iTunes 8.2.1 Reportedly Breaks Palm Pre Syncing

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I hope Palm takes Apple to court over this. Apple has zero responsibility to support Palm's products, but they have NO RIGHT to *PURPOSELY* disable support for 3rd party hardware in one of their products because iTunes and the hardware that works with it are two different markets and disabling that support is anti-competition and therefore violates anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, this is just more of the same from the "New Microsoft" of the 21st century.

Apple should stick to innovation. It's much more productive than litigation, which does little but tick off their existing customers who might like more hardware choices to use with something like iTunes or the iTunes store than Apple hardware. Yes, of course Apple wants you to buy their hardware, but they should EARN that through competition by providing a better product to get my money, not blackmailing me with their software products trying to force me to buy only their hardware. I'm sure the blind fanatics on here just love it, though. They love everything Steve does, no matter how evil.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I hope Palm takes Apple to court over this. Apple has zero responsibility to support Palm's products, but they have NO RIGHT to *PURPOSELY* disable support for 3rd party hardware

Actually they do. Apple can change iTunes in just about any way they want. It's their product.

in one of their products because iTunes and the hardware that works with it are two different markets and disabling that support is anti-competition and therefore violates anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, this is just more of the same from the "New Microsoft" of the 21st century.

Umm No.

 

[BaldiMac]

I hope Palm takes Apple to court over this. Apple has zero responsibility to support Palm's products, but they have NO RIGHT to *PURPOSELY* disable support for 3rd party hardware in one of their products because iTunes and the hardware that works with it are two different markets and disabling that support is anti-competition and therefore violates anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, this is just more of the same from the "New Microsoft" of the 21st century.

Apple should stick to innovation. It's much more productive than litigation, which does little but tick off their existing customers who might like more hardware choices to use with something like iTunes or the iTunes store than Apple hardware. Yes, of course Apple wants you to buy their hardware, but they should EARN that through competition by providing a better product to get my money, not blackmailing me with their software products trying to force me to buy only their hardware. I'm sure the blind fanatics on here just love it, though. They love everything Steve does, no matter how evil.

Hey, look, it's MagnusVonMagnum claiming that Apple is a monopoly again! Surprise!

 

[pdjudd]

Yeah. I understood your point. My point was that, in this case, Apple is not leveraging the iPhone in any way. iTunes has nothing to do with the iPhone in this case. Palm wants access to iTunes because it is the most popular music managing software, not because it syncs with the iPhone. The iPhone's market power seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

Right - I am being hypothetical by talking about the iPhone because thats the only relevant anti-trust case that Palm could bring up - its the only relavant market. But as you said - it doesn't really apply. The only complaint Palm would have is the popularity and exclusivity of iTunes which we know is meaningless.

We are in complete agreement and I think our intentions are being crossed. I was just being hypothetical and playing devils advocate.

 

[pdjudd]

Hey, look, it's MagnusVonMagnum claiming that Apple is a monopoly again! Surprise!

He also seems to think that Apple is somehow forcing him to buy Apple products!

 

[Voltaic]

I can't believe the fanboys on this forum. Let's get this straight: I've got a Mac desktop, a Mac laptop (and I update each every two years), I've got a apple cinema display on my windows machine (have to use Windows for work), an ipod, an iPod touch, and an iPod shuffle.

Obviously, I'm a huge fan of Apple products. Horror of horrors, I just bought a Palm Pre. Gasp . . . I guess I'm a heretic. I believe it is a superior operating system. I say that as a huge iPhone fan. But it is a great OS and I believe that Apple will be adding Pre features soon. When it comes to great technology, I'm agnostic as I believe everyone with a brain should be.
Given that all of my media libraries are on iTunes, why do this to Apple fans like me? Oh, I know why - b/c Steve Jobs is mad at John Rubenstien for going to work for Palm, and everyone knows you don't cross Steve Jobs. But really, was this necessary? All it does it is *** off Mac users and iTunes users that happens to like the Pre as a phone while still loving other Apple products. All it does is sour an Apple fan like me who has been telling people for years that Apple is nothing like Microsoft, etc.

