Sidebar Sidebar
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

Apple has VERY sound business reasons for not supporting iTunes syncing to the Palm Pre... Namely, Apple makes a COMPETING product called the iPhone! Hell, Apple has an OBLIGATION to their stock holders to fight the competition on all levels.

All of the Palm Pre whiners in this thread need to go take a reality pill. The Palm Pre was launched to specifically target the iPhone market. To steal business away from Apple (lost iPhone sales) by being a copycat product. OF COURSE Apple is going to fight back. Business is war and war is hell!

BTW, my bet is Apple changed iTunes' iPod/iPhone verification process in such a way that it will require a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by Palm to re-enable syncing to iTunes. In other words, if Palm gets it working again, they will have a nice fat lawsuit on their hands.

Mark
 
The tables are turned

Palm makes software that syncs its address book, memos and calendar with its own hardware -- but not with iPhones or iPods because Palm wouldn't support them, ostensibly because the company wanted to encourage people to buy its Palm hardware products. I didn't see anyone screaming bloody murder about it.

So now Apple has software that won't sync with Palm's hardware, ostensibly because the company wants to encourage people to buy its own hardware, and people are up in arms and calling Apple evil and selfish? Hello, double standard.
 
pdjudd said:
What did Apple steal exactly??? Cite please!
Click to expand...

apple stole design and ideas of the visual stuff in their iTunes+iPod ads from the artists, who brought case to court. You didn't know this?

RockTheGlobe said:
Palm makes software that syncs its address book, memos and calendar with its own hardware -- but not with iPhones or iPods because Palm wouldn't support them, ostensibly because the company wanted to encourage people to buy its Palm hardware products. I didn't see anyone screaming bloody murder about it.

So now Apple has software that won't sync with Palm's hardware, ostensibly because the company wants to encourage people to buy its own hardware, and people are up in arms and calling Apple evil and selfish? Hello, double standard.
Click to expand...

since when iPod has memo? why is this a problem of palm? did apple tried to make iPod sync-able and palm updated software to break it?

Your reasoning is just wrong. Apple makes iPhone sync-able with outlook and IE favorites, did MS update them and break the sync?

Altho I can care less, but apple is obviously behaving more narrow minded and mean than MS or Palm in this case.
 
clevin said:
did some legal expert just say anybody can sue anybody for anything?
Click to expand...

I said that and I also said that I am not a lawyer/legal expert. I do know for a fact that you can indeed sue anyone for any reason. Of course if the reason doesn't meet legal merit it won't go far but I never gave a legal summary on what apple could sue for. My point was they could sue - probably due to IP infringement toward Ruebeinsteins knowledge of iTunes, but there is nothing we can due but speculate.
 
Wow, what a shocker!

I can't believe that anyone would be shocked about this. Just like I told my roommate who bought the Pre, yeah, it is a wonderful hack that you can sync your Palm Pre with iTunes, but for Palm to advertise that as the only way to sync is ridiculous.

I for one own an iPhone 3g, and love it! On the other hand, I am really jealous of some of the features on the Palm Pre and the Web OS (but not the incredibly slow boot time). Palm has had plenty of great syncing software in the past, why they couldn't throw something together for the Pre is beyond me. To simply be lazy and advertise a hack as the main way for syncing your music and movies is ludicrous.

I guarantee you that Apple knows about hackintosh, take the case against Psystar for instance. They don't come after individuals making osx86 machines, but when you start to make a profit off of a hack that exists, you had better be paying royalties.

Palm was very stupid and irresponsible to IT'S users for not creating another easy way to sync the user's music and movies! I can't even count how many idiots bought the Pre and will not know how to drag and drop their music let alone downgrade iTunes from 8.2.1 to 8.2. PALM USERS SHOULD BE ANGRY AT PALM, NOT APPLE.

If I owned a Pre and was a basic user, not only would I be taking my Pre back to the Sprint Store for a refund, I would be starting to file a class action lawsuit against Palm for false advertisement!

