I think they did it just to buy themselves time to create their own syncing solution (like RIM or Missing Sync) and to generate some buzz.

They don't really have the resources to do everything they want to do at once, and they have a lot of Apple engineers who are know how the iPods syncing works. With their Web OS / Palm pre launch schedule, they probably didn't have the time to write their own sync much less their own media software. So, why not add iTunes syncing and generate some noise.

They know Apple will respond and they probably have quit a few former Apple engineers that are not happy that the iPhone is based off OS X instead of something new, so why not poke Apple. All this makes them look like the plunky rebel, while they can get the product out and then devote resources to a proper sync. Then they can announce evil Apple made them write a separate program.

It is a cynical take, but I am starting to think it is not far from the truth.

[haunebu]

PREcisely why one should go with the iPhone! :D

*facepalm*

[charlituna]

Someone at Palm listened to the string of logic they wanted to hear. Namely, a minute violation in the letter of the USB standard would allow them to piggybank off of Apple's ecosystem



or not. the standard is about hardware recognition. the Palm still shows up as an attached device. and you can still drag files on and off it and so on.

what Palm should have done was question the standard and whether recognization by applications and not just the OS is required. and they should have done it BEFORE totally violating a rule themselves.

[Stratus Fear]

*facepalm*

Facepalm? :D You walked into that one.



Anyway, I can't figure out why people think they and Palm are entitled to use iTunes as they like with an unsupported device, or why Apple is obligated to support it.

I want to use Logitech's SetPoint software with my Microsoft mouse and they should have to support it. Clearly. Or, Logitech should have to support other remotes with their Harmony remote software. Do people get how freakin' stupid that is?

Maybe Microsoft should be required to let it all its Zune software work with the iPod. Yeah, that's right. That makes a lot of sense.

[nagromme]

Palm did that, remember? The initial release of the Pre identified itself as such, and THEN Apple explicitly blocked the device from syncing. THEN Palm introduced the USB spoof.

Palm played by the rules, and Apple abused their position by locking out their device. Then Palm used a questionable workaround by identifying itself as an Apple device - but Apple forced that by otherwise locking them out.

People have such short memories.

You're right, in the sense that they initially pretended the Pre was an "iPod made by Palm," rather than an "iPod made by Apple." But Palm ALWAYS made the Pre pretend to be an iPod, and it was never accurate to spoof another brand's hardware. That was just a clever short-term hack, and one that they KNEW would almost certainly fail, and yet they subjected their users to it anyway. Apple then plugged a hole (not closed a feature) in their iPod-checking (checking the USB info more thoroughly than before) which surprised nobody.

What Palm SHOULD have done, from the start, is what RIM does with Blackberries: access the iTunes XML database.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/media/mediasync.jsp

RIM has been advertising and offering iTunes MediaSync for ages, and you haven't seen Apple try to stop them. (And they're arguably a lot more of a real iPhone competitor than Palm.)

People have such short memories :)

[charlituna]

Palm did that, remember? The initial release of the Pre identified itself as such, and THEN Apple explicitly blocked the device from syncing.

No Apple didn't.

They have 9 versions of the classic, 3 shuffles, 5 nanos etc to ensure support. if someone forgets to put a device ID on the list, that ipod won't sync right. easy way around that. if it is a USB storage device with an Apple Vendor ID, recognize it.

thus they did it to ensure their software recognizes their hardware.

that is the story they would tell and you can't prove otherwise

and regardless, the standard was not and has never been about ensuring that the competitions hardware syncs with your software when you don't want it to. so Apple didn't do anything wrong.

HOWEVER, Palm sure did. And they got slapped over it. And if they aren't careful, their "and we will do it again" comments will get them denied further IDs which could cripple them.

Also to everyone saying "and music sales", drop that. with the lack of DRM there's nothing to stop you from putting itunes store tracks on any music player you want. making it a nonissue

[gmeddles]

What a load of nonsense. Interoperability has never been about piggy backing on someone else's effort. It's about documentation being available in order for you to make a compatible device. In this case, Apple offers a framework for people that want to Sync the contents of the iTunes library to other vendors for their devices. This is all documented.

What Palm did here was abuse Apple's efforts on iTunes so they wouldn't have to spend time implementing their own solution.

There is no anti-competitive measures. There is no abuse of inexisting monopoly positions.

Palm supporters sure have an entitlement complex.

I said nothing about the specifics of Palm's approach, just about their lack of strategy after the fact. Their sin may have been not following the Apple sanctioned approach, but they did no harm to Apple and likely violated no Apple IP in the process.

At the same time, the pettiness that Apple has repeatedly shown with the iPhone jailbreaking community, many of the App store rejections (from Netshare through Google Voice), and now the Pre just show that they rightly hold their shareholders interest above that of the consumer.

In the end, I have an almost exclusively Apple collection of gadgets because they do play nicely together (no Pre here). That said, I am not blind to the way that they stick it to their customers and mess with the competition. If you're a shareholder, it's great. If you're a customer, it's a mixed bag. Think about it critically, and stop drinking the Apple cool-aid.

[SFStateStudent]

I guess "syncing with iTunes" can be taken off your checklist if you own a Palm Pre....:p

[NT1440]

Think about it critically, and stop drinking the Apple cool-aid.

After all that drivel, this part made me laugh. I take it you support shady business practices? :rolleyes:

[Jelite]

LEAVE APPLE ALONE!!

http://promipranger.joinr.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/crocker1-1222102137.jpg

[Chimpy]

LOL...there's a "DOH" moment :).

[kdarling]

You do realize if there weren't a compliance standard the whole USB standard would be royally screwed up don't you?

Note that the USB-IF is a voluntary group. It has no power over USB manufacturers.

[gmeddles]

After all that drivel, this part made me laugh. I take it you support shady business practices? :rolleyes:

LOL. It's a cash rich company because it usually protects shareholders' best interests by usually giving the customer what (s)he wants. Nothing shady there, but nothing saintly either. Sticking it to Palm in this case is arguably closer to shady than saintly.

[haunebu]

Facepalm? Anyway, I can't figure out why people think they and Palm are entitled to use iTunes as they like with an unsupported device, or why Apple is obligated to support it.

Apple was never obligated to support it, nor did Palm ask them to. However, Apple didn't have to go out of their way to block it, either.

Palm (and everyone else) would have been just fine with Apple ignoring it.

[*LTD*]

LOL. It's a cash rich company because it usually protects shareholders' best interests by usually giving the customer what (s)he wants. Nothing shady there, but nothing saintly either. Sticking it to Palm in this case is arguably closer to shady than saintly.

Palm has nothing to do with Apple or iTunes. iTunes isn't their software, and they have as much right to it as I have to your car. It's pretty simple.

Why did Apple go out of their way to block it? I don't know. Who cares? It's a moot point since it's completely up to them. Besides, anyone who sneakily attempts to circumvent Apple like that should be blocked anyway.

RIM found an equitable solution, for example, available to Palm as well. But Palm wanted to provide the full iTunes experience to users in order to somehow stimulate lousy sales. Palm got a bit too greedy for its own good and paid for it.

Open and shut case. It couldn't be simpler.

[Eddyisgreat]

There is nothing novel or interesting about iTunes as software, except that it is the front end to the most popular extant music distribution system for the most popular devices.

Then why is Palm fighting tooth and nail and even crying to mommy (USB compliance) that Apple isn't sharing its self earned cookies. Besides, you leave out the fact that iTunes stores its files in plain folders and not a proprietary database, ergo the syncing function is reserved for those popular Apple branded devices you mention.


While Apple and Palm are trying to protect each's interests, open standards and interoperability are always better for the consumer than vendor lock-in. In the long run, the consumer ultimately is the loser in this feud. Between the entertainment cartels, the hardware/software vendors and their lobbies, its amazing that file conversion and transfer between a single person's devices isn't a capital offense.

I just plugged in my iPhone and it seems that from the time the Pre has been introduced, I havn't been hit in the fray (maybe time wasted due to reading about this stuff). Perhaps i'm in the minority but I usually don't expect to see products from competing vendors work well with each other, and i'm strangely ok with my PS3 controller not working on my xbox.

[creon]

I was waiting for this...and agree 100% with the decision. Apple has every right to not allow Palm to use iTunes. If Palm has asked for legal rights then this could of turned out in an entirely different end.

[twoodcc]

sorry palm, but i don't think you're going to win this one

[Eddyisgreat]

Apple was never obligated to support it, nor did Palm ask them to. However, Apple didn't have to go out of their way to block it, either.

Palm (and everyone else) would have been just fine with Apple ignoring it.

You may want to read up on exactly what happened.

Apple didn't explicitly block anyone, they merely strengthened the authentication methods to detect their own devices. If palm can't get in coughreverseengineercough the new detection used then that's their issue.

[entropys]

Apple was never obligated to support it, nor did Palm ask them to. However, Apple didn't have to go out of their way to block it, either.

Palm (and everyone else) would have been just fine with Apple ignoring it.

Of course they would. And then zunes would start pretending to be apple products. Which is probably what would have happened.
This was all about palm buying time until they wrote their own sync to iTunes software(just like RIM's). They obviously didn't have resources prior to pre launch day.

It also raised their media profile.

[SteveG4Cube]

Folks, this is yet another feeble attempt by Palm to keep the Pre from fading into obscurity by keeping the buzz about their product alive in the tech blog world.

Palm has probably had their own sync client in the lab the whole time. But of course if they release it, it would take about a week for the world to forget that the Pre exists. Creating controversy keeps people talking about them and the Pre.

Remember:

Good News => Good News
Bad news => Good News
No News => Bad News

I think Palm has met its goal once again.

This sums it up. Without this controversy, the Pre would already have been forgotten.

[*LTD*]

And then zunes would start pretending to be apple products.

They already are.

Baziiiiiinnnng!!!!!!

[Goona]

Where all those ardent defenders of Palm from before, someone just got smacked.

[*LTD*]

Where all those ardent defenders of Palm from before, someone just got smacked.

I think they kinda knew all along, but were just having a little fun arguing it.

[kevinklinkmulle]

maby they should negotiate with apple and not just steal what belongs to apple

[sishaw]

ZOMG HOW DARE YOU .. YOU EVIL PALM COMPANY! HOW DARE YOU! EVERYONE NEEDS TO.. not compete with the iphone!

The way to compete is to compete, not steal. Palm can build its own store.

[bcb23]

I think it would be great to have more devices work with iTunes. This is really more sad since the decision (which I imagine isn't binding in any way) says Apple can just make iTunes work exclusively with Apple products. I have stopped buying and using iTunes for that reason.

[Goona]

I think it would be great to have more devices work with iTunes. This is really more sad since the decision (which I imagine isn't binding in any way) says Apple can just make iTunes work exclusively with Apple products. I have stopped buying and using iTunes for that reason.

Oh what irony, a company developing software to work with their own hardware.

[Guzzie]

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases, and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition. Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices, and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes. There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this. Palm made it work, and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts. Totally unacceptable.

[nkawtg72]

I think it would be great to have more devices work with iTunes. This is really more sad since the decision (which I imagine isn't binding in any way) says Apple can just make iTunes work exclusively with Apple products. I have stopped buying and using iTunes for that reason.

maybe its Palm you should stop buying (if you have), since they're the ones who are choosing to not support the products they are unloading on customers. instead they think it's apple's job to invest $$ in software, provide it free of charge, and sit back and let Palm reap all the benefits.

this would all go away if Palm would just support their own freakin' products and write their own software. OR, use the XML that apple does provide to gain access to the itunes library like ALL the other vendors out there not in a position, like Palm apparently, to write their own software.

[nkawtg72]

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases, and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition. Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices, and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes. There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this. Palm made it work, and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts. Totally unacceptable.

i'm not even going to try and pick this apart, other than to say you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

edit:
okay, the pressure is getting to me. i can't let this slide.
apple DOES allow third party access to itunes through XML. educate yourself about it, then come back here and provide a response to the rest of us.

secondly, when did Palm, or anyone else for that matter, fork over one cent to Apple to help pay for continued development of itunes. it's hands down Apple's software, and they can write it to support whatever devices they want. period, end of story. there is no argument on the planet that can upstage that one simple fact.

thirdly, just because apple has been successful means that they should encourage competition?!?!?! what?!?!?!?! do explain where you see this done in ANY industry on the planet.

lastly, i'm glad you came by today. had you not been here none of us wouldve ever noticed that apple is "completely guilty of anti-competitive practices...." i highly encourage you to report this to the authorities, i'm sure theyll love to hear all the juicy evidence you'll be able to supply them, that i'm sure they've NEVER tried to find, since as all of us know Apple has never been looked at with a fine toothed comb before.

[Eddyisgreat]

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases, and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition. Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices, and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes. There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this. Palm made it work, and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts. Totally unacceptable.

OBJECTION! Sorry I had to do it.

Anyway, see the relevance:

Mac OS X
/Users/username/Music/iTunes/
/Users/username/Music/iTunes/iTunes Library
/Users/username/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music Library.xml

Microsoft Windows
\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes\
\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Library.itl
\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Music Library.xml

All in plain sight just waiting to be touched.

[MattInOz]

I think it would be great to have more devices work with iTunes. This is really more sad since the decision (which I imagine isn't binding in any way) says Apple can just make iTunes work exclusively with Apple products. I have stopped buying and using iTunes for that reason.

But they can,...
Some choose to other don't.

Apple doesn't even charge a fee*, all the documentation is right there for your use. Just sign up for a Developer Account. They want you to do it that way not to protect themselves but to protect the user from things breaking.

You do it the right way, they promise not to break stuff. Well not deliberately or without telling the public/mailing list.

Maybe had to switch on vendor code checking to avoid confusion between devices that worked the right way. We don't really know.

So many people just want to do it the easy way instead of the right way.

*Depending what your doing you may need xCode which requires you to buy a Mac. New or Second hand is fine.

[Stratus Fear]

Apple was never obligated to support it, nor did Palm ask them to. However, Apple didn't have to go out of their way to block it, either.

Palm (and everyone else) would have been just fine with Apple ignoring it.

Try telling that to Apple when the first few Pre users who have trouble with Palm-iTunes syncing go to them for support.

[Stratus Fear]

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases, and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition. Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices, and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes. There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this. Palm made it work, and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts. Totally unacceptable.

You can take non-DRM music from iTunes and put it on any player (you can even do it with DRMed music, although the process isn't nice). Direct connection to iTunes is never required. There really is no basis for complaint here. It's all just whining from entitlement.

Edit: And actually, encouraging competition would be to have Palm write their own software. That's kind of the point of competition; copying everyone else or freeloading off their investments isn't competition.

[iMaggot]

Wow what a sad move by palm.
And they got what they deserve IMO.

[BikeRanger]

I think it would be great to have more devices work with iTunes.

The way to compete is to compete, not steal. Palm can build its own store.

Heck, Palm could always just use Apple's open and accessible iTunesMusicLibrary.xml file and standard directory structure, like all the other developers whose products already sync with iTunes.

There's a company (http://www.salling.com/) that sells an application to sync iTunes with lots of devices (http://www.salling.com/MediaSync/Mac/compatibledevices/), including the Pre. Their program has Mac and Windows versions, and doesn't violate the USB standard.

Makes me wish I'd thought of the idea to write the software that Palm wouldn't, then sell it to Pre users.

[SG1-1]

Precentral Just Posted This:

Quote:

From: http://www.precentral.net/

Oh, and though it's not the source of the delay, webOS 1.2.1 should re-enable iTunes sync.

"Why isn't iTunes sync the cause of the delay? Because so far it's taken very little of Palm's resources to keep it up and running, says the tipster:

Time it took for Palm Developers to re-enable iTunes sync for webOS 1.1: about five minutes (they just had to change the Vendor ID, after all)
Time it took for Palm Developers to re-enable iTunes sync for webOS 1.2.1: just shy of two and a half hours (we'll be extremely curious to see if this is true and how they did it)
Time it will take the next time (and there will be a next time): totally unclear, but Palm is committed to keep doing it until that time estimate gets to be something over a 40 man-hours or so."

