Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Issues Advisory Regarding Third-Party Devices Syncing With iTunes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
true, and Apple warned against future updates breaking Jailbroken Apple devices. The hackers found a way around that. It's just a support warning. Nothing more.
First of all Apple has absolutely no use for other devices their own network and will not earn more money if they allow them. In fact it will likely destroy the reputation of the service since there would be a ton of unsupported half-arse working devices and people will start blaming Apple for the poor service. So it is in Apple's best interest to prevent unsupported devices from ever using their software and services.
2nd eventually the only way for a 3rd party device to connect would be to break Apple's EULA and at that point Palm is really f***ed. And considering how easy it is for Apple to do that I would be surprised if the Palm freeloading last more than 6 months. Well see how it all plays out but to one I am really glad that Apple takes steps to defend their IP. The sad part is that a high ranking ex Apple employee should have know that this won't last but I guess Palm is really in for some quick cash.
2nd eventually the only way for a 3rd party device to connect would be to break Apple's EULA and at that point Palm is really f***ed. And considering how easy it is for Apple to do that I would be surprised if the Palm freeloading last more than 6 months. Well see how it all plays out but to one I am really glad that Apple takes steps to defend their IP. The sad part is that a high ranking ex Apple employee should have know that this won't last but I guess Palm is really in for some quick cash.
XML Library
Once more, if you sync via iTune's XML Library, then you should have nothing to worry about by means of it not working.
If Palm was "open source" minded in building the Pre to sync with iTunes, I would have to assume that they have not developed a proprietary method for synching, rather have stuck with importing XML Library and "adopted" it as a standard. Apple would have to change their own XML standard or encrypt it, then change encryption with each update to lock-out people who hack it.
Once more, if you sync via iTune's XML Library, then you should have nothing to worry about by means of it not working.
If Palm was "open source" minded in building the Pre to sync with iTunes, I would have to assume that they have not developed a proprietary method for synching, rather have stuck with importing XML Library and "adopted" it as a standard. Apple would have to change their own XML standard or encrypt it, then change encryption with each update to lock-out people who hack it.
1) An EULA is questionable if it can be held up in court
2) Can't find anything in here http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/itunes.pdf that says no third party software or hardware is allowed to interact with iTunes.
If Apple does do something that stops the Pre syncing with iTunes directly, can always use other "hacking" techniques like DoubleTwist, MissingSync, make an AppleScript, or manually copy songs across.
So you're saying Apple should push customers away from its music and movie store? That's what you're saying, after all. I don't see how that benefits Apple unless the entire iTunes store is just a front to push hardware. They do want to sell music, don't they?
That seems to be the Apple excuse for EVERYTHING. We aren't Microsoft so the rules don't apply to us for ANYTHING. We can do anything we want. We have 30 billion in cash reserves but we're a TINY insignificant company so don't complain when we try and avoid all competition and control all markets. We don't have to compete because Microsoft holds 90% of the OS market. Never mind we control huge portions of the smart phone market, online music market and have zero hardware competition for the OS X operating system which allows us to rake in HUGE amounts of money (along the lines of $30 billion which could bail out all three auto companies in the U.S.). No, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. We're the all powerful Jobz!
I don't think that's what he said/meant.
If you've got such a deeply-held resentment of the way Apple does things, why don't you start a Cindy Sheehan-style protest group? Actually going out and rallying the people would probably be more effective than writing wall after endless wall of grumblings on an Internet forum.
Just my $0.02. You better come get it quick before I send it as an offering to Steve Jo....er....I mean God.
Since becoming DRM free I don't see how anyone with any device can't still use iTunes. The "sync with ipod/iphone" feature is a bonus for people who also buy Apple hardware. If Pre wants to take advantage of that feature then its up to them to make it work. Again, why would Apple make their brand specific feature work with all other third party devices?
If you own a Zune you can still use iTunes to purchase music until you are blue in the face and then put that music on your Zune. Will it sync? No, thats a feature for iPods and iPhones. Considering the amount of time and money it would take to make sure each update was compatible with devices across the spectrum I think we can all agree its best for whoever makes the hardware to make sure that it works with the software. What benefit would Apple gain from spending money on making sure a competitor's device worked just like an iPhone with iTunes?
Apple makes iTunes and the iPhone and only guarantees that the products they make will work with each other (with all features). This notice is just letting everyone know who's responsible for the Pre and other devices that aren't made by Apple. I doubt Microsoft spends time and money making sure all hardware devices work with the Zune store exactly like the Zune does.
You don't need to give Apple a penny to use iTunes. If you want a guarantee to have all the features of an iPhone + iTunes don't whine if Apple doesn't go out of their way to make sure you get the same experience with a Pre.