And before all of the idiots out there start the bashing of anything I say, I am a third year law student at the University of Cincinnati with a focus on Copyright and Patent law and will have my JD in one semester, I am pretty familiar with the law surrounding this issue. If it hasn't been done by the time I have taken my first bar exam (you have to take 2 to be a patent lawyer), I will personally help anyone who wants to file a class action lawsuit against Palm.
 
clevin said:
apple stole design and ideas of the visual stuff in their iTunes+iPod ads from the artists, who brought case to court. You didn't know this?
Click to expand...

OK, There is one instance where Apple ripped someone off and pulled the Ad over a cease and desist. That was one ad out of several that ran for two years. I can't find an actual court case though... Do you have a specific one in mind?
 
pdjudd said:
I said that and I also said that I am not a lawyer/legal expert. I do know for a fact that you can indeed sue anyone for any reason. Of course if the reason doesn't meet legal merit it won't go far but I never gave a legal summary on what apple could sue for. My point was they could sue - probably due to IP infringement toward Ruebeinsteins knowledge of iTunes, but there is nothing we can due but speculate.
Click to expand...

exactly, palm can sue apple as well, using the dominance of iTMS in music market to deter the competition of smartphones.

speculation? yeah. I found my speculation more reasonable :)D) since IP infringement probably is harder to argue without knowledge of all the codes both side used. And with numerous iTunes syncing software out there, I can hardly see how apple can win the argument in court.
dvanwinkle said:
I can't believe that anyone would be shocked about this. Just like I told my roommate who bought the Pre, yeah, it is a wonderful hack that you can sync your Palm Pre with iTunes, but for Palm to advertise that as the only way to sync is ridiculous.

I for one own an iPhone 3g, and love it! On the other hand, I am really jealous of some of the features on the Palm Pre and the Web OS (but not the incredibly slow boot time). Palm has had plenty of great syncing software in the past, why they couldn't throw something together for the Pre is beyond me. To simply be lazy and advertise a hack as the main way for syncing your music and movies is ludicrous.

I guarantee you that Apple knows about hackintosh, take the case against Psystar for instance. They don't come after individuals making osx86 machines, but when you start to make a profit off of a hack that exists, you had better be paying royalties.

Palm was very stupid and irresponsible to IT'S users for not creating another easy way to sync the user's music and movies! I can't even count how many idiots bought the Pre and will not know how to drag and drop their music let alone downgrade iTunes from 8.2.1 to 8.2. PALM USERS SHOULD BE ANGRY AT PALM, NOT APPLE.

If I owned a Pre and was a basic user, not only would I be taking my Pre back to the Sprint Store for a refund, I would be starting to file a class action lawsuit against Palm for false advertisement!

And before all of the idiots out there start the bashing of anything I say, I am a third year law student at the University of Cincinnati with a focus on Copyright and Patent law and will have my JD in one semester, I am pretty familiar with the law surrounding this issue. If it hasn't been done by the time I have taken my first bar exam (you have to take 2 to be a patent lawyer), I will personally help anyone who wants to file a class action lawsuit against Palm.
Click to expand...
come back after you win your first case. lol, if you want to use your ID to suppress other people's opinion.

did you have a pre? did you ever used a pre? if not, then stop pretending you know what Pre users would react neither.

Let me tell ya, as pre user, I can care less of crappy iTunes. I think I speak this with much more confidance than your assertion with no experience at all, law student.... making assumption with no experience is common practice?

well, still, I do want to agree with you on some point, that palm should just go get another software, or officially endorse songbird or mediamonkey. Whats the point hanging on a crappy software anyway? This world is filled with options, Jon Rubinstein must have too much feeling for his previous job, I hope he gets over that already.
pdjudd said:
OK, There is one instance where Apple ripped someone off and pulled the Ad over a cease and desist. That was one ad out of several that ran for two years. I can't find an actual court case though... Do you have a specific one in mind?
Click to expand...

no, I read it on engadget, you can search there. and I don't believe this would be the only case.
 