Wow. Huge step backward, Apple. It was petty and unnecessary.

Absolutely right you are.

Apple has become so narrow minded they will hurt one end of their business (iTunes) trying to protect another (the iPhone). You would think they would encourage one and all to access and shop at the iTunes store.

Apple can not expect all potential customers to buy the iPhone, their market share will top out, then shrink due to competitors catching up technology wise. The reason Apple's market share will decline is due, once again, to their narrow mindedness, from their advertisement/marketing to their complete lack of enterprise support (the name MobleMe is laughable in my opinion). Here is where Palm and others come in and eat the pie and why Apple, due to its self imposed limitations, would benefit by allowing any phone or MP3 player to access the iTunes store.

However, every aspect of Apple's new direction demonstrates its leaders vision is limited, Apple will revert back to a niche and once again will become creative and competitive. The problem next time however, will be Apple's increased overhead in terms of staff (new larger campus) and the existence of their retail chain, will be more painful. Given the latter, you would think that alongside their successful iPhone, Apple would have expanded their hardware offerings at very aggressive competitive prices. No such luck.

Apple did a great job supporting developers to rapidly expand the iPhone's application and gaming offerings. Year after year the main business core is neglected. No push has been made for the crown jewel, Mac OS on "the" Mac. On the hardware side you would think the move to Intel, and 3rd party hardware manufacturing (face it, Macs are no more nor better than any other PC nowadays), would have resulted in a greatly expanded hardware choice and competitive pricing. I mean, Apple basically offers 3 desktop choices. Again, no such luck.

Apple does not bare all of the responsibility however. The biggest problem as I see it, is the tacit complicity of the media and above all the "fanboys". 12-18 month product refresh is ridiculous. For a company that brags about its "Design", a now 6+ year old Mac Pro tower is pathetic. Innovation is their favorite word, my God, the Mighty Mouse is a sad excuse for any input device.

To criticize Apple is not the same as attacking Apple. Constructive criticism is the best way to help Apple help us all, keeping its market diverse and vibrant. Apple prosperous. Any such luck?

 

[gnasher729]

So there is nothing wrong with a company relying on a hack to sell a product? What if Apple hacked Exchange and Activesync instead of licensing it from them and then advertised it as a feature. I'm sure Microsoft would be sending their lawyers straight at them. But because it's little Palm I guess it makes it alright.

No lawyers involved at all. What Palm did wasn't illegal (except possibly for a breach of contract with their USB license when they created a device that used a USB device ID that wasn't correct), it was just that Apple didn't like it, and that Apple was able to do something about it. Just normal competition.

The iTunes store may be considered a monopoly (but only through market share - Apple's tunes can be played back on other players - other companies can exploit that (apple documents it).

You're looking at the wrong market. The market isn't "online music stores", it is "music stores". When I buy music, the iTunes store competes with my local music store where I buy CDs, with mail order CD stores, and with stores offering downloadable music. To me and to most customers this is completely interchangeable. And in the "music stores" business, iTunes is nowhere near a monopoly position. And the online stores have no market power. If one store does something that I don't like (like raising prices, offering goods I don't like, have an ugly website or whatever), I can very very easily switch to another store. It is typically for a monopoly that many people don't have a choice but buy from the monopoly, even if its goods are inferior. Not with the iTunes store; you can very easily buy somewhere else.

 

[gnasher729]

I don't even know of them now.....

Both Leslie Feist or Yael Naim sold more than half a million songs after the adverts for the iPod Nano and MacBook Air came out. And I think the Blackeyed Peas (hope I got it right) didn't do too badly either.

 

[pdjudd]

You're looking at the wrong market. The market isn't "online music stores", it is "music stores". When I buy music, the iTunes store competes with my local music store where I buy CDs, with mail order CD stores, and with stores offering downloadable music. To me and to most customers this is completely interchangeable. And in the "music stores" business, iTunes is nowhere near a monopoly position. And the online stores have no market power. If one store does something that I don't like (like raising prices, offering goods I don't like, have an ugly website or whatever), I can very very easily switch to another store. It is typically for a monopoly that many people don't have a choice but buy from the monopoly, even if its goods are inferior. Not with the iTunes store; you can very easily buy somewhere else.