I wonder how this will Pan Out?

[haunebu]

As you guys can see, I've been around MacRumors for a while. And Appleinsider before that, etc.

For the last 11 years I've been a complete Apple fanboy (Since buying an iMac on 8/15/1998).

But sheesh, I really can't believe how many of you are applauding Apple's move to restrict interoperability. And yes, this is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior. Apple is using their dominance in digital music players (both hardware and software) to keep alternative products from utilizing iTunes.

Nobody asked them to support Pre syncing. Every consumer with a Pre would have been fine with them ignoring it. As consumers, we would have had more choice if they did ignore it.

What happened to the "It's better to be a pirate than join the Navy" mentality that I loved about the Apple community? It's like most people here have become drones... as if the people applauding Microsoft's abusive monopoly shifted over the last decade and now make up most of the Apple community.

It's time to Think Different again, folks.

[Guzzie]

apple DOES allow third party access to itunes through XML. educate yourself about it, then come back here and provide a response to the rest of us.


There's no reason to use a third party syncing method if a totally usable method has already been written and is easy to utilize. Palm did this with minimal effort, there is no reason to be so redundant.


it's hands down Apple's software, and they can write it to support whatever devices they want. period, end of story. there is no argument on the planet that can upstage that one simple fact.


You are totally correct, it's the fact that Apple is purposefully DISABLING pre's from syncing is the issue!


thirdly, just because apple has been successful means that they should encourage competition?!?!?! what?!?!?!?! do explain where you see this done in ANY industry on the planet.


It's called being a monopoly, and avoiding anti trust allegations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

both are good reads, should bring you up to speed


Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market"



lastly, i'm glad you came by today. had you not been here none of us wouldve ever noticed that apple is "completely guilty of anti-competitive practices...." i highly encourage you to report this to the authorities, i'm sure theyll love to hear all the juicy evidence you'll be able to supply them, that i'm sure they've NEVER tried to find, since as all of us know Apple has never been looked at with a fine toothed comb before.


its wonderful that everyone pretends that because no issue with a company has been found, that none exist. Apple is being investigated by the FCC for the google voice app fiasco, and many telcos are being investigated regarding exclusivity agreements for which apple is pretty famous for in the US. The fact that the licensing agreement of OS X only allows for it to be installed on apple hardware is also a point of contention for which apple has been scrutinized for. Apple looses nothing but time and money by trying to block palm.

This is classic morality vs legality and Apple fails horribly.

[aristotle]

While "legally" technically correct, it's disappointing that the USB-IF didn't take this opportunity to scold Apple for not behaving in the spirit of why the USB spec was created in the first place.

This may just be the first round where USB device makers lock out their devices to $$$$ from the highest bidder. Big hint to Microsoft, if they ever want to knock Apple out of the computer industry.
It seems as if you have no understanding of how software and specifically drivers for USB devices work. The "unique" ID that each USB device type is given is how an operating system is able to figure out which device is connected and to load the appropriate driver for it.

Palm broke the USB spec, not just the "spirit" of it.
:rolleyes:

If you are a Palm Pre owner, my condolences but you should have done your research before selecting a device and carrier. Sprint is one of the last US carriers trying desperately to hold on to the aging CDMA standard. Everyone else is moving on to LTE (4G GSM) in the 2010-2011 time period.

PS. Before someone parrots the Verizon line that LTE is currently data only, LTE is an extension of UTMS (3G GSM in Europe and Canada) which is also data only but has a dedicated voice layer within the data stream for voice calls on the carrier network. LTE will work the same way.

[Eddyisgreat]

You are totally correct, it's the fact that Apple is purposefully DISABLING pre's from syncing is the issue!


Link to data spec showing this is how its happening? Apple is not writing code that says "If it's a pre don't let it in". As we've already established, Apple is strengthening their Authentication methods to better distinguish iPod and iPhone models for proper authentication in itunes (or not, doesn't matter). For all you know they could be enhancing their checks because they realized that the the 2nd generation ipod slightly changed its design mid product cycle and the only way they could accurately portray this in the device picture is to use serial number checks. Course once Palm starts to spoof serial number hashes there will be a serious legal battle of Palm vs...uhh...everyone (Apple, ATT, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA) as serial numbs are one of the few things available to distinguish each device.

Next time you lock your door i'm going to march on your lawn and yell "Anti-Trust!" and "Monopoly!" and then call the cops stating you are violating a whole bunch of agreements for not letting me have access to your house, which is clearly anti-competitive.

[Stratus Fear]

But sheesh, I really can't believe how many of you are applauding Apple's move to restrict interoperability. And yes, this is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior. Apple is using their dominance in digital music players (both hardware and software) to keep alternative products from utilizing iTunes..

Forcing Apple to open the iPod-iTunes sync protocol would create disincentive to innovate. Apple isn't blocking anyone from market (iTunes is not a market, it is a product); they're simply protecting their own investment (iTunes) in effect requiring their competitors to innovate and create their own work. This is the entire point of competition and is not anti-competitive. If Apple's competitors were effectively disallowed from creating their own software and using any method of accessing data from iTunes, that would be anti-competitive, because it would be a direct effect on a competitor's product with said competitor having no other option. But that's not the case here; they can create their own solution, or access iTunes data through other methods. People around here like throwing around terms like "anti-competitive" and "monopoly" without knowing what they really mean or analyzing the situation thoroughly to really understand if it is or is not the case.

The entitlement/everything should be free to everyone mentality is like everyone being allowed to copy test answers off of the one smart kid in class. In the end everyone is the same and there is no real difference or choice between offerings. I'm finding it really hard to believe that not everyone understands this.

[seamer]

It was Palm testing the market for a really, really low price.

Why write competing software if you don't know how large the userbase will be? Simpler and quicker to rush out 'a feature' and see how many like/hate it before deciding the outcome of the project.

After all, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

[peterdevries]

I wonder how much Apple paid the USF-IF.....

About the same amount Steve paid for his liver... :rolleyes:

[Mr. Gates]

Good, I think it sucks Apple doesn't want to share its toys with the other kids , but Hey, that's Apples choice !

[Rodimus Prime]

It seems as if you have no understanding of how software and specifically drivers for USB devices work. The "unique" ID that each USB device type is given is how an operating system is able to figure out which device is connected and to load the appropriate driver for it.

Palm broke the USB spec, not just the "spirit" of it.
:rolleyes:

If you are a Palm Pre owner, my condolences but you should have done your research before selecting a device and carrier. Sprint is one of the last US carriers trying desperately to hold on to the aging CDMA standard. Everyone else is moving on to LTE (4G GSM) in the 2010-2011 time period.

PS. Before someone parrots the Verizon line that LTE is currently data only, LTE is an extension of UTMS (3G GSM in Europe and Canada) which is also data only but has a dedicated voice layer within the data stream for voice calls on the carrier network. LTE will work the same way.


People keep saying CDMA is a dieing techology yet they tend to forget that 3G used by GSM carriers tech is a CDMA based techology.....
The real battle is over which CDMA tech is better. Since it is more CDMA techology that split.

[haunebu]

The entitlement/everything should be free to everyone mentality is like everyone being allowed to copy test answers off of the one smart kid in class. In the end everyone is the same and there is no real difference or choice between offerings. I'm finding it really hard to believe that not everyone understands this.

Here's what Steve has to say about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player. Do you really want to take that position?

I just want to know how Palm got to be the cool company with the hacker mentality, while Apple and our community turned into a bunch of asshats that go out of our way to chide them for it.

Our community has become become the antithesis of what it once was.

[Stratus Fear]

People keep saying CDMA is a dieing techology yet they tend to forget that 3G used by GSM carriers tech is a CDMA based techology.....

When people say this, I think they mean CDMA the standard (CDMA2000), not CDMA the data multiplexing method.

[Stratus Fear]

By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player.

All the while, all you need to do is go into your "My Music" folder and pull files from there. Or have another program that syncs with that folder. There is nothing wrong with said logic. Nobody has any inalienable right to sync directly through iTunes. You have access to iTunes data without the program. Preference != right.

I just want to know how Palm got to be the cool company with the hacker mentality, while Apple and our community turned into a bunch of asshats that go out of our way to chide them for it.

Our community has become become the antithesis of what it once was.

Personally, I'd be calling the same on Apple if they were doing it against somebody else. It's not good business. It's underhanded.

Here's what Steve has to say about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

I don't think that Apple carbon copies what it does. The point is not that you use somebody else's idea, the point is that you do it better. Hacking iTunes as opposed to making your own solution is like carbon copying an exam; you're not doing anything special at all.

[haunebu]

Personally, I'd be calling the same on Apple if they were doing it against somebody else. It's not good business. It's underhanded.

Emphasis mine, of course. So who was Palm hurting, exactly? Certainly not consumers...

[peterdevries]

It's called being a monopoly, and avoiding anti trust allegations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

both are good reads, should bring you up to speed


Just because you can read it, doesn't mean you understand it.

Apple does NOT have a monopoly with iTunes, and there is a very simple explanation that everyone that has studied a bit of competition law understands:

There are numerous alternatives to download music (Amazon, Musicload etc) and to sync music to whatever device, both on the Mac and on Windows.

Although the market share of Apple is high in both iPods and digital downloads, there is no obstruction to you going somewhere else if you do not want to deal with Apple. That's why it is no monopoly.

[Stratus Fear]

Emphasis mine, of course. So who was Palm hurting, exactly? Certainly not consumers...

Semantics, really? Re-word the sentence to say "other corporations." And try to debate points, not form.

[Rodimus Prime]

All the while, all you need to do is go into your "My Music" folder and pull files from there. Or have another program that syncs with that folder. There is nothing wrong with said logic. Nobody has any inalienable right to sync directly through iTunes. You have access to iTunes data without the program. Preference != right.
.


And that completely defets the purpose. All play list are lost. That is what really matters.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Apple is they do not play nice with others. It is their way or the highway. The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software. WMP recognize iTunes as a MP3 player and offers to sync up with it but of course the iPod rejects it. I know people who love WMP over iTunes and WMP has some features that are just better than what is in iTunes. But the iPod will not play nice with it.

iTunes only places nice with the iPod.

Many ways I hope that apple aditude comes back to bit them in the ass on how they treat others and refusing to play nice. The Apple standard = the consumer loses because we get fewer choices.

Apple is a chicken. They are afraid that there stuff can not stand up on its own so it forces it will by using things from other areas.

Personally I view the actions apple been taken against the Pre as admitting it is scared and a chicken . It see the Pre as a threat so it wants to break it.

[Stratus Fear]

And that completely defets the purpose. All play list are lost. That is what really matters.

Then use a playlist management program that supports your device. If there isn't one, complain to the manufacturer you got your device from. It's not Microsoft's nor Apple's job to support another company's product or a hack.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Apple is they do not play nice with others. It is their way or the highway. The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software. WMP recognize iTunes as a MP3 player and offers to sync up with it but of course the iPod rejects it. I know people who love WMP over iTunes and WMP has some features that are just better than what is in iTunes. But the iPod will not play nice with it.

iTunes only places nice with the iPod.

Many ways I hope that apple aditude comes back to bit them in the ass on how they treat others and refusing to play nice. The Apple standard = the consumer loses because we get fewer choices.

Apple is a chicken. They are afraid that there stuff can not stand up on its own so it forces it will by using things from other areas.

Personally I view the actions apple been taken against the Pre as admitting it is scared and a chicken . It see the Pre as a threat so it wants to break it.

Business isn't always open. Businesses aren't required to give you what you want, down to every little detail or specification. The fact is, you have other choices. If none are ideal, you choose the best one. If you have a complaint about Apple's products (or anyone's products, for that matter) they have some comment lines you can provide feedback to. Certainly more productive than complaining in a forum ;)

[haunebu]

Semantics, really? Re-word the sentence to say "other corporations." And try to debate points, not form.

The point is that Palm's not hurting anyone, and you're defending Apple's deliberate limitation of interoperability, not our (consumers') interests.

Remember, you were the one to say Palm's actions were underhanded.

I'd reassess my principles if I were you.

[Eddyisgreat]

And that completely defets the purpose. All play list are lost. That is what really matters.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Apple is they do not play nice with others. It is their way or the highway. The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software. WMP recognize iTunes as a MP3 player and offers to sync up with it but of course the iPod rejects it. I know people who love WMP over iTunes and WMP has some features that are just better than what is in iTunes. But the iPod will not play nice with it.

iTunes only places nice with the iPod.

Many ways I hope that apple aditude comes back to bit them in the ass on how they treat others and refusing to play nice. The Apple standard = the consumer loses because we get fewer choices.

Apple is a chicken. They are afraid that there stuff can not stand up on its own so it forces it will by using things from other areas.

Personally I view the actions apple been taken against the Pre as admitting it is scared and a chicken . It see the Pre as a threat so it wants to break it.

If Apple blows and WMP is tits in your opinion then why not just get a zune? Obviously you feel Apple's offerings pale in comparison to their competitors, despite desperate attempts to ride the iTunes bandwagon (http://investor.palm.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=386488), in some cases even holding updates hostage waiting for Apple's next move (http://www.precentral.net/rumor-webos-121-delayed-will-fix-itunes-sync), and something as outrageous as having your stock price fluctuate when it is discovered that you promised a feature that you have no legitimate control over (http://palmwebos.org/2009/07/16/palm-stock-drops-3-percent-with-itunes-blocking-the-pre/), complaints about the competitions hardware (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/microsoft_zune.html), or perhaps that tiny 70% marketshare that Apple enjoys in the portable space (http://www.macworld.com/article/138362/2009/01/earnings.html). I don't think 70% of the market is in love with the iPod but I can't imagine if a product sucks THAT BAD that people will continue to buy it, even if it is considered a luxury good.

[Stratus Fear]

The point is that Palm's not hurting anyone, and you're defending Apple's deliberate limitation of interoperability, not our (consumers') interests.

Remember, you were the one to say Palm's actions were underhanded.

I'd reassess my principles if I were you.

It would be in consumers' best interests for Palm to create its own syncing solution. It would be in Palm's best interest to spend their own R&D money instead of somebody else's R&D money (the latter of which is hurting someone, hmm, wonder who that is). It would also be in their interest to actually compete on all levels. They should be making their own solution or licensing someone else's, just like everyone else does. They are doing neither and are instead kicking and screaming that they might actually have to produce something like most companies do. That's the point.

Valuing underhanded tactics over ingenuity or effort when the difference to the consumer would be negligible? Who needs to reassess principles? Not to mention this isn't even an argument. It's an ad hom, and you didn't even respond to what I said. Palm should have had software to go alongside the Pre. They did not. Just because iTunes access happens to be in your interest (a Palm-made solution would be just as much, mind you!) does not make the solution acceptable.

I agree with the poster that said this is like whining about access to my house when I locked the front door. You had no right to access the house in the first place. Buy your own house.

[nkawtg72]

There's no reason to use a third party syncing method if a totally usable method has already been written and is easy to utilize. Palm did this with minimal effort, there is no reason to be so redundant.


that's about stupid. redundancy is going to naturally happen when theres competition don't you think. how many brands of cars are there out there? they all get from point A to B or perform similar functions. what can't Chevy just grab a few Dodge trucks and stick a bowtie on the hood and call it theirs? why waste all that time and money developing a whole other truck to compete against it?

so basically you're saying since Apple's already done it, there's no reason to think that a competitor should have to do a single lick of development to support its own product in order to be competitive. don't forget, Apple doesn't sell iTunes. they sell the devices that iTunes SUPPORTS and adds to the value of the experience of those products.

Palm created the Pre to compete with iPhones/iPods. if they want it to have all the same gee wiz features and experiences as an iPhone does, they need to support that with their own development.

and once again, using the XML method that Apple has provided to developers for giving them access to the content (CONSUMERS own the content and CHOOSE to use iTunes to manage that content) isn't rocket science nor is it restrictive.