Regarding all this monopoly talk: It doesn't matter if they have a monopoly with iTunes. That in and of itself isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to leverage themselves up in other markets would be illegal. For example if the content bought on iTunes only worked with iPods. That's not the case here, though. We're not talking about not being able to get that purchased content onto another device such as a Pre. No one is stopping you from doing that. But if you want to do that by way of syncing a Pre to iTunes then its up to Palm to make that happen.
If you own a Zune you can still use iTunes to purchase music until you are blue in the face and then put that music on your Zune. Will it sync? No, thats a feature for iPods and iPhones. Considering the amount of time and money it would take to make sure each update was compatible with devices across the spectrum I think we can all agree its best for whoever makes the hardware to make sure that it works with the software. What benefit would Apple gain from spending money on making sure a competitor's device worked just like an iPhone with iTunes?
Apple makes iTunes and the iPhone and only guarantees that the products they make will work with each other (with all features). This notice is just letting everyone know who's responsible for the Pre and other devices that aren't made by Apple. I doubt Microsoft spends time and money making sure all hardware devices work with the Zune store exactly like the Zune does.
You don't need to give Apple a penny to use iTunes. If you want a guarantee to have all the features of an iPhone + iTunes don't whine if Apple doesn't go out of their way to make sure you get the same experience with a Pre.
Regarding all this monopoly talk: It doesn't matter if they have a monopoly with iTunes. That in and of itself isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to leverage themselves up in other markets would be illegal. For example if the content bought on iTunes only worked with iPods. That's not the case here, though. We're not talking about not being able to get that purchased content onto another device such as a Pre. No one is stopping you from doing that. But if you want to do that by way of syncing a Pre to iTunes then its up to Palm to make that happen.
Is that what people want though, multiple access points to purchase digital media? I think it would benefit iTunes to compete on the hardware connecting to it than the software alone, if nothing else Apple's bargaining power with the film, tv and music industry would be that much greater with a user base spread across more businesses than computers alone.
I have no beef with Apple doing this. They are just making sure that they don't look bad when alternative hardware fails at iTunes. Besides, Apple did all the work and marketing to make iTunes the powerhouse that it is. I don't think other people should be able to cash in on that without paying Apple for their effort. My .02
Doesn't look like anyone's posted this yet...
Palm responds to Apple's warning:
"Palm's media sync works with the current version of iTunes. If Apple chooses to disable media sync in a future version of iTunes, it will be a direct blow to their users who will be deprived of a seamless synchronization experience.
"However, people will have options. They can stay with the iTunes version that works to sync their music on their Pre, they can transfer the music via USB, and there are other third-party applications we could consider. "
.
Palm responds to Apple's warning:
"Palm's media sync works with the current version of iTunes. If Apple chooses to disable media sync in a future version of iTunes, it will be a direct blow to their users who will be deprived of a seamless synchronization experience.
"However, people will have options. They can stay with the iTunes version that works to sync their music on their Pre, they can transfer the music via USB, and there are other third-party applications we could consider. "
.
It's not what Apple says. It's what the internationally agreed definitions about monopolies say. The overseeing organizations test situations according to these definitions. These definitions are readily available on the internet (and no, I'm not going to look them up for you).
It's not about money in the bank. It's about the market size a company controls.
So is Apple competing or not? Last time I looked they are taking market share away from MS..
Your reasoning is so incredibly flawed, I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you.
Legal monopolies exist, like in the case of providers of utilities (electricity and such). The media-player and windows combo was judged to be a monopoly for Microsoft. That was an illegal monopoly.
That's not necessarily true. Microsoft was able to abuse the situation because they owned a massive amount of the market. Whether there were alternatives or not, was at that point not relevant. MS has already been convicted and was/is therefore guilty. In Europe they have been fined billions of dollars for abusing their market position.
I disagree, as have others. It was judged to be illegal abuse of monopoly power. The monopoly itself is not illegal.
And Apple doesn't hold a massive amount of the market?
The monopoly law doesn't automatically apply once you get more than 89.238576% (or some other arbitrary percentage) of the market.
It's a fluid call - if a company's business share is large enough to distort the "free market" system, then it can be declared a monopoly.
The government has already seriously threatened Google with anti-trust proceedings, and Google's share of the search market is less than Apple's online music share.
Ah! we're disagreeing on semantics. I agree that the monopoly itself was not illegal, just the abuse of it's position by MS. Legal monopolies exist though.
I agree again. My point is (sorry if I wasn't clear enough) that once the market share grows so large that alternatives are not a viable choice anymore AND the company starts abusing this position, THEN that company is in trouble. As yet, the competition for iTunes and iPod/iPhone is only growing. We do not yet know exactly what the Touch HD will do with Zune. In addition many phone manufacturers are starting upgrading their bottom line phones to smartphones (Samsung, LG, Nokia). All these phones come with MP3 player abilities, bespoke apps etc. IMHO a lot still has to happen before Apple reaches a point where they are in a position to abuse their market position and anyone to care (I mean regulators, not the fanboys here..