Another reason for Apple to close this bug is that if a Pre pretends to be an iPod, you can be sure other devices will exploit the same bug in future, rather than using the preferred XML method like RIM does:

http://blackberry.com/mediasync

Then, if companies start following Palm's hack method, you have a situation where Apple's own software can't accurately detect when you plug in an Apple product.

There are ways to sync music without pretending to be an iPod, and I can see what Apple would want Palm--and future companies--to use them, as RIM already does. The bug has been fixed, but the other sync method remains open. (Why Palm first chose the wrong method, KNOWING their customers would ultimately suffer from this very situation, remains a mystery.)

At the same time I see a lot of pro-Apple AND anti-Apple zealots making assumptions that don't make sense. (Seemingly from the viewpoint that anything Apple does to Palm HAS to be wrong--or right!--just BECAUSE it's Apple doing something to Palm.)
 
clevin said:
exactly, palm can sue apple as well, using the dominance of iTMS in music market to deter the competition of smartphones.
Click to expand...

Yea, except they would loose for the same reason that Psystar got their anti-trust case dropped. Palm is not stupid enough to waste money on a case that they will loose.

speculation? yeah. I found my speculation more reasonable :)D) since IP infringement probably is harder to argue without knowledge of all the codes both side used. And with numerous iTunes syncing software out there, I can hardly see how apple can win the argument in court.
Click to expand...

Why do you think your case is more likely? Before you answer, please read up on what anti-trust and Monopoly is and understand that Palm has a legal team that knows as much and way more than you do. For the record I don't think Apple will sue anybody over this - its not worth it since it was fixed by a patch. They could, but they would have done it already.
 
have to agree its apples software palm just joined the band wagon so those moaning about it go buy and ipod. For those of us who dont want too do that just go steal the dam music and movie before world war 3 breaks out ..
 
pdjudd said:
Yea, except they would loose for the same reason that Psystar got their anti-trust case dropped. Palm is not stupid enough to waste money on a case that they will loose.
Click to expand...

thats a different case, do remember apple has no dominance in either computer market, or OS market. While they do in online music service, which is first precondition of a monopoly case.

Altho you claim yourself no expert, but I still can't believe you would ignore such an obvious and extremely import difference, I would have to assume you are unconsciously ignoring them due to your..... bias.....?
 
dragossh said:
Am I seeing double standards here? So you don’t have any problem with Apple using Windows as a selling point, but you do have a problem with Palm using iTunes as a selling point. This is really "thinking different" :D
Click to expand...

I'm sort of stunned that you could read my post and miss the point so badly, but Ok, here goes.

I don't have a problem with Apple using Windows as a selling point.

I don't have a problem with MS disabling the use of Windows on a mac.

I don't have a problem with Palm using iTunes as a selling point.

I don't have a problem with Apple disabling the Pre syncing with iTunes.

In short - I don't have a problem with any company using legal means to protect their intellectual property in furtherance of their legitimate business goals. In both this case and the bootcamp example, that's all that's happening. The difference is that with bootcamp, MS *likes* what Apple is doing because MS' business model is to sell software, whereas here, Apple doesn't like what Palm is doing because Apple's business model is to use software to sell hardware.

Is that clear enough?
 
dukebound85 said:
did you see the "concept" i put in my post?....
Click to expand...

Did anyone complain when other manufacturers created automobiles, based on the same concept as having a 4 wheel carriage driven by a motor and having a steering wheel...Or...hey, get this...a car driven totally by ELECTRIC...or a Hybrid type vehicle..MY GOD...what a concept...

And that Ford guy....wow...an assembly line to put together a product in a more productive manner...what a concept. No one else should be allowed to do that either.

Or did anyone say anything to Blackberry, or HTC or any other mobile manufacturer when they designed a <gasp> touch screen phone....

a Concept is just that. If Palm developed a software application that allowed you to organize all your music, photos, video...and purchase these items from there own online store....then GREAT...have a go at it....what a great concept...