You are totally correct, it's the fact that Apple is purposefully DISABLING pre's from syncing is the issue!
that makes no sense. how can i be correct yet you still imply that Apple is somehow doing something wrong by controlling their IP?!?!?!


It's called being a monopoly, and avoiding anti trust allegations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

both are good reads, should bring you up to speed


thanks, but not only have i read those before, but it also doesn't answer the question. providing me a definition of what a monopoly is doesn't make it so. i could accuse you of beating your wife then post a link for the definition of what Domestic Violence is. does that mean you beat your wife? of course not.

i'm not the one accusing Apple of committing a crime, you are. i don't have to provide evidence to support my position you do. not the least of which i couldn't anyway and you know that, which is why you won't answer my question. it's called proving a negative. it's not possible. just like you couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't beat your wife. you say "she has no bruises" and i say "they've healed."

it all comes down to you having the "opinion" that apple is committing a crime. to that, you are totally entitled to feel that way. however to use your opinion as fact and the basis for an argument, just isn't going to fly.

so again, i ask you. what specifically is apple doing that you think is criminal, and show me where it says in the law that it is in fact a crime?



its wonderful that everyone pretends that because no issue with a company has been found, that none exist.

that's such a paranoid life to live is it not? how sad.

but let's all run with this one anyway. i believe you sell crack cocaine to 3 graders at the school down the street from you. i'm going to go around and tell everyone i meet that you do, and i'm going to tell your employer that you do. maybe they'll even feel enough pressure to fire you because it must be true since i believe it so fervently. when you can prove to me that it isn't so, then i'll retract my accusation.



Apple is being investigated by the FCC for the google voice app fiasco, and many telcos are being investigated regarding exclusivity agreements for which apple is pretty famous for in the US. The fact that the licensing agreement of OS X only allows for it to be installed on apple hardware is also a point of contention for which apple has been scrutinized for. Apple looses nothing but time and money by trying to block palm.

This is classic morality vs legality and Apple fails horribly.

good for the FCC. i'm glad theyre actually doing something with all those tax dollars they receive. if they do find something illegal, i'm sure they'll let us all know. in the meantime, i live in the US of A and believe in innocent UNTIL proven guilty. not there's an investigation so youre assumed guilty, or appear to be guilty, or thought to be guilty, or because i said so guilty. except in your case of course. you really must stop selling crack to children

and before you or anyone else tries to throw the "just another apple fanboy" label out there, i go on record as saying that even i never accused MS of illegal activity before they were in fact found guilty of it. did i like what they were doing prior to that, no. but i simply said, they better hope they are right because if they ever get investigated it could mean a whole world of hurt.

if you were approaching apple similarly i'd be responding a whole lot differently, but you aren't now are you?

[Parky]

With Apple's dominant position in iPods (approaching genericized trademark territory) and music sales, Palm would be better served by pursuing anti-competitive interdictions with the EU primarily and DOJ secondarily than by bothering with an industry-funded standards consortium. There is nothing novel or interesting about iTunes as software, except that it is the front end to the most popular extant music distribution system for the most popular devices.

While Apple and Palm are trying to protect each's interests, open standards and interoperability are always better for the consumer than vendor lock-in. In the long run, the consumer ultimately is the loser in this feud. Between the entertainment cartels, the hardware/software vendors and their lobbies, its amazing that file conversion and transfer between a single person's devices isn't a capital offense.

Why should Apple have to support other devices?
Who pays them for the development and support?

[Parky]

And that completely defets the purpose. All play list are lost. That is what really matters.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Apple is they do not play nice with others. It is their way or the highway. The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software. WMP recognize iTunes as a MP3 player and offers to sync up with it but of course the iPod rejects it. I know people who love WMP over iTunes and WMP has some features that are just better than what is in iTunes. But the iPod will not play nice with it.

iTunes only places nice with the iPod.

Many ways I hope that apple aditude comes back to bit them in the ass on how they treat others and refusing to play nice. The Apple standard = the consumer loses because we get fewer choices.

Apple is a chicken. They are afraid that there stuff can not stand up on its own so it forces it will by using things from other areas.

Personally I view the actions apple been taken against the Pre as admitting it is scared and a chicken . It see the Pre as a threat so it wants to break it.

Of course you have a choice. You could chose not to buy an iPod and buy one of the many other devices on the market and then use the software you like. Show me where you are forced to buy an iPod?

[nkawtg72]

i hate to think where all these Pre owners would be if they owned only a PC and Apple didn't make iTunes for Windows? mercy me, whatever would they sync their Pre to?

[Parky]

The point is that Palm's not hurting anyone, and you're defending Apple's deliberate limitation of interoperability, not our (consumers') interests.

Remember, you were the one to say Palm's actions were underhanded.

I'd reassess my principles if I were you.

Palm IS hurting someone :-

1. Apple are not being paid to support the Palm Pre so if for some reason iTunes changes and the Pre no longer works because it is not officially support the Palm Pre owners are hurt.

2. Apple gets bad press because Palm decide to put them in a position by breaking the way the USB codes work. Apple did not start this fiasco, Palm did by pretending that the Pre was an iPod.

The "no one gets hurt" excuse is often used when the law is broken, it still does not make it alright to do it.

[Stratus Fear]

Palm IS hurting someone :-

1. Apple are not being paid to support the Palm Pre so if for some reason iTunes changes and the Pre no longer works because it is not officially support the Palm Pre owners are hurt.

2. Apple gets bad press because Palm decide to put them in a position by breaking the way the USB codes work. Apple did not start this fiasco, Palm did by pretending that the Pre was an iPod.

The "no one gets hurt" excuse is often used when the law is broken, it still does not make it alright to do it.

Exactly. It's actually Palm hurting their own customers here by not stepping up to the plate and providing their own solution to support the Pre. This could have easily been solved by, at the least, making a syncing conduit between the iTunes music library and the Pre, instead of "cheating," for lack of better words.

[nkawtg72]

Exactly. It's actually Palm hurting their own customers here by not stepping up to the plate and providing their own solution to support the Pre. This could have easily been solved by, at the least, making a syncing conduit between the iTunes music library and the Pre, instead of "cheating," for lack of better words.

we know that, but i think there may be a lot of Pre owners beginning to second guess their purchase. instead of admitting that they may have bought a Pre out of spite for Apple and the iPhone, they rather defend Palm (and their purchase) and somehow make this out to be Apple's fault that now, all of sudden they don't have anyway to sync all that content they keep in iTunes (which they happen to prefer) to their superior Pre device.


edit:
it's funny. folks complain that Apple is telling them what they can and can't do with their iPhone/iPod Touch, so they go to Palm for a Pre. well Palm tells them they have to use Apple software to get the bloody thing to work, and when that fails it's somehow Apple's fault, even though Palm is the one who told them what to do!!!

[Stratus Fear]

we know that, but i think there may be a lot of Pre owners beginning to second guess their purchase. instead of admitting that they may have bought a Pre out of spite for Apple and the iPhone, they rather defend Palm (and their purchase) and somehow make this out to be Apple's fault that now, all of sudden they don't have anyway to sync all that content they keep in iTunes (which they happen to prefer) to their superior Pre device.

Yeah, I just meant to re-emphasize it. But I agree with your assessment. It's really funny though that if Palm had done the right thing, people could STILL use iTunes and sync the library to the Pre. All that would really be different is the device doesn't show in iTunes and you open an external app. It otherwise makes no difference!

Edit: Well I guess they still can, since they have mountable drive access to use. It'd still be easier if Palm had made their own sync app though.

[MorphingDragon]

Yay, another ****** company bites the dust.


/*Starts playing Queen*/

[b0ned0me]

The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software.
Eh? Wot? Last time I looked there was all sorts of third-party iPod stuff like Anapod, Winamp iPod plugin, ephpod, Media Monkey etc. Nowadays most of the third-party effort seems to be around connecting with iTunes rather than replacing it, but that's probably because most customers are OK with iTunes rather than because it's impossible to do. All you need is some good coding skills and 30-40 hours a week free and you could write, release and support RodimusPod to help your fellow consumers.

Or are you complaining that no-one is providing software that does exactly what iTunes does (or more) for the same price? Perhaps it's because that would mean developing a pretty complex piece of software that's to give away free unless you can cross-subsidise it off squillions of pieces of hardware it's helping to sell?

[cjmillsnun]

I wonder how much Apple paid the USF-IF.....

My guess is nothing except their normal licence fees for the use of USB Technology. Palm clearly broke the rules as regards usb VIDs

[gnasher729]

While "legally" technically correct, it's disappointing that the USB-IF didn't take this opportunity to scold Apple for not behaving in the spirit of why the USB spec was created in the first place.

This may just be the first round where USB device makers lock out their devices to $$$$ from the highest bidder. Big hint to Microsoft, if they ever want to knock Apple out of the computer industry.

This post is completely ignorant of the realities. Apple isn't locking out any USB devices that say "I am a Palm Pre device, and I am made by Palm". They lock out devices that say "I am an iPod, and I am made by Apple" when in fact they are not iPods and not made by Apple. Apple shouldn't have to do this (that is what the USB Compliance Organization just said; Palm isn't allowed to make products whose USB chip claims it is made by Apple), but it is absolute common sense that you don't let anything connect to your computer that is not in compliance with USB regulations.

[MacBram]

People keep saying CDMA is a dieing techology yet they tend to forget that 3G used by GSM carriers tech is a CDMA based techology.....
The real battle is over which CDMA tech is better. Since it is more CDMA techology that split.

I don't care what the letters are and what letters might be related to what other bunch of letters at some point in history...

The point is, a certain tech or protocol has been accepted as the standard over most of the world: whatever bunch(es) of letters uses SIM cards. I can take a phone that uses SIM cards, fly to any other country, pop my card out and pop in a local pay-as-you-go card (or whatever). I can move to another country or travel, and know I can mix and match and swap cards as much as I like (assuming the phone is unlocked -- which is more likely the "real battle"). The only issue is that the phone needs to support the two or three or maybe four different radio frequencies that are commonly set aside for telephony around the world.

If you have a service or phone that doesn't use SIM cards, then you have already lost. A phone without a SIM card is like using a music player that doesn't play MP3s. Go get a real phone.

[Hugh]

Palm did that, remember? The initial release of the Pre identified itself as such, and THEN Apple explicitly blocked the device from syncing. THEN Palm introduced the USB spoof.

Palm played by the rules, and Apple abused their position by locking out their device. Then Palm used a questionable workaround by identifying itself as an Apple device - but Apple forced that by otherwise locking them out.

People have such short memories.

No, this is not correct. Palm spoofed the vender ID to start with, the Pre was to look like a iPod to iTunes. So no Palm didn't play by the rules.

Hugh

[MorphingDragon]

WHY are people still arguing this. If they spoofed the ID, they spoofed the ID. What more is there?

[edmundo]

Maybe that has something to do with why Apple won.
It doesn't. Apple is a notable company, Apple is a member of the USB-IF, thus Apple is a notable member of the USB-IF. Nothing more. Anyone who actually looked at the USB-IF guidelines knew it was going to end up this way.
Palm did that, remember? The initial release of the Pre identified itself as such, and THEN Apple explicitly blocked the device from syncing. THEN Palm introduced the USB spoof.
No. Palm started by spoofing an iPod's device id. When Apple filtered on the VID, they started spoofing the VID as well.
Palm played by the rules
Nope.
Apple abused their position by locking out their device.
Nope, nothing in the USB-IF guidelines say your software should work with any USB device. That doesn't make any sense. Apple used to lock iTunes for a specific (and limited, pre-iPod players, the ROKR and iPods) number of supported devices, then Palm decided they were going to **** around by pretending a "media mode" Pre was an iPod.

Nothing in Palm's strategy was correct.
By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player. Do you really want to take that position?

Of course it would. And in fact that's exactly what they do with their Zune Software. Last time I checked, you can only sync a Zune with Zune Soft.

[twilson]

I'm sympathetic to Apple to keep iTunes closed, but blocking someone from emulating vendor IDs really sets a dangerous precedent.

I think breaking fundamental rules of engagement between software and USB hardware is an even worse way to go as it will destroy the "Universal" aspect when you have to cater for a billion and one different "what-if" scenarios.

PCI devices also use Vendor IDs (in fact this is where they started). Applications like VMware and Parallels *have* to emulate Vendor IDs for PCI devices they emulate (like north/south bridges). Many other applications and devices work by emulating existing devices for backward compatibility.

Blocking this kind of emulation seems to me a very dubious action. Good for Apple perhaps but very bad for users.

While I'm not denying the usefulness of VM products, the amount of hacking around that the VM software makers have to do make these things work correctly is astounding and points at a reason why VID spoofing shouldn't really happen too much.

[mags631]

To be fair, it's not about the contracts and the letter of the law, it's about what's right in the eye of the consumer.

Yikes. No thank you, I'll stick with contracts and the law over the arbitrary, fleeting and heterogeneous opinions of the consumer.

[Goona]

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases, and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition. Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices, and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes. There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this. Palm made it work, and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts. Totally unacceptable.

Who made itunes any standard for syncing songs with a phone. Last time I checked Apple is not blocking you from using other software@!

[Goona]

Here's what Steve has to say about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player. Do you really want to take that position?

I just want to know how Palm got to be the cool company with the hacker mentality, while Apple and our community turned into a bunch of asshats that go out of our way to chide them for it.

Our community has become become the antithesis of what it once was.

Why don't you go ask Microsoft why they don't allow my iphone or a Palm Pre to sync with their Zune Software which syncs with Zunes?

[Veri]

What a surprise: the standards body of a poor standard making poor decisions about the nature of standards.

The purpose of a standard is to ease interoperability. Apple's actions are against the spirit and letter of "standard". If Palm want to respond to this gaggle, I suggest one paragraph on the technical flaws of USB (focusing on all the things 1394 got right, before Apple abandoned that), another paragraph about how long it's taken to decide what a standard USB power supply is (incorporating some footnotes commenting on the extent to which the MacBook Air and iPods respect rules on power), with a final paragraph promising an explicit "non-compliance to uphold the spirit of standards" option on the handset, so the user can be clear whether he is operating in "pretend the handset has a USB forum logo" mode or not.

[*LTD*]

Answers in bold.

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

So . . .

Palm: "Your software is so popular, that we now have rights to it!"

So what's the popularity level it has to achieve? 10 million users? 30 million? Is there a "Like-meter" that measures enjoyment of the software and then adjusts IP rights accordingly?

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple doesn't block Songbird or most other iTunes knockoffs that work with OS X.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases,

Near? How near? Is there a standard of measurement for this? Or is it like the whole "little bit pregnant" thing?

and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition.

Do you actually believe this? If I were Apple I'd hope the competition gets vapourized tomorrow, so there's NO competition. Why, as a business, woud I want ANY competitors?? But laws prevent me from launching small thermonuclear devices at the othery guy's headquarters. Oh well.

The competition's welfare isn't Apple's responsibility. That's up to everyone else. Don't blame Apple because the rest of the pack couldn't come up with anything better.

Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices,

Which court or judicial body convicted them and when?

and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes.

And I should be able to drive my neghbour's car when I want. It's a hot-**** Merc and everyone on the street loves it. And I'm still waiting for that pony I was promised when I was five.

There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this.

Why should Apple cater to every other manufacturer?

Palm made it work,

No, they didn't make it work. They snuck around and hlped themselves to something they had no permission for in the first place. You need to respect the other's IP rights. RIM made it work, though.


and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts.

As any sane organization should. Why should Apple allow full iTunes access to be a premier feature of Palm's smartphone?? It's ludicrous.

Totally unacceptable.

What is? Apple's rights to their own IP, or your sense of entitlment?