)
I couldn't care less about your definition of a monopoly as it's not relevant. Given Microsoft doesn't control 100% of the OS market, it's not a monopoly either. It's completely beside the point. Anti-trust laws do not require a monopoly. They require companies to not actively try to prevent competition. But that's what Apple is best at. The fact Apple has conflicting interests between running a music store, an operating system and selling 100% of the hardware for that operating system means nothing to you and neither does Capitalism and competition. Maybe you would prefer to live in China if you do not like competition. I think you'll like their hypocritical "Buy China" program while our country calls that protectionism. Maybe we are the hypocrites for not standing by our own country and our own products.
Why bother. They're meaningless, just like your posts.
And how much of the online music market does Apple control? How much of the smart phone market does it control? Why do Apple fanatics always think that their tiny OS share has a freaking thing to do with their hardware, phone and music sales? Why do fanatics always try write Apple off as insignificant when they have more hard petty cash than most of the tech companies on the planet and could have bailed out the entire auto industry by themselves? Why do they pretend anti-trust laws don't apply to a company of their gigantic stature because their OS share is small? Why do fanatics like yourself always defend Apple no matter how dirty their hands are?
What does their OS share have to do with this thread anyway? NOTHING. This thread is about the iTunes store and the Palm Pre. Their market shares are MUCH higher there. Their integration of several different market places (media, smart phones, software, operating systems and various computer hardware) makes them a trust player. They use one market as leverage to try and force sales in another market. Again, this is a trust. Anti-trust rules were written precisely to prevent companies like Apple from abusing their strong positions in various markets.
Don't bother feeling sorry for me. I'm not the one that needs sympathy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act
Try reading this web page and take a close look at the section on "tying". It fits Apple to a T. It's exactly how they manipulate one market against another by participating in multiple markets and then tying one of their products to another of their products in a different market (e.g. tying the iPod/iPhone market to the iTunes store and the iTunes App store and not allowing any other competition by refusing to allow other stores to sell software for that product without giving 30% to Apple and using THEIR storefront and no other store. This both prevents store competition for the iPhone/iPod Touch and prevents others from using their software (i.e. 3rd parties syncing to their software). Apple ties the OS X operating system to their hardware and actively try to stop others from installing that software on competing hardware. In effect, they are preventing active commerce by attempting to prevent sales of competing hardware by trying to force you to use THEIR hardware if you purchase OS X. Apple's anti-trust behavior is SO BLATANT only a blind fanatic could NOT see it. The typical response is that they are not a monopoly. But as the article indicates, they DO NOT HAVE TO BE. They only have to try and actively restrain commerce and competition and have the clout to do so. There can be no denying their clout in the online music and smart phone sales, even if you don't accept the Mac hardware market as significant.
The sad thing is the only thing Apple has to do to be compliant with the law is STOP trying to prevent competitors from selling products and services for their products that are in differing markets. In other words, their iPhone has competition in the phone market, but tying it to media/software market and preventing others from participating in selling software/apps for that phone is a violation. Similarly, trying to tell people in a license that they MUST purchase Apple brand hardware to use Apple software is a violation. It is called TYING and it is ILLEGAL. And if you cannot see how NOT having competition for Apple hardware or iPhone Apps that garner 30% of ALL developer sales is a MAJOR MAJOR benefit to Apple's bottom line and contributes to their market standing as one of the richest companies out there in sheer cold hard cash then I have some swamp land I can sell you in Florida.
I would like to apologize for my previous arrogance. It was uncalled for.
As Aiden Shaw stated before, it's not only a 100% market share that defines a monopoly. It is also how a company uses that market share and whether there are alternatives to the service or product.
In the case of iTunes and Ipod/iPhone it's definitely true that Apple controls 100% of the players for that service and also controls a large portion of the online music market, which flows through iTunes.
However, Apple does not have 100% market share (as you are stating correctly) and there ARE alternatives. For the players you can choose from the Zune, Zune HD, several cellphones, sony players and hundreds of low cost mp3 players. The list goes on and on. The same freedom of choise is present with MP3 download services: amazon.com, legalsounds.com, freerecordshop.nl, emusic.com. Also here the list goes on and on.
The moment a company has a product or service in a monopoly status, is when the customers do not have anywhere else to go for that service. At that point that company can do whatever it wants: deliver an inferior product, stop innovating and raise prices. I do not deny that Apple hasn't done any of these things to some extent (recent price changes in the iTunes store). But you HAVE alternatives if you decide that your iPod isn't fulfilling your needs anymore. I'm sure there are many people that own iPod Touches now that will look at the Zune HD and seriously contemplate switching.
