They're not banning Palm. Palm used a hack to make the Pre sync with iTunes, there's still a legit way the Pre can sync with iTunes but it requires that Palm write software for it. They just chose the lazy way.
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.
iTunes 8.2.1 Reportedly Breaks Palm Pre Syncing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're not banning Palm. Palm used a hack to make the Pre sync with iTunes, there's still a legit way the Pre can sync with iTunes but it requires that Palm write software for it. They just chose the lazy way.
Demanding everyone (that's the "community" where the term Communism came from) have free access to the property of other persons or businesses. It is the same thought behind it, just without the government enforcing it.
What does their market share and using practices that got their hand slapped for those actions have anything to do with this thread? Netscape wasn't imitating IE, it was its own stand alone broswer that got muscled out. Palm is engineering their device to use an already existing piece of software and "allegedly" is being blocked
They use drag&drop for managing their devices without the hassle of extra apps and tout syncing as a nice feature to have
Do you really think Apple wouldn’t do that if they had the chance? Too bad for them that they have to follow laws.
My point is: a device worked with a piece of software. Now it does not because Apple just wanted to screw with Palm owners. It’s just not nice to act like that and I, for one, will do my best to find products that are open and use open standards. Ones that do not require company X to make an extra program just to be able to sync with a media player. From companies that don’t cry “these are only MY toys." And I know I’m not the only one.
They are either incapable of seeing the simple facts in this case (even though they've been well articulated over and over), or don't want to see them because to do so would destroy their myopic worldview.
As a consumer, I don't take pleasure in seeing Pre owners hit like this. As an Apple stock holder, I fully support Apple taking steps to prevent competitors from using Apple's intellectual property as a selling point.
comparing this case to apple's inability to run .exe files is a silly argument tallest
why should i, the consumer, defend apple for them locking me out of itunes with non apple devices? do i want multiple syncing apps for every device i own? hardly
also itunes is free software. why apple is against this is silly as all it does is open the itms to more devices, song purchases, etc
^^ iTunes is free
It's free if you buy an iPhone.
At least for portables.
I'm not sure that really meets the definition of "free".
There are many apps that will let you use it regardless of your hardware configurations.
At the very least, they don't go out of their way to defeat them.
Let's ignore the fact that Apple "blocked" the Pre's sync with iTunes. Why is no one criticizing Palm for taking advantage of a loop hole, that they knew very well could be taken away to much disturb of the Pre owners, instead of actually writing some sort of sync software and providing better service for their customers?
Be my guest. Don't buy.
And there is no decline, except economy. Apple is doing better then any other pc vendor. Apple sales figure was the first to go up during the crisis. Check your facts
It is free. You can download it from the Apple website for Mac or for Windows even if you don't own an iPod or iPhone. Get your facts straight.
Couldn't Apple require the user to enter the iPod/iPhone's serial number if the user wants to sync the device to iTunes?
It was actually an EU investigation, and a French threat to pass a law. Here is 4 stories from Le Googlia
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188270,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263561,00.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E0DF1E31F934A25750C0A9609C8B63
http://www.pcworld.ca/news/article/64234b0c0a010408015d84e0a4f0da45/pg0.htm
In the Sega case, the courts held that a 3rd party can violate copyright (by including the string 'Copyright Sega', or words to that effect), if the reason for the string is just to prevent interoperability.
If Apple is using USB IDs to prevent interoperability, the same legal principle would apply: It's OK.
I agree, there's a balance to be achieved.
But when I look at the long term, Apple has "finally crossed the line" every day for the last ten years
And yet the descent into evil never seems to get any farther.And yet they still do a lot to PROMOTE open standards, and Microsoft still does a lot to fight them. (Neither is fully committed for or against open technologies, of course.)
You're right--and this site is ALSO the worst anti-Mac trolling site around, and the place where Apple's own customers find fault with everything Apple does. Anyone who sides with Apple, even with facts in hand, will be flamed, mocked, and labeled just the same as Apple's critics. It goes both ways, and always will.