[Goona]

i hate to think where all these Pre owners would be if they owned only a PC and Apple didn't make iTunes for Windows? mercy me, whatever would they sync their Pre to?

You don't know itunes is the only syncing program out there?

[pmjoe]

It seems as if you have no understanding of how software and specifically drivers for USB devices work. The "unique" ID that each USB device type is given is how an operating system is able to figure out which device is connected and to load the appropriate driver for it.

Palm broke the USB spec, not just the "spirit" of it.
:rolleyes:

You have no clue what you are talking about. The USB spec was introduced to encourage interoperability and reuse of device drivers. The vendor ID is intentionally supposed to have as little to do with what drivers are loaded as possible. The USB device classes are where this should primarily be determined.

I'm sure you wouldn't be thrilled if Apple suddenly decided to partner with SanDisk and block all other manufacturer's USB Mass Storage devices, just so they can make a couple of extra $$$. All this USB interoperability was very convenient for Apple a decade ago when very few peripheral devices were Mac compatible.

If you are a Palm Pre owner, my condolences but you should have done your research before selecting a device and carrier.

I own an iPhone.

Sprint is one of the last US carriers trying desperately to hold on to the aging CDMA standard. [blah, blah, blah]
You know, some people live in parts of the US where CDMA is the only reasonable option, but you've already shown you don't know that much.

[pmjoe]

As you guys can see, I've been around MacRumors for a while. And Appleinsider before that, etc.

For the last 11 years I've been a complete Apple fanboy (Since buying an iMac on 8/15/1998).

But sheesh, I really can't believe how many of you are applauding Apple's move to restrict interoperability.
Ditto. AppleInsider was far worse for this though. Too many Apple stockholders who only cared about Apple's $$$$$. That's why I moved here.

[*LTD*]

More proof that Apple has become the industry's R&D department. This half-asleep industry would be at a total loss without Apple. :(

[Veri]

The competition's welfare isn't Apple's responsibility. That's up to everyone else. Don't blame Apple because the rest of the pack couldn't come up with anything better.

I have thought this so often about anti-trust action against Microsoft in the late 90s... and if they hadn't needed Apple as an argument that they were not monopoly on the desktop, probably they never would have invested money and software development assurances in Apple, and perhaps if they had never invested in Apple, it would have withered away before its resurgence this decade.

So, if Microsoft hadn't made "the competition's welfare" its interest at a time of government bullying, Apple might not even exist.

(Of course, the best businesses don't want to destroy all the competition, because they are comprised of people who are technically excellent and who would be stifled in a vacuum. Microsoft and Apple are great at copying, tweaking and integrating for a mass audience, but have produced little original scholarship in-house, relying on the apes who like to share their tools rather than those who hoard them. What is more, Microsoft has a more active research and development output, but only makes occasional effort integrating this with its mainstream products.)

[kdarling]

It seems as if you have no understanding of how software and specifically drivers for USB devices work. The "unique" ID that each USB device type is given is how an operating system is able to figure out which device is connected and to load the appropriate driver for it.

Only if you need non-standard functions, and even then the generic class driver often works. If you plug in a keyboard, it uses the generic HID driver. Video cam? Video class driver. Mass storage? Ditto.

Otherwise we would need hundreds of separate drivers for the manufacturer of every USB dongle in the world.

If you are a Palm Pre owner, my condolences but you should have done your research before selecting a device and carrier. Sprint is one of the last US carriers trying desperately to hold on to the aging CDMA standard. Everyone else is moving on to LTE (4G GSM) in the 2010-2011 time period.

CDMA was ahead of its time. The GSM carriers had to go to CDMA air protocols to get 3G.

As for LTE, even Verizon won't have it fully rolled out until early 2014.

PS. Before someone parrots the Verizon line that LTE is currently data only, LTE is an extension of UTMS (3G GSM in Europe and Canada) which is also data only but has a dedicated voice layer within the data stream for voice calls on the carrier network. LTE will work the same way.

You are batting zero today. Stop reading wikipedia, it's rotting your brain.

LTE has nothing technically to do with UTMS or GSM or CDMA. It is a totally different standard.

[twilson]

What a surprise: the standards body of a poor standard making poor decisions about the nature of standards.

The purpose of a standard is to ease interoperability. Apple's actions are against the spirit and letter of "standard".

WRONG!

The USB standard is to ensure that when a compliant USB device is plugged into a compliant USB port, specific messages and informations are sent back and forth. These messages may or may not also contain custom, specific responses and data.

For example when asking a device for its Vendor ID, it will ONLY respond with the Vendor ID assigned to the Vendor by USB-IF (not what Palm was doing).

Basically I can plug in an unsupported Canon/Nikon camera and they will respond saying that are Canon/Nikon devices respectively as well as what model number they are etc. They will also say that they are, more than likely, Mass Storage Class devices to allow access to the memory cards.

As they are saying that the are Mass Storage Class devices, there are certain functionality that they must expose, and the supported functionality will be communicated via the USB port in a "standard way" and be interpretable by software accordingly.

The above cameras example all use clearly defined protocols and messages. Adhering to this correct messaging/protocol format is what ensures the "interoperability" being referred to by the USB spec.

Just because I can tell what the device is doesn't necessarily mean I can use it.

Custom/proprietary devices and communication over USB are permitted and perfectly acceptable. As long as a device:


says what it does in the correct way;
and does what is required for it to be a device of a given class or classes;
and performs the operations for its specified classes with the correct result


it is perfectly fine as a USB device.

The "interoperability" allows a third-party to figure out and create a software driver for a USB device that would otherwise be unsupported. A perfect example of this is the PlayStation Eye camera.

Only the PS3 has a driver for the PlayStation Eye, however when I plug it into my Mac, it knows I have plugged in a webcam-device made by Sony. As a result third-party developers have been able to create a driver for the camera, as it communicates using a defined messaging standard.

[pmjoe]

This post is completely ignorant of the realities. Apple isn't locking out any USB devices that say "I am a Palm Pre device, and I am made by Palm". They lock out devices that say "I am an iPod, and I am made by Apple" when in fact they are not iPods and not made by Apple. Apple shouldn't have to do this (that is what the USB Compliance Organization just said; Palm isn't allowed to make products whose USB chip claims it is made by Apple), but it is absolute common sense that you don't let anything connect to your computer that is not in compliance with USB regulations.
Your post is completely ignorant of reality. What Palm first did was have the Pre post a USB profile that said it was an "iPod" class device made by "Palm". That is what any USB device does. iPod is just a class of device, like "Mass Storage" or "HID" that helps determine what drivers to use. That is how every USB device interoperates on any platform. Apple then changed iTunes to only interact with "iPods" made by "Apple". That was when Palm complained to USB-IF.

Would you feel better about this if Apple only allowed you to connect "HID" keyboards and mice made by "Apple"?

[twilson]

You have no clue what you are talking about. The USB spec was introduced to encourage interoperability and reuse of device drivers. The vendor ID is intentionally supposed to have as little to do with what drivers are loaded as possible. The USB device classes are where this should primarily be determined.

But the Vendor ID is needed because different manufacturers of devices have slightly different interpretations on things, and of course don't forget the OEMs (nVidia drivers didn't always work properly with nVidia chipset gfx cards, in fact they still recommend going to your device manufacturer for drivers).

I think the fact that you are NEVER supposed to use another vendor's Vendor ID is telling at how important it is, regardless of what you personally think on the matter.

I'm sure you wouldn't be thrilled if Apple suddenly decided to partner with SanDisk and block all other manufacturer's USB Mass Storage devices, just so they can make a couple of extra $$$. All this USB interoperability was very convenient for Apple a decade ago when very few peripheral devices were Mac compatible.

But this isn't what is happening, it's not the same, so it's a moot point!

iPhone/iPod as music players are NOT Mass Storage devices, they are a "Composite" device class. This composite class has in ID of 0 (zero). This defines the device as implementing non of the standard classes (such as HID, Audio, Video, Wireless Controller, etc.). If you read the USB spec, it's perfectly acceptable for this.

http://www.usb.org/developers/defined_class

[Stratus Fear]

You have no clue what you are talking about. The USB spec was introduced to encourage interoperability and reuse of device drivers. The vendor ID is intentionally supposed to have as little to do with what drivers are loaded as possible. The USB device classes are where this should primarily be determined.

No, the USB spec was introduced to have one standard *physical* interface that all devices could use, instead of choose from the (at the time) tons of different interfaces. Part of the point was also to make things more plug-and-play, which at the time was not possible with RS-232 serial ports. It says nothing about interoperability of different USB peripheral devices with each other or their host software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb

"USB is intended to replace many varieties of serial and parallel ports."

[KnightWRX]

You have no clue what you are talking about. The USB spec was introduced to encourage interoperability and reuse of device drivers. The vendor ID is intentionally supposed to have as little to do with what drivers are loaded as possible. The USB device classes are where this should primarily be determined.

Drivers are a matter for the OS. Mac OS X still recognizes the Palm Pre, still loads up drivers and still presents it to software. Nothing is broken as far as connecting a Pre to a Windows or Mac computer.

iTunes however is not a OS. It supports certain hardware for a sync function. It has to recognize the hardware that is connected to find hardware it is compatible with. Otherwise, iTunes would sync music to your printer or mouse or keyboard or any other USB devices.

Palm decided to pose as an iPod (Palm iPod) in order to try to get in the backdoor. Apple decided to strengthen their detection so they would sync to Apple iPods only. Palm then broke their license with the USB-IF and pretended their device was a Apple iPod.

iTunes doesn't have to interoperate. iTunes is not a market. If Mac OS X detected and blocked the Pre at the OS level, you might have a point. As it stands, you don't.

Apple also provides 3rd parties with a syncing solution to get to the contents of the iTunes database. They are thus not being anti-competitive, they document everything and they offer interop through supported methods. Palm chose to not use those methods.

And yes, Palm has hurt someone. It has hurt its own customers in all of this.

[stillill]

But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

I really don't understand the "yaay Apple won" sentiment on here. Everyone loses, except maybe Apple shareholders.

[Veri]

WRONG!
Your straw man argument suggests that I implied Palm wasn't going against the USB IF. We know trivially that Palm is going against the mood of the USB IF. But I argued that the USB IF is going against the spirit of "standards" per se. Another example would be MS when it uses an extension field in implementing a well-known protocol, instead of using a method explicitly described in the standards document. It is very easy to go against the spirit of a general principle while conforming to the letter of a specific implementation.

For example when asking a device for its Vendor ID, it will ONLY respond with the Vendor ID assigned to the Vendor by USB-IF (not what Palm was doing).
And you ask a device for its vendor ID only for informational purposes, right? That is what Apple is doing, right?

Just because I can tell what the device is doesn't necessarily mean I can use it.
You are correct. It would use some perhaps vendor specific device class to announce that it supports an X device driver, and you would therefore need to write an X device driver. Notice the vendor ID not coming into this?

iPhone/iPod as music players are NOT Mass Storage devices, they are a "Composite" device class. This composite class has in ID of 0 (zero). This defines the device as implementing non of the standard classes (such as HID, Audio, Video, Wireless Controller, etc.). If you read the USB spec, it's perfectly acceptable for this.
0 = use interface descriptors, which would make sense for a composite device supporting multiple interfaces. For example, an iPod supports inter al. the mass storage device class, otherwise you wouldn't be able to plug it in to pretty much any machine and mount the iPod's internal drive. Am I misunderstanding you?

[twilson]

Your post is completely ignorant of reality. What Palm first did was have the Pre post a USB profile that said it was an "iPod" class device made by "Palm". That is what any USB device does. iPod is just a class of device, like "Mass Storage" or "HID" that helps determine what drivers to use. That is how every USB device interoperates on any platform. Apple then changed iTunes to only interact with "iPods" made by "Apple". That was when Palm complained to USB-IF.

Your info is a bit wrong. For starters there is no such Device Class of iPod.

Here's a list of them: http://www.usb.org/developers/defined_class

The device descriptor contains the following:

Descriptor Version Number
Device Class - iPod/iPhone etc. are all 0 (Composite Device)
Device Subclass
Device Protocol
Device Vendor ID/Product ID
Device Version Number
Number of Configurations
Manufacturer String - "Apple Inc." for iPhone/iPod
Product String
Serial Number String


iPod is a device within a class, not sure of which it would really fit though, as the iPhone has around 8 different "Configuration Descriptors" which are "HID" and then it has some Vendor Specific classes (incidentally, these are allowed by the USB spec under Device Class 255).

Everyone screaming about interoperability is doing so at a level whereby interoperability was never intended.

From USB.org Defined 1.0 Class Codes:

Base Class FFh (Vendor Specific)

This base class is defined for vendors to use as they please. These class codes can be used in both Device and Interface Descriptors.

[gnasher729]

Would you feel better about this if Apple only allowed you to connect "HID" keyboards and mice made by "Apple"?

Many companies make keyboards. Only one company makes iPods. So if I connect a device to my Mac and the device says "I am a keyboard made by Microsoft" then the OS would have to believe that (unless it contains lots of code to check that keyboard against a list of all keyboards Microsoft has ever made which would break when Microsoft builds another keyboard). But if I connect a device to my Mac and the device says "I am an iPod made by Palm", then the OS _knows_ that the device is lying.

If for example a company created forged Microsoft keyboards, and Microsoft lost money because of that, then it would be completely Ok if Microsoft added code to Windows to prevent use of forged Microsoft keyboards, and it would be completely Ok if Microsoft asked Apple to do the same thing so that forged Microsoft keyboards cannot be used with a Macintosh.

[twilson]

Am I misunderstanding you?

No, I was typing ahead of my brain. My next posts hopefully make a bit more sense :P

[kurosov]

i hate to think where all these Pre owners would be if they owned only a PC and Apple didn't make iTunes for Windows? mercy me, whatever would they sync their Pre to?

The clearly palm could take apple to court and force them to create a version for pc called 'preTunes'. :rolleyes:

[Veri]

Your info is a bit wrong. For starters there is no such Device Class of iPod.
You are being obtuse. What everyone on the internets refers to as a "device class" is, usually, only allowable as an interface class. For the purposes of discussion, the distinction is irrelevant.

Vendor Specific classes (incidentally, these are allowed by the USB spec under Device Class 255).
Now we're getting somewhere;)...

Everyone screaming about interoperability is doing so at a level whereby interoperability was never intended.

Are you saying it is not intended to use interface classes to identify the interface? The phrase "as they please" must be taken in context; it should not mean that using a 255 class means we can ignore the letter and spirit of the rest of the USB standard, or ignore general conventions of standards. To wit: you are still announcing a particular subclass and protocol to which your device conforms. Here remains where it is defined, not in the vendor ID.

(A possible concern: surely if it is vendor specific, only the vendor ID can differentiate between otherwise identical subclass/protocol assignments by a different vendor? this is a technical flaw in field lengths, which are not sufficiently long that the globally unique identifiers can be assigned without central authority. As pre-broken versions of iTunes illustrated, using a vendor specific base class does not create a mass of conflicts.)

[Eric5h5]

But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

Not really; they make most of their money from hardware sales. What Apple's doing here is perfectly understandable and acceptable...they can be evil sometimes, but this is not one of those cases. Their position in the industry does, I think, suggest some obligation to provide interoperability, which is sufficiently covered by the iTunes XML file. Note that this is not used by iTunes itself, which has its own library--the XML is there expressly and only for the benefit of other vendors, not Apple. (You can delete it, and iTunes will continue to operate exactly as before.) All Palm has to do is use this like RIM does, then everything's settled to the satisfaction of all companies and consumers involved. Simple enough, no?

--Eric

[TeamDNA]

ZOMG HOW DARE YOU .. YOU EVIL PALM COMPANY! HOW DARE YOU! EVERYONE NEEDS TO.. not compete with the iphone!

What are you talking about kid? This thread was not about palm
competing with apple it's about Palm illegally using apples vendor ID and being stupid enough to report which in turn screwed them. I think the forums your looking for are pre central

[*LTD*]

Under USB-IF’s policy:

Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage… Usage of another company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded.