True. I have pointed out before that You can use iTunes all you want and never pay Apple a cent. I was not arguing that Apple had a monopoly in that area (Apple has claimed that they are the number one music retailer) only that someone could argue that Apple does. But even if they did - that doesn't mean anything. It isn't illegal to be popular.

I was not making these claims myself, just playing the Devils advocate that once could argue it. They would be wrong and a judge could reject that argument (like Psystar was when they tried to play the anti-competitive card), but they could argue it to some degree.

For the record, I do not believe that Apple is being anti-competitive or possess a monopoly that could be interpreted as anti-competitive.

 

[pdjudd]

Both Leslie Feist or Yael Naim sold more than half a million songs after the adverts for the iPod Nano and MacBook Air came out. And I think the Blackeyed Peas (hope I got it right) didn't do too badly either.

That's nice - I still don't know their songs though (like that matters though - there's a lot of musicians that I don;t know from Adam)... But I have heard of the Black Eyed Peas though!

 

[gnasher729]

That's a pretty bad example. In fact, if it was reported as an iPOD the device would have LESS access to the data on your Mac. It would only be able to sync (with iTunes). If you just grab a USB device off the shelf they can grab the actual files including your documents, mail, music, movies, etc.

If it is reported as an iPod, the device might convince iTunes to do a sync, copying all the music on the Mac onto the device _without user interaction_. What you are saying requires both a device, _and_ access to my mouse and keyboard.

 

[LethalWolfe]

If it is reported as an iPod, the device might convince iTunes to do a sync, copying all the music on the Mac onto the device _without user interaction_. What you are saying requires both a device, _and_ access to my mouse and keyboard.

That's still really, really, really reaching. If you leave your laptop unattended long enough for some stranger to copy over all of your music and movies via USB 2.0 yer lucky the thief didn't just pickup the laptop and walk off w/it.


Lethal

 

[Goona]

Did the old Palm phones also sync with Itunes. I think Palm is trying to play the role of the little guy gettig bullied by the big bully. They put in a hack, Apple blocks it and the media view Apple as picking on the little guys. Pathetic.

 

[pdjudd]

Did the old Palm phones also sync with Itunes. I think Palm is trying to play the role of the little guy gettig bullied by the big bully. They put in a hack, Apple blocks it and the media view Apple as picking on the little guys. Pathetic.

I believe that they did - but never with iTunes directly - it would have use the iTunes library XML - they either used iSync or SyncServices in conjunction with HotSync.

These are the only devices that have ever had native connection with iTunes (outside of Apple products). They don't mention the two Motorola phones, but they count.

No palm product has had native iTunes Syncing.

 

[Goona]

I believe that they did - but never with iTunes directly - it would have use the iTunes library XML - they either used iSync or SyncServices in conjunction with HotSync.

These are the only devices that have ever had native connection with iTunes (outside of Apple products). They don't mention the two Motorola phones, but they count.

No palm product has had native iTunes Syncing.

So why are they changing it now and compalining when Apple blocks it?

 

[seedster2]

This is much ado about nothing. More posturing than anything. All this talk about illegality and theft is hysteria.

Pre owners can continue to sync their Pre by simply not upgrading their itunes or reverting back to the last functional release.

Pres has been a hit for Palm. They will have to decide whether it's worth it to keep issuing software updates to outsmart iTunes or create their own interface.

I doubt any Pre users will be returning the device based on itunes incompatibility. Both companies lose when their userbases have to repeatedly update their software. I doubt either wants to go down that road

 

[pdjudd]

So why are they changing it now and compalining when Apple blocks it?

I dunno. Ask Palm. Maybe they want to try and make Apple look like a bully to gain sympathy? It wouldn't be the first time someone tried that.