They didn't however....they used a USB identity code (not their own), and tricked iTunes into thinking it is an iPod. When they simply could have just hooked into iTunes like everyone else (Now THERE is a concept)

Funny...how it was okay for MS to also develop a GUI from the very same concept, or for all the *nix GUI's from the same concept.

Get real. The same blah blah blah...if they violate law, copyright or otherwise....then fine...you got a point....that didn't happen....(as far as documented).
 
clevin said:
come back after you win your first case. lol, if you want to use your ID to suppress other people's opinion.
Click to expand...

1) I am not planning on suing anybody or engaging in any form of legal practice
2) I understand Anti-trust and Monopoly better than you do - I have read up on the matter and have actually gotten a lot of information from other lawyers on this and other forms. Heck, I actually read the entire anti-trust case on the US vs Microsoft - I know what's going on here

did you have a pre? did you ever used a pre? if not, then stop pretending you know what Pre users would react neither.
Click to expand...

1) I will never give Palm a single dime
2) U have used one that a friend had - it sucked.
3) I know how fanbois react and I know how trolls respond.

Let me tell ya, as pre user, I can care less of crappy iTunes. I think I speak this with much more confidance than your assertion with no experience at all, law student.... making assumption with no experience is common practice?
Click to expand...
I have done research - we can speculate (and use fact to back it up) and thats about it. I don't have to be in a court room to read past cases and understand what's going on or who to talk to.

no, I read it on engadget, you can search there. and I don't believe this would be the only case.
Click to expand...
Without a link, I can't be sure what you are referring to. I did read an Engadget article that mentions a cease and desist leading to an ad being pulled, but no lawsuit that concluded any malicious intent.
 
Compufix said:
Did anyone complain when other manufacturers created automobiles, based on the same concept as having a 4 wheel carriage driven by a motor and having a steering wheel...Or...hey, get this...a car driven totally by ELECTRIC...or a Hybrid type vehicle..MY GOD...what a concept...

And that Ford guy....wow...an assembly line to put together a product in a more productive manner...what a concept. No one else should be allowed to do that either.

Or did anyone say anything to Blackberry, or HTC or any other mobile manufacturer when they designed a <gasp> touch screen phone....

a Concept is just that. If Palm developed a software application that allowed you to organize all your music, photos, video...and purchase these items from there own online store....then GREAT...have a go at it....what a great concept...

They didn't however....they used a USB identity code (not their own), and tricked iTunes into thinking it is an iPod. When they simply could have just hooked into iTunes like everyone else (Now THERE is a concept)

Funny...how it was okay for MS to also develop a GUI from the very same concept, or for all the *nix GUI's from the same concept.

Get real. The same blah blah blah...if they violate law, copyright or otherwise....then fine...you got a point....that didn't happen....(as far as documented).
Click to expand...

that doesnt make the fact that apple stole the gui concept from xerox any less true directly after they were demoed it. keep in mind that it wasnt implemented yet commercially either

seriously

that would be akin to MS looking at the iphone and releasing a touch screen phone before apple even sells theirs based off what they saw at apple

stop thinking apple is innocent in terms of not ripping ideas while EVERYONE else is guilty
 
pdjudd said:
Without a link, I can't be sure what you are referring to. I did read an Engadget article that mentions a cease and desist leading to an ad being pulled, but no lawsuit that concluded any malicious intent.
Click to expand...

I believe other points were directed to another user.

for your point, we were talking about stealing, do we need a court ruling to call it stealing? When rich apple can easily throw 20m to drown the case?

Then apple better quit calling MS, or Palm, or Dell stealing anything from it.
 
I think if the iTunes Store was 100% DRM-free, Apple wouldn't give a crap. However, the fact that they have intellectual property in the store, they can do whatever they want to protect that investment. Apple pays for the legal right to sell those items and they do so on their hardware.