Aside from dealing with the horrible build quality and lousy battery, Palm needs to get back to the drawing board and either make their own music app, or simply sync with iTunes the right way, or just stop lying to its customers about a non-existent feature.

The whole Pre release is turning out to be a joke.

[Love]

There are no words to describe how pleased I am with USB-IF.

[Veri]

There are no words to describe how pleased I am with USB-IF.

To some extent, I agree. The fact that they have spoken up about a technical violation over what it seems should be no more than an informational field, while tacitly accepting that the USB standard enables software to be written that can only work with particular vendor's devices, is an explicit acknowledgement of what many already felt: that the USB standard is a cheap convenience for mass hardware producers, not a standard concerned with technical excellence and interoperability.

I assume that Palm's next move will be a Windows/Mac OSX USB device driver that does nothing more than forward packets and change the vendor ID of any Palm device passed from device to host to be the vendor ID of an Apple device. After all, two can play the game of writing software that plays cheeky with the USB standard, right?:D

[Capoc]

And less interoperability for consumers. That blows.

I like the idea of being able to sync iTunes with whatever device I own.

Okay, look, you stupid monkeys who can't understand this point, but yet someone has to make it over and over again.

This isn't about iTunes being able to sync to other devices. It's about the fact that the Pre had to tell iTunes it as an IPOD to do it! So instead of getting the tiny bit of licensing needed to have their device sync to iTunes, they made their device LIE and pretend to be an ipod. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Apple doesn't want devices that aren't iPods, to tell iTunes that they are. That is all. This isn't about greed, it isn't about money, it's all about fixing a blatant lie that even M$ has the integrity to not perpetrate!

[Veri]

they made their device LIE and pretend to be an ipod

Computers hate it when you anthropomorphise them.

Really, if one device I own happens to send a particular sequence of bits to another device I own in order to complete a task I want performed, all happening in the confines of my office, there is no "lying" taking place. It is irrelevant what some busybody feels about the bits that are sent, regardless of whether they have had a part building the equipment I have paid for.

Anyway, no sentience, no meaningful lie. I might as well argue that the wind is lying to the flower when, after a day's calm,a gust suddenly blows off its petals.

[Capoc]

Computers hate it when you anthropomorphise them.

Really, if one device I own happens to send a particular sequence of bits to another device I own in order to complete a task I want performed, all happening in the confines of my office, there is no "lying" taking place. It is irrelevant what some busybody feels about the bits that are sent, regardless of whether they have had a part building the equipment I have paid for.

Anyway, no sentience, no meaningful lie. I might as well argue that the wind is lying to the flower when, after a day's calm,a gust suddenly blows off its petals.

Way to really take semantics and such things and totally go away from the sake of what this entire thread was about.

Fine. I'll restate. Palm lied, by making their device state that it was an Apple iPod so that the Pre could sync, via the USB VID. People are still trying to make an argument that Apple should allow other devices to sync with iTunes, which they have before, or in the case of non-licensed devices, they can use the XML data to sync to the iTunes database. Or on a totally unrelated level, iTunes purchases now are DRM free. So it's very easy to just sync through another program with your purchases to a Pre. Maybe, you know, some Palm software for it? Oh wait, Palm hasn't made any yet, because they chose to make their device have the wrong VID on it.

Your troll post managed to snag me, this is true, however my point is still quite valid.

As other people have said, it's really quite cut and dry.

[Mark Booth]

The USB-IF responded in the only way logical and legal way it could. Palm hijacked Apple's USB identifier, which was SPECIFICALLY against the rules and requirements THEY AGREED TO when they signed on as a USB device maker. Palm knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway. They needed SOME sort of Hail Mary pass to try to compete with the rapidly growing iPhone market share. So, they cheated. Plain and simple. And now they're busted. Plain and simple.

But what is scarier than Palm's outright deceptive actions, is the number of folks in this thread that simply don't "get it". I mean those of you that simply can't understand why what Palm did was completely wrong. It was immoral, probably illegal, and just plain wrong. Yet, too many don't get it at all and that is scary!

But, that's to be expected. The average IQ in the US is about 100, which is scary in its own right! :eek:

Mark

[KnightWRX]

But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

I really don't understand the "yaay Apple won" sentiment on here. Everyone loses, except maybe Apple shareholders.

Apple makes money from selling tunes because they allow other devices access to the iTunes Music Library.

RIM has mediasync which does exactly that. Missing Sync is a 3rd party app that syncs to many devices and does just that.

You don't have to have iTunes open and running to sync iTunes' media library to a device. You only have to open iTunes to use iTunes to sync.

[killmoms]

To some extent, I agree. The fact that they have spoken up about a technical violation over what it seems should be no more than an informational field, while tacitly accepting that the USB standard enables software to be written that can only work with particular vendor's devices, is an explicit acknowledgement of what many already felt: that the USB standard is a cheap convenience for mass hardware producers, not a standard concerned with technical excellence and interoperability.

I assume that Palm's next move will be a Windows/Mac OSX USB device driver that does nothing more than forward packets and change the vendor ID of any Palm device passed from device to host to be the vendor ID of an Apple device. After all, two can play the game of writing software that plays cheeky with the USB standard, right?:D

Again, you are assuming interoperability is required at a level far beyond the scope of USB. Apple is merely utilizing the USB standard to maintain the integrity of their own software.

This whole debate is ridiculous. iTunes is not a market, it's not an OS. It doesn't have a monopoly, and a "piece of software syncing with its company's devices" is nothing new. Palm Desktop software didn't sync with Windows Mobile phones. Zune Player doesn't sync with iPods. Moreover, iTunes exposes an approved interface (the iTunes Library XML) that allows for third-party syncing, as used by Blackberry (and others). Is it really such a hassle that "Palm Pre Sync" might pop up when you plug in your Pre instead of iTunes?

Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Palm did wrong, they got slapped. Instead of piggybacking on someone else's investment, maybe they should do a little grunt-work of their own.

[Mattie Num Nums]

I dont see how this is helpful for the tech world. Congrats all you Apple fanboys Apple has again shown they are growing to become a fascist company that is everything they were against when they started. Doesn't matter its just a matter of time before Missing sync or another company solves this.

[Kaibelf]

ZOMG HOW DARE YOU .. YOU EVIL PALM COMPANY! HOW DARE YOU! EVERYONE NEEDS TO.. not compete with the iphone!

This comment would make SOME sense if Palm actually.... I dunno.... had a competing software product? Oh wait, they don't. You don't slap a Mercedes hood ornament on a Honda, drive it into the dealership, and seriously expect service, do you?

[173080]

Apple has invested some serious capital in the development and marketing of iTunes.

Now Palm is freeloading off Apple's intellectual property and profiting from it.

As a shareholder, I believe Apple should sue Palm for damages.

[Eric5h5]

I dont see how this is helpful for the tech world.

Read the posts in this topic, then you will understand. Also try to be rational instead of throwing "fascist" comments around.

--Eric

[KnightWRX]

I dont see how this is helpful for the tech world. Congrats all you Apple fanboys Apple has again shown they are growing to become a fascist company that is everything they were against when they started. Doesn't matter its just a matter of time before Missing sync or another company solves this.

That's the point, why didn't Palm just ask Missing Sync to implement Pre support and pay for it ? Missing Sync doesn't spoof anything to sync with iTunes, they use the proper method.

The only thing that's not helpful to the tech world is Palm being lazy and trying to piggy back on somebody else's effort. This sets a dangerous precedent where companies won't innovate, they'll just spoof their way to the top.

[rmhurdman]

...
But, that's to be expected. The average IQ in the US is about 100, which is scary in its own right!
Mark

ROFL! After a long time of lurking, I had to register to point out:
The average IQ anywhere is 100, by definition. Your comment is what's scary.

I was a fan, user and developer with PalmOS for awhile, but the company has always been bad at "playing nice". Lately, they've gotten worse.

And I hear the average IQ at Palm is 100... scary!

[*LTD*]

Okay, look, you stupid monkeys who can't understand this point, but yet someone has to make it over and over again.

This isn't about iTunes being able to sync to other devices. It's about the fact that the Pre had to tell iTunes it as an IPOD to do it! So instead of getting the tiny bit of licensing needed to have their device sync to iTunes, they made their device LIE and pretend to be an ipod. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Apple doesn't want devices that aren't iPods, to tell iTunes that they are. That is all. This isn't about greed, it isn't about money, it's all about fixing a blatant lie that even M$ has the integrity to not perpetrate!

One of the best posts in this thread.

[Veri]

Again, you are assuming interoperability is required at a level far beyond the scope of USB.
Required by whom? As far as I can tell, I was making conclusions, based on the USB forum's actions, about the USB forum's interests. What this case has done is confirm that USB is a substandard standard -- but we all knew this already... even Apple, before it saw that the mass Windows market wasn't going to buy FireWire host controllers.

(I was also suggesting what Palm could do next to ensure their devices continue working with iTunes. Once Palm have written a Windows device driver to translate the identification on the host, Apple would have to take the bold and intrusive step of detecting what device drivers are running on the host... unless it plans to update the firmware of every iPod. Good luck on this pointless arms race, Apple.)

Apple is merely utilizing the USB standard to maintain the integrity of their own software.

Really? Really? The consumer sees Apple software working one day and not working the next; and that's all I see, also. The only people talking of Apple in a positive light over this matter are those who already have a affinity for Apple and go in for the full Apple hardware range. They wouldn't have bought Palm in the first place. Everyone else just sees Apple being its usual control freakish self.

Isn't it at least slightly more intellectually honest to admit this is just about Apple wanting more money before you get to enjoy its "experience"?

Is it really such a hassle that "Palm Pre Sync" might pop up when you plug in your Pre instead of iTunes?
I tend to think that interoperability has advanced computing... and interoperability is achieved with the careful implementation of many carefully written standards. You take away any single standard, and it's not such a hassle, but why shouldn't everyone else have that same privilege to hoard, then?

Instead of piggybacking on someone else's investment, maybe they should do a little grunt-work of their own.
Really, just writing their own synchronisation tool would not be difficult at all. There are already open source frameworks for synchronising with iPods. But look at all the press they are getting! And look at the bad taste Apple leaves in the mouths of everyone not already passionate for Apple! All this is before we even get to the principle of interoperability.

[Mattie Num Nums]

That's the point, why didn't Palm just ask Missing Sync to implement Pre support and pay for it ? Missing Sync doesn't spoof anything to sync with iTunes, they use the proper method.

The only thing that's not helpful to the tech world is Palm being lazy and trying to piggy back on somebody else's effort. This sets a dangerous precedent where companies won't innovate, they'll just spoof their way to the top.

I don't think it was lazyness more Palm just trying to stick it to Apple. They were trying to see how far they could push it, and they lost.

[kdarling]

The USB-IF responded in the only way logical and legal way it could.

The USB-IF is partially supported by the fees it gets for selling USB ids. Of course they're going to protect that income, and more importantly, their self-made "authority".

Palm hijacked Apple's USB identifier, which was SPECIFICALLY against the rules and requirements THEY AGREED TO when they signed on as a USB device maker.

Paying the USB-IF to get an id is voluntary. A smart move, but voluntary. It has nothing to do with the right to make USB devices.

Heck, you could start your own USB club and sell ids.

Palm knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway. They needed SOME sort of Hail Mary pass to try to compete with the rapidly growing iPhone market share. So, they cheated. Plain and simple. And now they're busted. Plain and simple.

Yep, but it was fun to watch. One could almost think that Jobs and Rubenstein have a side bet going on it. After all, Jobs got started by selling Blue Boxes to rip off the phone company by copying their codes.

To all the OMG posters: Please notice that Apple hasn't sued Palm, nor even publicly (if at all) complained to the USB-IF. They're just continuing to play cat and mouse with Palm.

Should Palm make their own sync app? Absolutely. This all smacks more of getting free press. David vs Goliath, etc. Apple knows it, and that's why they keep quiet.

[173080]

Isn't it at least slightly more intellectually honest to admit this is just about Apple wanting more money before you get to enjoy its "experience"?


Of course Apple should want money from people who want to enjoy its experience. To enjoy the Apple experience, you buy Apple hardware. It isn't Apple's obligation to let iTunes sync with anything other than their own products. :D

[aristotle]

You have no clue what you are talking about. The USB spec was introduced to encourage interoperability and reuse of device drivers. The vendor ID is intentionally supposed to have as little to do with what drivers are loaded as possible. The USB device classes are where this should primarily be determined.

I have no clue what I'm talking about? USB devices are categorized into classes of devices such as Human Interface device (HID) or a Mass storage device. When a device is plugged in, the computer queries the class of device first and then looks at the ID. If no ID specific device driver is found, it will fall back on the driver for the class of device. Please enlighten us as to which USB class the iPhone falls under the USB spec for syncing? It is definitely not recognized as a mass storage device. Without a driver specific for the iPhone on the target machine, there would be very little a computer could use the device for other than a modem for tether assuming that feature was turned on. When tethering is turned on, the iPhone emits an additional class to the connected computer and the computer then loads the driver for that class which represents a USB network adaptor.

You should be careful who you call clueless. I work as a software developer and I have been at my current employer for about a decade now. What is your profession?
:rolleyes:

[Oilbrnr]

What is a Pre?

[todd2000]

What is a Pre?

Best post in this thread! :D (Assuming it was a joke)

More on topic, Apple has worked for years, and spent millions of dollars developing, and marketing iTunes. What gives palm ANY right to just come right in and HIJACK iTunes to sync with the Pre? Can I sync my iPod with Zune software? No! What makes this any different?

This whole "Apple has the monopoly on music purchases and players/software therefore they should let other people use their Intellectual Property" is ridiculous. Apple DOES NOT have a monopoly, they just happen to make the most popular Media Management software and players in the world. People have a choice to get other media players and use other software to sync them. As others have stated even with iTunes if they do it right.

Would it be nice if Apple let other devices sync with iTunes? Of course it would, however they are under no obligation (legal or from the USB-IF) to do so. It makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to work on a project for years, and spend all that money on it just to let some company that is to lazy to develop their own software piggyback off of iTunes.

Bottom line, what Palm did was wrong, and their lucky Apple hasn't sued them yet, cause it may even be illegal. Apple owns iTunes, and they have every right to protect their property, and not allow access to any device that they want.

What part of that last sentence don't you people get?

[czachorski]

Really? Really? The consumer sees Apple software working one day and not working the next; and that's all I see, also.

This consumer, and most people syncing music players to their computers on the planet, see the Apple software work consistently day after day. Only that very small portion of the market that bought a device from a dubious company implementing questionable practices like Palm are experiencing what you describe. Buyer beware.


The only people talking of Apple in a positive light over this matter are those who already have a affinity for Apple and go in for the full Apple hardware range.

You mean only that 70% of the market that uses iPods and iPhones? That group of "the only people"....? lol


Everyone else just sees Apple being its usual control freakish self.


Everyone else being that 1% of the market out there that bought a Pre? That group of "everyone else"?

Too funny - your terms just crack me up.

[docholid]

This whole debate is ridiculous. iTunes is not a market

iTunes is, however, a separate product from an iPod or iPhone. When people bring up anti-trust concerns, the issue is that Apple is using their position with a product in one market segment (digital music distribution and management) to protect their position in others (portable music players and portable phones). If iTunes was made by somebody else, they'd have a vested interest in being able to sync natively with as many devices as possible, and that's the anti-trust problem.

Certainly, you can tell me that there are alternatives to the iTunes Store, but there's no denying that it holds a dominant market share when it comes to digital music distribution. You can also tell me that one can download software to sync with my iTunes material, but that's hardly the same, is it? If during the browser fiasco Microsoft had flatly disabled the ability to even install Netscape, and I told you that you could install Netscape by first installing a separate piece of software (say, VMWare with a Linux guest OS), you'd tell me the same thing. Requiring separate software creates a barrier to entry for other devices. No one is asking Apple to code for other devices, but iTunes would be a better product if the ability to natively sync was an open standard that Apple published to provide a better experience to the users of other portable devices.