 

[pdjudd]

This is much ado about nothing. More posturing than anything. All this talk about illegality and theft is hysteria.

I agree 100%. The only thing that I can see happening would be:
1) Palm trying to engage in a cat and mouse strategy.
2) Palm releasing their own software and just growing up.
3) Apple complains to the USB group about that UID spoofing that Palm engaged in which is a license violation. I don't see this happening, its rather excessive. The USB group could do this on it's own though, but I doubt it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

So why are they changing it now and compalining when Apple blocks it?

I wasn't aware that Palm had released an official statement 'complaining' about the iTunes update. There's also way more discussion about this here than there is on a Pre board that I browse. Most of the responses on the Pre board are indifference, a desire for Palm to write a proper sync app and/or people using a readily available third party sync app.

Why this is a bigger deal on a Mac forum than on a Pre forum is kinda odd, IMO.


Lethal

 

[Goona]

I dunno. Ask Palm. Maybe they want to try and make Apple look like a bully to gain sympathy? It wouldn't be the first time someone tried that.

Just as I thought, they are looking for sympathy. They want to paint Apple as a bully like Psystar did. People forget tha Palm has been buiding phones for years, they've just been building crap which is why they found themselves in the position they were before releasing the Pre, the don't need no sympathy. Apple was also in a similar position but they went to work and built many great products and didn't rest on their laurels or resort to cheap hacks.

Why should Apple give a damn about Palm or the Pre, is the Pre earning Apple or it's shareholders money? If Palm Pre users want to buy music from Itunes, they are more than willing to. They jus shouldn't expect the syncing properties of iTunes which is a major selling point for iPods and iPhones. Palm wants this feature and was advertising it. Instead of doing what the likes of RIM have bn doing they are resortig to cheap hacks and looking for sympathy points.

 

[Kadman]

If it is reported as an iPod, the device might convince iTunes to do a sync, copying all the music on the Mac onto the device _without user interaction_. What you are saying requires both a device, _and_ access to my mouse and keyboard.

Maybe you don't understand how iTunes works. Even if a device reports itself as an iPod, iTunes won't sync with it on first connect. You would still need access to the PC to confirm that it's a new device and you wish to sync with it. Oh wait, let me guess, someone could hack it into thinking it's the exact same device ID as your iPod. Wow!!! I'm sure nobody wants your Bee Gees collection that badly...

 

[Goona]

I wasn't aware that Palm had released an official statement 'complaining' about the iTunes update. There's also way more discussion about this here than there is on a Pre board that I browse. Most of the responses on the Pre board are indifference, a desire for Palm to write a proper sync app and/or people using a readily available third party sync app.

Why this is a bigger deal on a Mac forum than on a Pre forum is kinda odd, IMO.


Lethal

They did release a statement complainig, it's on the front pae of macrumors. If you want to see pre users compalining about this go to precentral.com. Heck there are even some Pre users here complaining.

 

[pdjudd]

There's also way more discussion about this here than there is on a Pre board that I browse.
Lethal

Well there is alot of complaining here. Maybe those are the Pre users or Palm employees!

Why this is a bigger deal on a Mac forum than on a Pre forum is kinda odd, IMO.

Mac sites are fun places for trolls to hang out. It's the Dvorak response. They say something really trollish, and we respond. Rather predictable unfortunately.

 

[zacman]

A few months ago the EU comission threatend to sue Apple over iTunes because iTMS didn't work with other MP3 players. Apple removed the DRM and thought that this might work for the comission. Now they're blocking out all third party players again. It obviously won't work for the EU commission. Thanks god we have strong anti competitive laws in the EU. Too bad for Apple I guess

 

[pdjudd]

Now they're blocking out all third party players again. It obviously won't work for the EU commission. Thanks god we have strong anti competitive laws in the EU. Too bad for Apple I guess

How? You don't need iTunes to get at the Library - iTunes generates an XML file that several syncing programs take advantage of. Apple even documents how to use it! All iTunes is is a GUI front for Quicktime. The tracks it plays are not inherently or permanently tied to it. Not to mention it is a closed platform.