The reason Apple gets away most of the time with less innovation (than we would like) or higher prices is because Apple has a very loyal customer base and we would buy their new gadgets anyway.
Again, sorry for my previous arrogance. I had a bad day.
Edit: I just read your link (dry stuff, will have to look up some pr0n later to compensate..
). The important paragraph in this piece is this:Apples iPod/iPhone and iTunes combination (oat-based, round-shaped breakfast cereal) has numerous substitutable products that can be considered such as the aforementioned MP3 players from Sony, Samsung, Microsoft and all that Hello Kitty chinese and japanese MP3 player cheapo crap (rice-based, square-shaped breakfast cereal).
Edit number two: on the tying paragraph.... I do not know whether they are already under scrutiny for this, but I'm also not sure whether this paragraph completely applies. After all, as an owner of iPod, your are not forced to download music through iTunes. You can download music anywhere and import this into iTunes and transfer those songs to your iPod. I'm assuming that the fact that you have to load your iPod through iTunes (which is free) is no object as it is readily available for Windows and OS X.
The same applies to the restriction of OS X to Apple Hardware. You are free to install whatever OS you would like on a piece of Apple hardware, so that shouldn't be a problem. The other way round is not possible/allowed (installing OS X on other hardware), but there are alternatives (Linux, Unix, Windows). So what is the general problem here? People want to use OS X on hardware that is not supported by Apple. Why doesn't Apple do this?
1. The official reason would be that they cannot provide full support for their OS on other hardware (just look at the problems MS has making windows compatible to every piece of hardware on the planet).
2. The inofficial reason is of course that Apple wants to sell hardware.
I'm sure Apple values both of these reasons probably equally high (one increases efficiency, while the orther increases profitability).
Just to differentiate this a bit consider the following: suppose you like the Zune OS, but hate the Zune as a piece of hardware. Should Microsoft enable the Zune OS also for other hardware such as the iPod? Alternatively: should Garmin navigation software run on TomTom hardware? Should Metroid for Nintendo WII be converted/coded or whatever, to play also on XBOX?
What a ridiculous bunch of condescending, arrogant drivel. Sorry to rain on your little nationalistic, self-righteous parade there, but you seriously don't expect me to believe that Apple is really under any kind of legal obligation to allow other devices to sync with iTunes? Seriously? Apple doesn't *have* to allow that! I don't even see what the big whoop-de-doo over syncing is all about, anyway. Music sold through iTunes can play on the Pre, and every other smartphone out there with the capability to play the AAC format. Therefore, if Apple does update iTunes and blocks the Pre, its users are still able to move their music/contacts/whatever, except they'll have to drag-and-drop manually to the Pre while in USB mass storage mode. I have never heard of anyone actively campaigning for the Zune desktop software to allow syncing with the iPod. Hell, I've never heard of anyone campaigning for McDonalds to sell Whoppers or Pizza Hut to sell $5 Footlongs, either. And you know what, Mr. Von Magnum? Microsoft sells the Zune, and the Zune desktop software, which is only available on THEIR OWN PLATFORM, *WINDOWS*. There is no Mac OS X version of Zune Desktop. Or Linux, or Solaris, or AIX, or IRIX... OH MY GOD! Let's go on over to the Zune forums and start a s**tstorm! Let's scream "evil monopoly" a thousand times to make ourselves look well-versed in economics and trade!!
Don't even get me started on that FUD about Apple's vertical integration being a monopoly.
I think we complain enough about the lack of Zune software for OS X here. It's a tougher nut to crack than the iPod but people have been trying. There are plenty of third-party iPod managers as well. Your mileage may vary with them though and if you're already using them to begin with.
I have plenty of them.Now you have changed your avatar again! What is the world coming to?
Hey, next I bet MVM is going to dismiss me as a biased Apple shareholder, or maybe just a "fanboy."
Wait for it.......waaaait for it......
AND HE DOES!!
LOL @ the "good for capitalism" part. Did you not catch the results of our most recent election? Capitalism is on the way out anyway...
Wait for it.......waaaait for it......
AND HE DOES!!
LOL @ the "good for capitalism" part. Did you not catch the results of our most recent election? Capitalism is on the way out anyway...
Hey, next I bet MVM is going to dismiss me as a biased Apple shareholder, or maybe just a "fanboy."
Wait for it.......waaaait for it......
AND HE DOES!!
LOL @ the "good for capitalism" part. Did you not catch the results of our most recent election? Capitalism is on the way out anyway...
Stay away from the ad hominem attacks - it doesn't look good for you, and the moderators might decide to delete your posts or even ban you.