I'm not so much disappointed in Apple, as they're doing what companies do...try to maximize their profits. I'm more disappointed in the Apple community...where I once saw a dedication to the ideals of openness and new ideas, I now see only blind dedication to a company and its products.

[Stratus Fear]

The USB standard isn't (and shouldn't) be concerned with an individual application. What it's concerned with is 1) any USB device can be connected to any USB host, whether an OS has a driver to recognize it or not 2) a handful of generic classes that every OS can have a driver for to support a multitude of devices of one class without any extra support and 3) that the OS generally recognizes devices that support USB. The USB-IF isn't here to play police for a user-facing application that doesn't even prevent a device from being connected to and recognized by the system. It's silly to think it is here for that purpose, and silly to think it's wrong that they don't do it now. USB is about general interoperability with computers, not specific software packages.

[Veri]

This consumer, and most people syncing music players to their computers on the planet, see the Apple software work consistently day after day
Perhaps I was not explicit enough: the consumer of Palm sees Apple software suddenly not working (as does the the observer). I'm not sure how you read into my post a suggestion that you or I, as iPod/iPhone users, would have our use of iTunes affected.

Only that very small portion of the market that bought a device from a dubious company implementing questionable practices like Palm are experiencing what you describe.
Hmm... is this like Apple saying the Windows experience on an Intel iMac is at least as good as on a Windows OEM box? Although in that case, because Microsoft actually tries to operate Windows on a wide range of hardware,it's not awful... just a lot more hairy than on the average PC (hey, Apple, I have a 64-bit workstation here! Fancy releasing some official drivers? actually, if you started by just getting warm reboots to reset the hardware properly I'd be happy).

You mean only that 70% of the market that uses iPods and iPhones? That group of "the only people"....? lol
I think I am a counterexample to your false dichotomy: I am currently using an iMac, connected to which is an iPod, but I have no particular love for Apple. At the time of purchase, they seemed like a good idea... they are still great machines. But, as an observer of Apple's behaviour, I am thoroughly put off them.

Incidentally, be careful with the numbers game: on an arbitrary desktop, there is a far higher than 70% chance that you won't see a Mac. Should we then dismiss the Apple Computer market entirely?I mean, a group that small must be irrelevant, right?

[Mark Booth]

ROFL! After a long time of lurking, I had to register to point out:
The average IQ anywhere is 100, by definition. Your comment is what's scary.


Yeah, I didn't word my post very well to carry the appropriate meaning. I realized it right after I posted it but I had to go pick up my wife from her exercise class and didn't have time to fix it.

What I meant was that, statistically, half the people have below average IQs.

Mark

[Stratus Fear]

Certainly, you can tell me that there are alternatives to the iTunes Store, but there's no denying that it holds a dominant market share when it comes to digital music distribution. You can also tell me that one can download software to sync with my iTunes material, but that's hardly the same, is it? If during the browser fiasco Microsoft had flatly disabled the ability to even install Netscape, and I told you that you could install Netscape by first installing a separate piece of software (say, VMWare with a Linux guest OS), you'd tell me the same thing. Requiring separate software creates a barrier to entry for other devices. No one is asking Apple to code for other devices, but iTunes would be a better product if the ability to natively sync was an open standard that Apple published to provide a better experience to the users of other portable devices.

I'm not so much disappointed in Apple, as they're doing what companies do...try to maximize their profits. I'm more disappointed in the Apple community...where I once saw a dedication to the ideals of openness and new ideas, I now see only blind dedication to a company and its products.

Again, why should Apple be asked to support products they don't produce? Mere consumer convenience is not a good argument for "barriers to entry." Palm has had every opportunity to make their own software for the Pre, to make it as easy and convenient to use ANY music library, and they passed on that. It's their fault their customers are being hurt by this, not anybody else's.

This isn't even in the same league as the Netscape debacle, even where Microsoft didn't outright prevent installation of the software. Microsoft was refusing some licensing terms to certain manufacturers if they included anything other than Internet Explorer. Apple is doing nothing of the sort here. Netscape at the time REQUIRED Windows. The Pre does not require iTunes. Apple's software does not and has never promised to work directly with the Palm Pre as OSes promise to generally work with a lot of different software. These two situations are not parallel to each other. Apple has supplied OPEN methods for other manufacturers to tie into an iTunes database. Instead of going that route as they should, Palm has decided it's better to put the onus of support on Apple. That's uncalled for. Since when are companies not expected to support their own products? Somebody, please answer this question.

[Rodimus Prime]

Again, why should Apple be asked to support products they don't produce? Mere consumer convenience is not a good argument for "barriers to entry." Palm has had every opportunity to make their own software for the Pre, to make it as easy and convenient to use ANY music library, and they passed on that. It's their fault their customers are being hurt by this, not anybody else's.

This isn't even in the same league as the Netscape debacle, even where Microsoft didn't outright prevent installation of the software. Microsoft was refusing some licensing terms to certain manufacturers if they included anything other than Internet Explorer. Apple is doing nothing of the sort here. Netscape at the time REQUIRED Windows. The Pre does not require iTunes. Apple's software does not and has never promised to work directly with the Palm Pre as OSes promise to generally work with a lot of different software. These two situations are not parallel to each other. Apple has supplied OPEN methods for other manufacturers to tie into an iTunes database. Instead of going that route as they should, Palm has decided it's better to put the onus of support on Apple. That's uncalled for. Since when are companies not expected to support their own products? Somebody, please answer this question.

You there is a difference between failure to support some one else product and intentionally breaking it.

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

[CQd44]

What is a Pre?

A miserable pile of technology.

But enough talk, have at you!

[pdjudd]

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

No, they tightened the recognition schemes of their own devices to stop others from spoofing them. Apple has not banned Palms USB ID from the Mac hardware level, it just closed a security hole in its own software. It had the effect of stopping the syncing of a certain market player but Apple never intended to build support in the first place and even announced that. Apple never said that iTunes was open to non Apple players like the Pre.

[Rodimus Prime]

No, they tightened the recognition schemes of their own devices to stop others from spoofing them. Apple has not banned Palms USB ID from the Mac hardware level, it just closed a security hole in its own software. It had the effect of stopping the syncing of a certain market player but Apple never intended to build support in the first place and even announced that. Apple never said that iTunes was open to non Apple players like the Pre.

What you are saying is splitting hairs. The ONLY reason apple did was it did was to stop Pre from syncing. They broke i, then claim some BS reasoning behind it.

Apple is breaking syncing and chances are it is with a very simple line If then statement line of code to do so. in the end what apple is doing is just making the consumer lose.

It sad the companies across the board pull these BS stunts off instead of making things easier for the consumer they make it harder and remove our choices. Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

[Mark Booth]

A friend suggested this analogy:

Complaining about Apple not allowing Palm to sync their Pre to iTunes is akin to complaining about Ford not putting their motor mounts in the proper place for a Chevy motor!

iTunes is Apple's software. If Palm wants to survive, it should get off its dead a$$ and make its own media syncing software to compete with iTunes. But, instead, they want to sit around and whine about not being able to use Apple's software. Idiots!

I guess I should feel sorry for those Palm Pre owners that bought into Palm's hype of syncing with iTunes. But I don't. In this day and age, anyone with a computer, an internet connection, and the Google URL could have researched this subject before making a purchase. That, plus the tiniest modicum of common sense should have inspired caution about buying into Palm's hype.

Mark

[Mark Booth]

Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

GOOD! I don't want Apple to play nice! I want Apple to CRUSH the others!

Business is war and war is hell!

Mark

[Stratus Fear]

You there is a difference between failure to support some one else product and intentionally breaking it.

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

You're looking at it the wrong way. By making sure it doesn't work, Apple is saying "we are not supporting this." There's no reason to leave it working if it's something they don't intend to support. Leaving it working is an admission that they want it to be there, and people will call them on it. Similar to trademark. If you don't protect your trademark when somebody violates it, you're saying you support their use of your trademark.

[Stratus Fear]

What you are saying is splitting hairs. The ONLY reason apple did was it did was to stop Pre from syncing. They broke i, then claim some BS reasoning behind it.

Apple is breaking syncing and chances are it is with a very simple line If then statement line of code to do so. in the end what apple is doing is just making the consumer lose.

It sad the companies across the board pull these BS stunts off instead of making things easier for the consumer they make it harder and remove our choices. Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

The ONLY reason Palm tried to hook into iTunes is because they didn't want to spend time creating their own solution.

The least Palm would need to do is make a sync conduit to hook into that XML file to sync the Pre with an iTunes library. In the end, by not doing it the provided and accepted way, they're making their consumers lose. If you're blaming this on Apple, you're saying the onus is on them to support Pre users.

[pdjudd]

What you are saying is splitting hairs. The ONLY reason apple did was it did was to stop Pre from syncing. They broke i, then claim some BS reasoning behind it.

Apple is breaking syncing and chances are it is with a very simple line If then statement line of code to do so. in the end what apple is doing is just making the consumer lose.

It sad the companies across the board pull these BS stunts off instead of making things easier for the consumer they make it harder and remove our choices. Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.


If a cop only ends up pulling you (and just you) over for speeding on a given day doesn't mean that the cop is targeting you, its only means that you are the only one that got caught by them. Palm is the only one being affected because nobody else is doing what Palm did. You sound surprised that when Palm acts alone, it looks like they get targeted. Its not becasue they have the flashy car - Apple doesn't give a rats tooshie. Palm wants to think that they can speed on any road they want to instead of the lane designated for the faster speeds. It doesn't work that way.

[Rodimus Prime]

A friend suggested this analogy:

Complaining about Apple not allowing Palm to sync their Pre to iTunes is akin to complaining about Ford not putting their motor mounts in the proper place for a Chevy motor!

iTunes is Apple's software. If Palm wants to survive, it should get off its dead a$$ and make its own media syncing software to compete with iTunes. But, instead, they want to sit around and whine about not being able to use Apple's software. Idiots!

I guess I should feel sorry for those Palm Pre owners that bought into Palm's hype of syncing with iTunes. But I don't. In this day and age, anyone with a computer, an internet connection, and the Google URL could have researched this subject before making a purchase. That, plus the tiniest modicum of common sense should have inspired caution about buying into Palm's hype.

Mark

You entire point using ford not making mounting points to chevy motor fails. Ford does not have to offer mounting points for a chevy motor but at the same time ford does not go out of its way to prevent chevy motors from being installed in its cars. if some one wanted to they can modify the mounting points of a Chevy motor and put it in the car. Or hell chevy could make a motor with the mounting points and put it in. Ford would not car.

Palm (Chevy) made mounting points for its motor (pre) to connect with iTunes (ford)

Most consumers to not want to install more crap on their computer. Having to install two piece of software to access ones music annoys most people.

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

[dguisinger]

The USB-IF is partially supported by the fees it gets for selling USB ids. Of course they're going to protect that income, and more importantly, their self-made "authority".

Paying the USB-IF to get an id is voluntary. A smart move, but voluntary. It has nothing to do with the right to make USB devices.

Heck, you could start your own USB club and sell ids.

Yep, but it was fun to watch. One could almost think that Jobs and Rubenstein have a side bet going on it. After all, Jobs got started by selling Blue Boxes to rip off the phone company by copying their codes.

To all the OMG posters: Please notice that Apple hasn't sued Palm, nor even publicly (if at all) complained to the USB-IF. They're just continuing to play cat and mouse with Palm.

Should Palm make their own sync app? Absolutely. This all smacks more of getting free press. David vs Goliath, etc. Apple knows it, and that's why they keep quiet.

As a hardware developer, I call bull on your stupidity or ignorance.
Yes, you can build a device that uses USB without paying for IDs, but you cannot legally sell it with the USB logos because you have no license to the logos without it. You also don't have licenses to required patents which are held in the pool managed by the USB-IF.

The codes are also distinct and mandatory for a reason. Plug-n-Play is a self-regulated house of cards. If people start ignoring the rules, the whole house of cards collapses. If an OS cannot guarantee the device it sees is what it says it is, how can it load drivers automatically? What if you are selling hardware widgets, and your device starts getting identified wrong by Windows because someone else overlapped your IDs and Microsoft built exceptions into their system to prioritize choosing the other persons product? You'd be pissed as all hell if the device that was properly designed and built under the rules that you are selling didn't work when it got to the consumers boxes.

All apple is doing is properly identifying their devices and properly loading the right drivers as designed by the USB spec. The iPod is not a generic class, its an user defined class, specific to the vendorid and device id... meaning no one has the right to step in and use it with their drivers.

Further more, Palm used proprietary information brought with several ex-Apple employees on how the internal syncing mechanism of the iPod worked. The Palm Pre does not natively use the iPod database, yet it presents the database to iTunes when its in iPod mode, and then converts it all back to Pre's native database. Who the hell thought this was a good use of engineering time? It was obvious from the get go they would get shut out... and using propriety trade secrets stolen in that matter can get you in a lot of trouble...

[dguisinger]

You entire point using ford not making mounting points to chevy motor fails. Ford does not have to offer mounting points for a chevy motor but at the same time ford does not go out of its way to prevent chevy motors from being installed in its cars. if some one wanted to they can modify the mounting points of a Chevy motor and put it in the car. Or hell chevy could make a motor with the mounting points and put it in. Ford would not car.

Palm (Chevy) made mounting points for its motor (pre) to connect with iTunes (ford)

Most consumers to not want to install more crap on their computer. Having to install two piece of software to access ones music annoys most people.

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.


Wrong again, if it made mounting points, they'd have made something that used the published spec (mounting points) for syncing with iTunes, not use Apple's proprietary ID's and internal undocumented sync methods

[Mark Booth]

You entire point using ford not making mounting points to chevy motor fails. Ford does not have to offer mounting points for a chevy motor but at the same time ford does not go out of its way to prevent chevy motors from being installed in its cars. if some one wanted to they can modify the mounting points of a Chevy motor and put it in the car. Or hell chevy could make a motor with the mounting points and put it in. Ford would not car.

Palm (Chevy) made mounting points for its motor (pre) to connect with iTunes (ford)

But adapting Ford motor mounts to accept a Chevy motor does not violate any agreement Chevy specifically made NOT TO DO THAT!

Palm DID join the USB-IF and, in doing so, they AGREED they would not spoof/hijack another vendor's USB identifier. Yet, they turned right around and did just that anyway.

Besides, the analogy wasn't comparing Ford & Chevy to Apple & Palm. Rather, it's a comparison of YOU COMPLAINERS!

But, to humor you... sure, the Chevy guy figured out how to get his motor into a Ford. But that doesn't preclude Ford from changing the motor mounts on the next model to make it more difficult!

I don't know if Apple will file a lawsuit against Palm or not, but I personally hope they do. I think they have a dead-bang winner. But the only problem is damages. Apple would have to prove they lost iPhone sales because of Palm's actions. And, frankly, Palm Pre sales, when compared to the iPhone, are pitiful. So, I think Apple would have a hard time proving significant damages.

Mark

[Mark Booth]

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

Competition?!?! You call spooking/hijacking another vendor's USB identifier competition? That's not competing, that's stealing!

Competition would be Palm building their OWN media syncing software. Competition would be Palm actually trying to make their own media software so wonderful that consumers would abandon iTunes and move to Palm's creation.

Competition is building a BETTER mousetrap, not building an ordinary mousetrap that relies on the features of someone else's mousetrap to succeed.

And, yes, I am proud to be an Apple fan! Are you just as proud to be an Apple hater?

Mark

[Rodimus Prime]

Competition?!?! You call spooking/hijacking another vendor's USB identifier competition? That's not competing, that's stealing!

Competition would be Palm building their OWN media syncing software. Competition would be Palm actually trying to make their own media software so wonderful that consumers would abandon iTunes and move to Palm's creation.