People are at their worst when anonymous
Ignoring the foolishness of your conclusion, do you actually think a corporation would sign an agreement that had such powers in the first place?
Yeah, but you're not a lawyer or a judge. And if they say it is okay to tread on copyright/trademark registrations to allow interoperability(which are managed by the US Govt), then they certainly don't give two chips about any stupid USB Consortium.
I don't regret buying my iMac or MBP, but I'm kind of with you now.
When people see my Mac's they assume I am a brainwashed Steve Jobs Scientologist like 90% of Mac Users and that I am incapable of rational or independent though.
I was looking for a machine, and found a Quad Core 2.66 i7, 1TB, 9gb of ram and a GTX260 video card for $1,299.
I tried to find an Apple equivelant, and found one for $2,699.
Except that it has 3GB ram, a 640GB Hard Drive, and a whopping GT120 graphics card.
Guess which one I am getting?
I will dual partition Ubuntu and Windows, and go forth with a few more dollars in my pocket
I just can't justify paying $2,000 for a picture of a bitten apple on the side of my box anymore.
The icing on the cake was when I upgraded my iMac recently and pulled out my original "Apple" memory only to find out that it was cheap commodity "Hynix" memory that is put into eMachines.
It's all the same components these days. There is no hardware superiority. It's just a religion.
Mac used to be "think different", but now it's like tattoos and piercings. Just another type of conformity.
I'll ride my current Macs as fars as they will take me. I like OS X quite a bit, but it's just not a two thousand dollar OS.
Especially with so many cross-platform Open Source and free apps making the underlying OS damn near irrelevant these days.
Firefox and Open Office on Mac and Firefox and Open Office on Linux.
I just can't tell the difference anymore.
Sounds eerily like saying "They have no obligation to support the software compatibility" of other browser manufacturers.
IMHO this is *THE* worst move that Apple has made in a long time.
I guess today marks the decline of Apple's moral anti-trust beliefs and the beginning of a rotten core.
Where are all the rulings and fines imposed on Apple. For thmost part they were complaining about the price of songs not being the same across all European countries, something which is not entirely in Apple's controls.
Please! How can this be the same. Apple can do with their software whatever they want. Go and use another media library if you don't like what they do. No one's forcing you to use iTunes.
Interesing Change
I just wanted to say that it is interesting for Apply to offer DRM free content through iTunes and then not allow a thrid-party device to access the DRM free content. Isn't the point of DRM free content that you can play it on any device?
I see it as a kind of like saying "here is your DRM free content, but we are going to put extra security in place so that no other devices can get at the content" What is the point of DRM free content if iTunes can't sync with anyhting other than an iPod? They might just as well add their copy protection back in and dropp all of the prices back to 99 cents.
I just wanted to say that it is interesting for Apply to offer DRM free content through iTunes and then not allow a thrid-party device to access the DRM free content. Isn't the point of DRM free content that you can play it on any device?
I see it as a kind of like saying "here is your DRM free content, but we are going to put extra security in place so that no other devices can get at the content" What is the point of DRM free content if iTunes can't sync with anyhting other than an iPod? They might just as well add their copy protection back in and dropp all of the prices back to 99 cents.
Please come up with another moronic analogy. I'm waiting on baited breath for it.
How about, ``If Apple made Monitors would they block all monitor manufacturers from using anything but Apple Monitors on Apple hardware?''
Apple keeps CUPS [the standard outside of Windows] for Printing current and advancing free of charge to all Printing, thus only requiring Canon, Brother, HP and others to provide a PPD unless of course they want some moronic binary for their all-in-one that ties them into their software, but I don't see any bitching about that.
The iTunes Store includes agreements between Content Providers and Apple where they have signed onto an amicable system for each other to work in a world where both benefit.
Giving Pre access to iTunes violates said agreements.
Pre and Jon Rubenstein can get off his ex-NeXT/ex-Apple fellow alum ass and make their own system, create the partnerships with those content providers and produce their own store.
Microsoft can do with their software whatever they want. Go and use another OS if you don't like what they do. No one's forcing you to use Windows.