Besides, what's all the fuss anyway? Aren't the majority of people out there constantly saying how bad iTunes is and that there are cheaper, better alternatives? :confused:
 
soLoredd said:
Besides, what's all the fuss anyway? Aren't the majority of people out there constantly saying how bad iTunes is and that there are cheaper, better alternatives? :confused:
Click to expand...
exactly. I didn't see much fuss at treocentral as heated as here neither, apparently apple people have more fuss than Pre users about this.
 
clevin said:
thats a different case, do remember apple has no dominance in either computer market, or OS market. While they do in online music service, which is first precondition of a monopoly case.
Click to expand...

Good! Apple's market share in the music market is, as of last year, Number 1 in terms of all music retailers - since Apple is competing against retail music distribution. But there are a ton of music retails. You may have market share strength (which I have never denied), but there are tons of choices on where you can buy your music. Having market share and abusing it are two very different things. So far Apple has done nothing to prevent people from:

a) Buying CD's and importing them using non-apple software
b) Buying mp3's from competing stores
c) Not prevented other MP3 players from supporting the Mac
d) no law that prohibits tying of unrelated products.

I also know that iTunes does not have a majority market on the desktop - thats would be Windows Media player. Apple kinda requires you (at least on Windows) to go out of your way to download it and use it. On the Mac side - its included - but thats to be expected.

You have half a case. We need to start the other half now. Now, Please show how Apple is preventing other companies from competing with any of Apple digital music players. Please note though that you cannot say that Apple makes popular and highly desirable products is an example of other companies inability to compete. And you have to show how Apple is manipulating the market to drive out competition, when their phone product has a minority market share compared to other smart phones that do not sync with the Mac (Symbian) or How Apple is preventing their biggest competitor in the smartphone realm (RIM) from accessing iTunes content. One caveat is that you cannot use any example of DRM content. Movies do not count since the MPAA are independent companies that do business on several fronts (and are a minority sales driver), TV shows for the same reason, and Applications do not count since they don't functionally work on other platforms like most software on the market. In other words, show me the other monopoly that Apple obtained by violating the trust of the public and show me how Apple prevents other players from competing and developing their own products. Finally, you must remember that Monopolies are not in of themselves illegal. If you cannot show antitrust, the case is done

Altho you claim yourself no expert, but I still can't believe you would ignore such an obvious and extremely import difference, I would have to assume you are unconsciously ignoring them due to your..... bias.....?
Click to expand...

1) I have never denied Apple has market power. But without abusing said market, there is nothing wrong. It is perfectly legal to have a highly successful and highly desirable product.

2) I am not biased. Nobody, especially you, has shown how Apple is being anti-competitive or is engaging in anything illegal. Until someone can do that, they need to pipe down.
 
After these messages... we'll be right back...

Edit: Alright proceed. In a single file calm line. If you wish to discuss the topic at hand feel free. Refrain from insults. If you see an insult, report it, don't respond to it. Cleaning up this thread caused a Mariah Carey video to play on my TV. The panda doesn't care for the Mariah Carey.
 
I'm surprised to read all the comments about Apple missing out on selling some music to Pre Owners...

iTunes doesn't exist to sell music, TV shows and movies. It exists to sell Apple hardware.

It's really that simple. They don't care about incremental sales of media by allowing 3rd party hardware to sync with iTunes. That wont sell another iPod or iPhone.
 
davecantu said:
I'm surprised to read all the comments about Apple missing out on selling some music to Pre Owners...

iTunes doesn't exist to sell music, TV shows and movies. It exists to sell Apple hardware.

It's really that simple. They don't care about incremental sales of media by allowing 3rd party hardware to sync with iTunes. That wont sell another iPod or iPhone.
Click to expand...

Not to mention: Apple CAN still sell iTunes music to Pre owners.

Pre owners just have to drag their music from iTunes to the Pre, until Palm replaces their fake-iPod sync hack with real sync software (which can, as discussed, access iTunes and iTunes playlists so users can keep using iTunes for their music).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back