Competition is building a BETTER mousetrap, not building an ordinary mousetrap that relies on the features of someone else's mousetrap to succeed.

And, yes, I am proud to be an Apple fan! Are you just as proud to be an Apple hater?

Mark


My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.

[dguisinger]

Competition?!?! You call spooking/hijacking another vendor's USB identifier competition? That's not competing, that's stealing!

Competition would be Palm building their OWN media syncing software. Competition would be Palm actually trying to make their own media software so wonderful that consumers would abandon iTunes and move to Palm's creation.

Competition is building a BETTER mousetrap, not building an ordinary mousetrap that relies on the features of someone else's mousetrap to succeed.

And, yes, I am proud to be an Apple fan! Are you just as proud to be an Apple hater?

Mark


Don't bother arguing with them... you can't squeeze water, knowledge, or reason from that rock...

[*LTD*]

You there is a difference between failure to support some one else product and intentionally breaking it.

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

"Syncing" is what RIM does, and what third party solutions allow, and what Apple allows cooperative parties to enjoy in a specific, workable way. Palm was never "syncing", it was breaking the rules and taking for itself the kind of access to iTunes it was never granted in the first place. Palm essentially hijacked iTunes. Not even MS, for all of their copying and following, would attempt such a thing.

[OllyW]

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

That's only for the USA. It's half that worldwide.

[dguisinger]

My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.

There was no point to what you just said
Because Apple is not trying to use parts of MS software without permission to make OS X work in a way to attract MS customers to switch.

...
FAIL

[Rodimus Prime]

There was no point to what you just said
Because Apple is not trying to use parts of MS software without permission to make OS X work in a way to attract MS customers to switch.

...
FAIL



Thank you for not reading what I quoted.

I pointed out building a better mouse trap does not mean jack in getting people to changed and I provided proof of that. Everyone argue that Palm needs to build a better mouse trap and I just show it is a lot more complicated than that to get people to changed.

So Mr. Blind man please do not just say Fail when you release that you have no counter argument. Typic blind man comeback when they have no counter point.

[ALUOp]

P: I am suing A. I pretended to be A so that I could hook up with A's wife.
Judge: You are wrong.

Isn't this expected?

How come there are bunch of people saying "hey, A has the obligation to allow others to share his wife"? Just because A's wife is so good and everybody loves her?
What kind of logic is this?

iTunes is developed and owned by Apple.
Apple can even choose to disallow iTunes to work with some particular models of iPod or iPhone.
It may not make sense to you and you may not be happy with it but it is their right to do so.
Isn't this straightforward enough?

[dguisinger]

Thank you for not reading what I quoted.

I pointed out building a better mouse trap does not mean jack in getting people to changed and I provided proof of that. Everyone argue that Palm needs to build a better mouse trap and I just show it is a lot more complicated than that to get people to changed.

So Mr. Blind man please do not just say Fail when you release that you have no counter argument. Typic blind man comeback when they have no counter point.

Actually I did read what you wrote. Your argument is too broken to justify a detailed response.

Your argument was why should Palm bother making a better mouse trap because it may not get them more business.

Palm doesn't have to make a better mouse trap, they just have to make a mouse trap.

Right now they are doing the equivalent of selling an empty box that says mouse trap, but hoping you can still get the mouse trap elsewhere from someone as charity.

And if you take it to the logical conclusion, you are saying its not worth it for Apple to make their own stuff because they are in the minority; therefore my response was valid, where I said it would be wrong for Apple to build OS X off Windows without paying for it.

I know, I have to dumb things down for you, I understand.

[stillill]

Anyone think Apple should maybe put some of their effort into fixing the cr@p that is Snow Leopard rather than squishing Palm? Oh, that's right - they already have our $30 for that particular placemat.

[Stratus Fear]

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

This has nothing to do with "fanboys." This has to do with operating your business appropriately. Also, if Palm created their own syncing/music management program, what if it ended up being BETTER than iTunes? That's real competition. By just using iTunes, there's actually less competition.

[dguisinger]

Anyone think Apple should maybe put some of their effort into fixing the cr@p that is Snow Leopard rather than squishing Palm? Oh, that's right - they already have our $30 for that particular placemat.

Hmm, anyone think people should do the jobs they are paid to do? Like iTunes developers working on iTunes and OS X developers working on OS X? Oh wait, you couldn't whine then could you...

That said, has anyone else noticed a lot of extra beach balls in Snow Leopard? I tend to get them in Safari but it causes the entire system to lock for a few minutes.

[satcomer]

As you guys can see, I've been around MacRumors for a while. And Appleinsider before that, etc.

For the last 11 years I've been a complete Apple fanboy (Since buying an iMac on 8/15/1998).

I glad for you stating this. TMI!

But sheesh, I really can't believe how many of you are applauding Apple's move to restrict interoperability. And yes, this is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior. Apple is using their dominance in digital music players (both hardware and software) to keep alternative products from utilizing iTunes.

You have to really know your tech history! This is PERSONAL for Apple, plain and simple. Palm is filled to the brim with ex-Apple employees since Palm's beginning. It is almost like Hatfield-McCoy feud between Apple & Palm.

Nobody asked them to support Pre syncing. Every consumer with a Pre would have been fine with them ignoring it. As consumers, we would have had more choice if they did ignore it.

That sounds like a Linux Fan Boy talking. You might as well say water is wet!

What happened to the "It's better to be a pirate than join the Navy" mentality that I loved about the Apple community? It's like most people here have become drones... as if the people applauding Microsoft's abusive monopoly shifted over the last decade and now make up most of the Apple community.

You watch to much TV because that was a TV quote not a real one.

It's time to Think Different again, folks.

I do think different. I don't blinding worship ant company but I don't jump to conclusions. As I said before there is personal history in all of this .Apple is mad and always will be mad at Palm. This all is just a long chain of shots over the wall between the two companies. My point is study history and things really start to make sense in the tech world. Both Apple & Palm are filled with people and people tend to hold grudges.

[OllyW]

You watch to much TV because that was a TV quote not a real one.

You are wrong, it really happened (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Pirate_Flag.txt).

[Mark Booth]

My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.

Good strategy! When you are losing the argument, change the subject! :rolleyes:

Mark

[dguisinger]

You are wrong, it really happened (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Pirate_Flag.txt).

That quote had everything to do with organizational structure and bureaucracy (also in the navy); not stealing other people's work.

[Mark Booth]

Anyone think Apple should maybe put some of their effort into fixing the cr@p that is Snow Leopard rather than squishing Palm? Oh, that's right - they already have our $30 for that particular placemat.

Now that I found and fixed the font conflict I was having, Snow Leopard is purring along perfectly for me!

And, as far as "squishing Palm" is concerned.... Apple is a publicly traded company. They HAVE to spend time, energy and resources to deal with the Palms and Psystars of the world. If they don't, they aren't fulfilling the legal obligation they have to their shareholders.

Mark

[Mattie Num Nums]

The USB-IF is partially supported by the fees it gets for selling USB ids. Of course they're going to protect that income, and more importantly, their self-made "authority".



Paying the USB-IF to get an id is voluntary. A smart move, but voluntary. It has nothing to do with the right to make USB devices.

Heck, you could start your own USB club and sell ids.



Yep, but it was fun to watch. One could almost think that Jobs and Rubenstein have a side bet going on it. After all, Jobs got started by selling Blue Boxes to rip off the phone company by copying their codes.

To all the OMG posters: Please notice that Apple hasn't sued Palm, nor even publicly (if at all) complained to the USB-IF. They're just continuing to play cat and mouse with Palm.

Should Palm make their own sync app? Absolutely. This all smacks more of getting free press. David vs Goliath, etc. Apple knows it, and that's why they keep quiet.

Bingo.

[hodgeheg]

The USB-IF responded in the only way logical and legal way it could. Palm hijacked Apple's USB identifier, which was SPECIFICALLY against the rules and requirements THEY AGREED TO when they signed on as a USB device maker. Palm knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway. They needed SOME sort of Hail Mary pass to try to compete with the rapidly growing iPhone market share. So, they cheated. Plain and simple. And now they're busted. Plain and simple.

But what is scarier than Palm's outright deceptive actions, is the number of folks in this thread that simply don't "get it". I mean those of you that simply can't understand why what Palm did was completely wrong. It was immoral, probably illegal, and just plain wrong. Yet, too many don't get it at all and that is scary!

But, that's to be expected. The average IQ in the US is about 100, which is scary in its own right! :eek:

Mark

For the record, I completely agree with you re:Palm, but IQ is *defined* such that 100 is the average for the population (no, I don't know what kind of average). Therefore even if intelligence rose drastically for absolutely everyone and we were all suddenly geniuses, IQ would be renormalised, and the average IQ (I'm not sure whether they're using mean, mode, median etc) would still be 100. I could be wrong, but this is how I understand it!

[Veri]

Yes, you can build a device that uses USB without paying for IDs, but you cannot legally sell it with the USB logos because you have no license to the logos without it.
I have had a computer with a USB since 1998, I think... it was only a couple of days ago that I committed the USB logo to memory. Take 100 people off the street and see how many of those not in the tech industry can draw it, or even identify it. In summary, no consumer cares about the logo, and these days would probably even take it for granted that an external peripheral is USB/that-rectangular-connector.

To knock down the converse, how big is your pile of USB devices with the USB logo which nevertheless hang horribly with various combinations of operating systems, hubs, etc? Even bigger than mine, I am sure.

You also don't have licenses to required patents which are held in the pool managed by the USB-IF.
What are the nonobvious original ideas in the USB specification? It sounds like you're saying that some patents need to be challenged.

[dguisinger]

I have had a computer with a USB since 1998, I think... it was only a couple of days ago that I committed the USB logo to memory. Take 100 people off the street and see how many of those not in the tech industry can draw it, or even identify it. In summary, no consumer cares about the logo, and these days would probably even take it for granted that an external peripheral is USB/that-rectangular-connector.

To knock down the converse, how big is your pile of USB devices with the USB logo which nevertheless hang horribly with various combinations of operating systems, hubs, etc? Even bigger than mine, I am sure.


What are the nonobvious original ideas in the USB specification? It sounds like you're saying that some patents need to be challenged.

I love it how people find things to be obvious and unoriginal once they've been using it for 15 years. At the time USB was introduced, a hub topology plug-n-play self powered serial bus was rather unique (FireWire is not hub topology), and USB required less brains on the device side as it was host driven which brought lower costs. It also has a unique electrical signaling system. It also had a specific connector which is covered in patents.


Just because you don't bother to look at logos on packaging doesn't mean vendors don't want the logo, and that vendors don't want all the other advantages of a working Plug-n-Play spec that others don't trample on for monetary gain at the expense of consumers and developers playing by the rules...

[hodgeheg]

ROFL! After a long time of lurking, I had to register to point out:
The average IQ anywhere is 100, by definition. Your comment is what's scary.

I was a fan, user and developer with PalmOS for awhile, but the company has always been bad at "playing nice". Lately, they've gotten worse.

And I hear the average IQ at Palm is 100... scary!

Ah, someone got there before me. But, unless Palm is the population from which the IQ has been normalized at 100, the average IQ at Palm will not be 100 (unless purely coincidentally) since they presumably attempt to select for good employees and are a tech company it's likely that the average IQ for Palm employees is above 100. It's the population that matters. It's just not surprising that for a large subpopulation (such as the US) the average would come out at about the normalization for the total population (and I don't know what population they actually use, or what samples they take from it).

That said, whoever at Palm decided on their recent course of actions was having a dumb moment (imo)(unless as some have suggested it is primarily a publicity stunt).

PS sorry for being boring.

[MacFly123]

To all the people in the prior forums on this topic that say myself and others are stupid for thinking Apple has no right to do what they are doing and that Palm is being retarded..... SUCK ONE PALM!!! :D

No, I think the Pre and WebOS are impressive and well designed, but this whole iTunes thing with Palm is just ridiculous. Honestly you complain to an organization by breaking their policies??? :confused: Grow up Palm! :rolleyes:

[dguisinger]

To all the people in the prior forums on this topic that say myself and others are stupid for thinking Apple has no right to do what they are doing and that Palm is being retarded..... SUCK ONE PALM!!! :D

No, I think the Pre and WebOS are impressive and well designed, but this whole iTunes thing with Palm is just ridiculous. Honestly you complain to an organization by breaking their policies??? :confused: Grow up Palm! :rolleyes:

rather ballsy if you ask me

[*LTD*]

My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it. There are consumers in particular income brackets that are locked out of Apple's demographic. This is one of the defining characteristics of any Premium product. And Apple rules the Premium end. If a consumer has $1000+ in their pocket, chances are a Mac will be at or near the top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment.

Apple deliberately, and this has been stated numerous times by Jobs and Cook et al, does not license their OS out to everyone and their dog, and they deliberately choose to stay out of the low end, and even shun a good portion of the mid-end.

There are between 50-70 million Mac users. The Mac is understood as, and marketed as, a Premium product. Fewer units sold, but at much higher margins. Apple has stated quite clearly that they refuse to operate at the low-end. This means they provide a vastly different (and very attractive and coveted) user experience that people (who are able to) are willing to pay more for. Apple would not cheapen or muddy its brand image by competing on the same level with the likes of Dell, for example. Either you differentiate yourself via some clear, desirable, distinguishing features, or you compete on price like the rest of the pack.

This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.There are substantial implications to Microsoft under these circumstances. Just one of the reasons they are opening these Stores. MS is trying very hard to shed its bargain-bin image. A bit late for that, though.

"Market Share" is very often misunderstood. With a fraction of Microsoft's market share, Apple is not only thriving, but it also is in a position as:

1) The industry innovator
2) The most powerful brand in the industry today
3) Producer of the most coveted notebooks and devices in the industry today
4) The one to follow. Apple does everyone else's R&D for them (apparently.)

So when you discuss "market share", you need to determine exactly which end of the market you're talking about. The lion's share of what part of the market? The Premium end of the market pyramid is near or at the top. It's much more narrow, but the consumer approaches tech (and other products) from an entirely different perspective (often not on price), with difference epxectations that Apple happens to cater to. Ideally, you WANT to rule the Premium end. It's these customers that build your brand, that make it desirable, and that will pay top dollar for what you provide.

[Mark Booth]

For the record, I completely agree with you re:Palm, but IQ is *defined* such that 100 is the average for the population (no, I don't know what kind of average). Therefore even if intelligence rose drastically for absolutely everyone and we were all suddenly geniuses, IQ would be renormalised, and the average IQ (I'm not sure whether they're using mean, mode, median etc) would still be 100. I could be wrong, but this is how I understand it!

Yeah, I responded to this later in the thread. The point I was trying to make is half the population has a two-digit IQ.

Mark

[NT1440]

My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.
:confused:
What does this have to do with any of this? Palm used another companies ID number, which breaks the rules they themselves agreed to. Its that simple.

[Target362]

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

[hodgeheg]

Yeah, I responded to this later in the thread. The point I was trying to make is half the population has a two-digit IQ.

Mark

Ah, sorry - missed your response

[satcomer]

You are wrong, it really happened (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Pirate_Flag.txt).

I am corrected. Thank you.

[Mark Booth]

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

As a stockholder, I COMPLETELY disagree! Apple should do everything it can to sell as many iPhones and iPods possible. It should fight any situation where a competitor is trying to use Apple's software in a way that potentially reduces or impacts Apple's sales of iPhones and iPods.

Opening up iTunes will NOT increase Apple's sales. It will only benefit competitors.

And you're DREAMING if you don't think Apple would get hit with tons of product support headaches if they DID open up iTunes to competitor's devices. Just listen to any Windows tech show and hear all of the idiots that continue to click on that link in an E-mail that promptly installs malware on their PC. Those idiots would be calling Apple right & left!

Mark

[mccoma]

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

iTunes is open. It requires a developer to parse an XML file and write their own sync. Many have done it without a problem.

The second part of your statement never works. The customer is going to go schedule a meeting with an Apple Genius and be told that Apple doesn't support the device, and the customer will be mad a think its Apple's fault. Support costs for even non-supported items does add up.

Palm went against the letter of a contract they signed to get their ID from USB-IF. That is the simple fact. They also refused to spend money / developer time creating their own sync (or buying one from someone).

They want publicity, to irritate Apple, and IMHO time to develop their own solution now that resources are freed up. They have already cost Apple time and money that would of otherwise not have been spent (and maybe support time at Apple retail).

[docholid]

Again, why should Apple be asked to support products they don't produce? Mere consumer convenience is not a good argument for "barriers to entry." Palm has had every opportunity to make their own software for the Pre, to make it as easy and convenient to use ANY music library, and they passed on that. It's their fault their customers are being hurt by this, not anybody else's.

This isn't even in the same league as the Netscape debacle, even where Microsoft didn't outright prevent installation of the software. Microsoft was refusing some licensing terms to certain manufacturers if they included anything other than Internet Explorer. Apple is doing nothing of the sort here. Netscape at the time REQUIRED Windows. The Pre does not require iTunes. Apple's software does not and has never promised to work directly with the Palm Pre as OSes promise to generally work with a lot of different software. These two situations are not parallel to each other. Apple has supplied OPEN methods for other manufacturers to tie into an iTunes database. Instead of going that route as they should, Palm has decided it's better to put the onus of support on Apple. That's uncalled for. Since when are companies not expected to support their own products? Somebody, please answer this question.

Apple doesn't have to support any non-Apple devices (Palm supports the sync, and clearly makes updates to accommodate changes to iTunes), but as I said, iTunes would be a better product if more devices could sync natively. Apple actually does more work to tighten their authentication with Apple products than they would to just let others that have reverse-engineered the sync process keep doing it (which is to say, the latter takes no work at all). Their rationale for hardware-lock is transparent, and possibly runs afoul of anti-trust regulations.

Much of the argument here has been predicated on the idea that Apple is just free to do whatever it wants with the interoperability of all of its products. This is true to an extent, but when they use their position in one market segment to leverage themselves in another, that's unfair competition.

The point of the MS-Netscape comparison wasn't that the two situations were comparable in all respects. The idea, however, that twisting vendors' arms to leverage their market position is materially different from using technical means to do so is bordering on silly. You say that Netscape "required" Windows (where it clearly did not), but isn't it just as true that the iTunes Store requires iTunes? The fact is that some 70% of digital music sales are attributed to the iTunes Store. Apple uses this fact to leverage their media players partially by forcing an inferior (more complex to set up, for instance) experience on iTunes users that don't use their hardware.

[Target362]

As a stockholder, I COMPLETELY disagree! Apple should do everything it can to sell as many iPhones and iPods possible. It should fight any situation where a competitor is trying to use Apple's software in a way that potentially reduces or impacts Apple's sales of iPhones and iPods.

Opening up iTunes will NOT increase Apple's sales. It will only benefit competitors.

And you're DREAMING if you don't think Apple would get hit with tons of product support headaches if they DID open up iTunes to competitor's devices. Just listen to any Windows tech show and hear all of the idiots that continue to click on that link in an E-mail that promptly installs malware on their PC. Those idiots would be calling Apple right & left!

Mark


no I'm not dreaming, I'm just saying apple needs to stop being so demaning over its products.

and the same thing can happen on macs.

[Veri]

hub topology plug-n-play self powered serial bus was rather unique. USB required less brains on the device side as it was host driven which brought lower costs.
At this high level, to use the most familiar contemporary example, you're describing 10BaseT Ethernet. The crippling is to designate exactly one computer as "host". The remaining are "devices" which always set destination MAC to host's. You can minimise device logic by restricting to one host controller which can initiate transfers, but any number of buses have done this before.

What specifically is clever about the detail of the USB protocol? It seems to do what I'd expect: packet communication with rudimentary handshaking and error-detection, enumeration of interfaces per device, setting up of pipes, various transfer modes, higher layers (eg of scsi-like mass storage)... of course the detail is specific to USB, but what's new?

It also has a unique electrical signaling system.
This is where I'm ignorant, as my EE knowledge is abysmal. What's clever here?

It also had a specific connector which is covered in patents.
Reminds me of HP-IL connectors from '80s HP calculators. (edit: just hunted, not quite as i recall!)

vendors don't want all the other advantages of a working Plug-n-Play spec that others don't trample on for monetary gain
But, afaict, the Palm Pre plugged in and played with iTunes fine by identifying as a Palm vendor with Apple interface classes (acceptable). Then Apple modified iTunes so you could no longer plug in and play with the Pre using iTunes (trample for monetary gain).

[MorphingDragon]

Answers in bold.

Haa, little bit pregnant.

[twilson]

Are you saying it is not intended to use interface classes to identify the interface?

I'm say that interoperability is referring to how USB devices communicate their capabilities to USB Host hardware and operating systems.

Most people here seem to think it means that all USB devices should interoperate with 100% functionality with proprietary software.

Clearly this isn't the way it was intended to work, it just seems people read that way to try and serve "an agenda" or to "stick it to some company" when it suits their needs.

There is a wealth of information exposed via USB devices, thanks to the interoperability that USB provides. Without being able to use the device, you can garner tons of data still.

The phrase "as they please" must be taken in context; it should not mean that using a 255 class means we can ignore the letter and spirit of the rest of the USB standard

Why does everyone talk about this intangible "spirit" of the standard?

A standard has a specification, end of story. Some parts of the spec are mandatory (such as only using your own Vendor ID) and others are optional (such as you do not have to expose your device as Mass Storage if you don't want to).

"As they please" can easily mean "to provide a communication channel between proprietary software and hardware using a proprietary protocol".

Just because something is a standard does not mean that everything using that standard is an open free-for-all, where do people get that idea from?

or ignore general conventions of standards. To wit: you are still announcing a particular subclass and protocol to which your device conforms. Here remains where it is defined, not in the vendor ID.

Still, a vendor is not required to support every device in their proprietary software just because it reports their Vendor ID.

(A possible concern: surely if it is vendor specific, only the vendor ID can differentiate between otherwise identical subclass/protocol assignments by a different vendor? this is a technical flaw in field lengths, which are not sufficiently long that the globally unique identifiers can be assigned without central authority. As pre-broken versions of iTunes illustrated, using a vendor specific base class does not create a mass of conflicts.)

Apple weren't using the Vendor ID previously in pre-broken iTunes, they were using the product strings, which can take upto 255 (at least 128) characters I believe, more than enough to prevent a conflict.

All so, just so you know the Vendor ID supports upto 65,535 vendors, and each vendor can have 65,535 products as both the Vendor ID and the Product ID make up a unique device identifier, so I think there are enough to go round. Effectively this supports around 4.3 BILLION devices.

But there are also tons of string containers that can be used to identify devices uniquely too. There definitely isn't any issue there.

[jzuena]

And that completely defets the purpose. All play list are lost. That is what really matters.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Apple is they do not play nice with others. It is their way or the highway. The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software. WMP recognize iTunes as a MP3 player and offers to sync up with it but of course the iPod rejects it. I know people who love WMP over iTunes and WMP has some features that are just better than what is in iTunes. But the iPod will not play nice with it.

iTunes only places nice with the iPod.

Many ways I hope that apple aditude comes back to bit them in the ass on how they treat others and refusing to play nice. The Apple standard = the consumer loses because we get fewer choices.

Apple is a chicken. They are afraid that there stuff can not stand up on its own so it forces it will by using things from other areas.

Personally I view the actions apple been taken against the Pre as admitting it is scared and a chicken . It see the Pre as a threat so it wants to break it.

If the iPod isn't working with WMP, shouldn't Microsoft be fixing that issue? After all, standards mean that they should play with other vendor's hardware, right? And once they get the fix, they should port it to the Zune sync app just to be thorough. After all, they shouldn't expect people who like their software better to buy a Zune, they should help Apple push more iPods.

But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

I really don't understand the "yaay Apple won" sentiment on here. Everyone loses, except maybe Apple shareholders.

Wow, Apple can make 99 cents on a song after losing $200+ on an iPhone sale. I'm willing to give you 99 cents right now in exchange for $200. Are you willing to make that exchange? Can you see why Apple might not want to either?

Really? Really? The consumer sees Apple software working one day and not working the next; and that's all I see, also. The only people talking of Apple in a positive light over this matter are those who already have a affinity for Apple and go in for the full Apple hardware range. They wouldn't have bought Palm in the first place. Everyone else just sees Apple being its usual control freakish self.

Isn't it at least slightly more intellectually honest to admit this is just about Apple wanting more money before you get to enjoy its "experience"?

I tend to think that interoperability has advanced computing... and interoperability is achieved with the careful implementation of many carefully written standards. You take away any single standard, and it's not such a hassle, but why shouldn't everyone else have that same privilege to hoard, then?

Really, just writing their own synchronisation tool would not be difficult at all. There are already open source frameworks for synchronising with iPods. But look at all the press they are getting! And look at the bad taste Apple leaves in the mouths of everyone not already passionate for Apple! All this is before we even get to the principle of interoperability.

I'm willing to bet that anyone who hasn't tried to sync a Pre to iTunes not only couldn't care less about this, but probably hasn't even heard about this issue at all.

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

And these people would show up at Apple and demand Apple prove it isn't their software before going to the hardware vendor. Then they would still say Apple's product is crap because they claimed "it just works" and something didn't.

Apple doesn't have to support any non-Apple devices (Palm supports the sync, and clearly makes updates to accommodate changes to iTunes), but as I said, iTunes would be a better product if more devices could sync natively. Apple actually does more work to tighten their authentication with Apple products than they would to just let others that have reverse-engineered the sync process keep doing it (which is to say, the latter takes no work at all). Their rationale for hardware-lock is transparent, and possibly runs afoul of anti-trust regulations.


Please read the entire thread and the 5-10 others on this topic to see why making iTunes work only with Apple iPods is not against any anti-trust regulations. Hint, search on "iTunes isn't a market, it is a product".

[MorphingDragon]

Hmm, anyone think people should do the jobs they are paid to do? Like iTunes developers working on iTunes and OS X developers working on OS X? Oh wait, you couldn't whine then could you...

That said, has anyone else noticed a lot of extra beach balls in Snow Leopard? I tend to get them in Safari but it causes the entire system to lock for a few minutes.

Nope, but my sister doesnt use safari.

[dguisinger]

At this high level, to use the most familiar contemporary example, you're describing 10BaseT Ethernet. The crippling is to designate exactly one computer as "host". The remaining are "devices" which always set destination MAC to host's. You can minimise device logic by restricting to one host controller which can initiate transfers, but any number of buses have done this before.

What specifically is clever about the detail of the USB protocol? It seems to do what I'd expect: packet communication with rudimentary handshaking and error-detection, enumeration of interfaces per device, setting up of pipes, various transfer modes, higher layers (eg of scsi-like mass storage)... of course the detail is specific to USB, but what's new?


This is where I'm ignorant, as my EE knowledge is abysmal. What's clever here?
)

Actually, Ethernet isn't a hub-based topology; its a repeater based topology. Messages are broadcasted and no particular end point is in charge. Switches fulfill more of that end goal, but weren't part of the original spec - but that would be off topic.

The point is, patents allow for patenting additions or new uses for previous inventions, even if a concept has been used, if its used in a new way or modified for a particular use, that is patentable.

The transceivers have a specific electrical design; you cannot run a USB bus with standard micro-controller or FPGA pins which generally are quite versatile and can be used in many applications; you actually need to at a minimum get a USB PHY.


But, afaict, the Palm Pre plugged in and played with iTunes fine by identifying as a Palm vendor with Apple interface classes (acceptable). Then Apple modified iTunes so you could no longer plug in and play with the Pre using iTunes (trample for monetary gain).

no, that is not acceptable. acceptable would be creating software that recognizes and uses apple's iPod hardware. That is the direction the USB specs call for. A device may not impersonate another device. Those are the rules maintained by the spec and the implementers forum, end of story. Its identity theft.

[stillill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillill
But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

Wow, Apple can make 99 cents on a song after losing $200+ on an iPhone sale. I'm willing to give you 99 cents right now in exchange for $200. Are you willing to make that exchange? Can you see why Apple might not want to either?


They're not losing a $200 sale. No one's going to buy an iPhone just so they can get easy iTunes syncing.

But the people already happy with Palm/Blackberrys/whatever - they're locking them out of easy syncing. Apple is leaving money on the table - way more than 99c (you know anyone who ever only bought one song?). Wow indeed.

I understand the business need to protect their hardware, this just seems shortsighted in general, but par for the course for them I suppose. In this instance I agree Palm seem to have gone about this really really badly too.


Now that I found and fixed the font conflict I was having, Snow Leopard is purring along perfectly for me!


That's cool I guess. Try using the Remote with anything (e.g. Plex) and see iTunes take over :(

[Mark Booth]

That's cool I guess. Try using the Remote with anything (e.g. Plex) and see iTunes take over :(

The folks at Plex are aware of the bug and have provided a workaround at their site (see their blog). Apple is aware of the bug and there should be a fix forthcoming.

But, yes, this is one of the reasons my Mac Mini (we have four Macs in the house) is still at Leopard. My Mac Mini is used exclusively as a home theater PC and I need remote control for my theater presentations (though, in most cases, I use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse anyway).

Mark

[KnightWRX]

But the people already happy with Palm/Blackberrys/whatever - they're locking them out of easy syncing.

No, they are not. People with Blackberrys/whatever are already using syncing solutions based on the proper methods of syncing, which is using the XML file through a vendor provided software.

Only Palm users are getting shafted, and it's not by Apple, it's by Palm themselves. Palm just needs to quit trying to hack their way into iTunes and just write a syncing software that uses the XML file already.

[stillill]

No, they are not. People with Blackberrys/whatever are already using syncing solutions based on the proper methods of syncing, which is using the XML file through a vendor provided software.

Only Palm users are getting shafted, and it's not by Apple, it's by Palm themselves. Palm just needs to quit trying to hack their way into iTunes and just write a syncing software that uses the XML file already.

Ok, locking them out of one-step (i.e. easy) syncing then - one where they don't have to install another piece of software to get to their itunes library. I'm thinking, maybe make it easy for the consumers who buy their music from you? Just a thought.

Thanks Mark. I've seen the Plex blog, but am not so comfortable messing with system files (or killing Front Row), will wait for Apple to do some bug testing/fixing. Or maybe they'll launch a TV-viewing platform in Front Row and only allow the Remote to control that...

[KnightWRX]

Ok, locking them out of one-step (i.e. easy) syncing then - one where they don't have to install another piece of software to get to their itunes library. I'm thinking, maybe make it easy for the consumers who buy their music from you? Just a thought.

It is easy, your music is sitting there in iTunes. Oh you mean Apple should be responsible for other vendor's devices ? No. That's your vendor's job.

And who's to say that your vendor's sync solution uses more steps ? Mediasync is as simple as : 1- plug in device 2- hit sync. This is no different than if it was done from within iTunes.

Again, I see no reason that Apple should be responsible for your vendor's device because you seem to want to use it with iTunes. Heck, I want to use my USB humping dog with Palm Desktop, but it's not quite working. Maybe I should give Palm a call about it...

[heisetax]

Because of how poorly iTues works with my iPods I have stopped doing any syncing using iTunes. When I find something that will work with my Macs & my iPods I'll do some syncing again. Maybe when Palm writes their own syncing software I can get it to work with my all Apple hardware for some real syncing.

I'm looking for a replacement program for putting songs on my iPod. Generally the system would erase my iPod & I'd have to start all over again. Also iTunes can never find the location of my music. iTunes is dead for me. Why did Palm waster their time with such useless software. Apple has been copying MS so much anymore the lack of working software must be part of the deal.