On the contrary. I am sure Palm was very aware of what would happen and was probably planning on it. This came to nobody's surprise. Palm is also very aware of SyncServices - They made Palm Desktop many moons age and even used iSync frameworks! They had to know this would happen.
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
On the contrary. I am sure Palm was very aware of what would happen and was probably planning on it. This came to nobody's surprise. Palm is also very aware of SyncServices - They made Palm Desktop many moons age and even used iSync frameworks! They had to know this would happen.
Very true, and reminds me that there was a time when Palm's devices where just about the only place to go to get a decent smartphone or PDA. It is my opinion that Palm not only knew it was going to happen but has been working on a fix for it since the decision to put the function in.
I haven't updated to 8.2.1 and I thank God that I read the article before hand, because I was just about to do an update.
As for the fanatics out there, it doesn't really matter who stole what from where. Palm made a kick butt phone says much of the internet, it ain't no iPhone, some say it's better, some worse.
And if a sync with a Pre corrupts the iTunes library because it's implementation is imperfect? That could create some problems for Apple. Don't forget that syncing is a two-way street. The Pre can modify your iTunes library.
Then why would Palm advertise it?
Great, then you've benefitted from the kind of engineering (reverse engineering) that you cry foul about.
That's obvious. Microsoft doesn't implement AFP. Apple DOES implement SMB using code from Samba which is reverse engineered from Windows. That's exactly what Palm did. They reverse engineered the protocol Apple uses to Sync with iPhone.
My point is that almost every single digital camera out there uses FAT32, regardless of whether it sucks. It's Microsoft's filesystem, and Apple is able to read and write it through reverse engineering, just like Palm does with iTunes. Oh yeah, and iPod uses FAT32 also. Apple's benefitting from that.
NO, Apple reverse engineered FAT32. I've never heard anything about them licensing it. What do you mean "pushed it on everyone"? If that's the case, Apple "pushed" HFS on everyone, and HFS/HFS+ isn't that good of a filesystem compared to something like JFS2 or ZFS. (Are they ever going to ship ZFS for OS X? I've been waiting, hoping...)
No one outside of Apple's 8% market share would give a rat's ass. There wouldn't be devastating fallout at all, because 92% of their Office customers use Windows.
I don't often post here and usually there's enough time between posts for me to forget that arguing with an Apple fanboy is pointless because they operate on 2 simple rules:
Rule 1. Anything Apple does is great.
Rule 2. If Apple is doing something that I hate Microsoft for doing, refer back to Rule #1.
Oh and where do you fanboys find the time to make 100 posts on a single thread? Seriously?
False -- Palm did not reverse engineer anything. They spoofed an Apple hardware identification.
The flaw here is that third party apps that allow non-Apple devices to sync w/iTunes have been commercially available for years. Apple lets non-Apple devices play in the walled iTunes garden but the other devices have to build their own road to get there. The road that Apple built has a "iPod/iPhone Only" sign on it.
Lethal
They likely did both. They spoofed the hardware id and likely reverse engineered the syncing protocol.
Except 2 things:
1) They have alot of former iPod engeneers. Rubenstien for one.
2) They accomplished their goal by stealing the rights to Apple's UID that was granted to them by the USB group. That it very different than Apple's implementations of FAT32 or any other persons implementation of it.
Reverse engineering is legal under some very limited implementations. YOu just can't hijack code that you do not have rights to. Palm has no rights to imitate the iPod. Thats abuse of many things including Apple's trademarks related to the iPod. If palm worked out how Apple gets devices to work in iTunes in a clear room environment without any access to code that is the exclusive property of Apple (similar to how the X86 clones were made), than that would be a whole nother ball game here. Of course Apple could just re-engineer iTunes to change that system and that would be fine too.
But Palm DID NOT DO THAT. They hijacked a unique identified to spoof the system that Apple build and designed and did not license to Palm in any way shape or form. Palm's usage of the UID is no different than me jimmying your lock to get into your house. It doesn;t matter if I am a locksmith or if I know where you keep a spare key. Unless you give me permission to enter your house I am guilty of tresspass. All Apple is doing is re-locking their door, not filing charges and warning you in the neighborhood paper that you are not welcome anymore.
The flaw here is that third party apps that allow non-Apple devices to sync w/iTunes have been commercially available for years. Apple lets non-Apple devices play in the walled iTunes garden but the other devices have to build their own road to get there. The road that Apple built has a "iPod/iPhone Only" sign on it.
Lethal
Through a different API. iTunes gives an iPod more privileges than third-party devices through sync services.
They spoofed the product ID sure, but I would guess that the systems for syncing the iPod work very much like those Apple publishes as far as sync services. Palm wasn't looking for a complete solution anyway. If there was any reverse engineering done, it was probably legally done. But that doesn't mean that Apple can't stop them. Expecially since it involved spoofing Apple products.
I guess Palm wasn't very good at spoofing then 'cause Pre's direct sync w/iTunes was pretty 'meh' from what I remember when I tried it.
Lethal
I guess Palm wasn't very good at spoofing then 'cause Pre's direct sync w/iTunes was pretty 'meh' from what I remember when I tried it.
Lethal
That's the other thing I never understood. Why bother syncing with iTunes? Seriously, why? So you can sync the few items that are compatible with the Pre? Judging from what I have heard, they could have probably gotten better results with MarkSpace's Missing Sync product, you could have synced:
Contacts
Music
Photos
Ringtones
Documents (iTunes doesn't do that)
Calendars
Movies (assuming that they are compatible with the device)
Podcasts
Safari links (they say coming soon)
About the only thing they don't offer that iTunes offers are things that the calm can never use:
Fair Play content (movies, remaining upgraded tunes, and TV shows) due to contractual obligation by the studio.
Applications: Wouldn't work anyway on the pre.
It seems that with readily commercial software, Palm could have gotten a better experience than what iTunes even can offer! So why do they even care about iTunes other than the price (which can be dealt with by Palm just like Apple did years ago with the commercial MusicMatch)?
I guess that's Apple being anti-competitive for you...
The other thing that's odd is that the Pre did come w/a 'migration assistant' type app that's designed as a one time, one way sync to get Address Book and iCal so I don't know what was keeping Palm from making a first party sync app for at least 'basic' syncing (iTunes, iCal, Address Book).
For me personally though it's all kinda 'meh'. I keep all my info up-to-date via 'the cloud', I keep my music on my iPod (library is too big for any current gen phones) and the out-the-box Pre syncing leaves a lot to be desired so even if I did want to sync w/my Mac I'd buy a third party app to do it with.
Lethal
This arguement doesn't make sense to me. Why should every manufacturer write their own software? Doesn't iTunes leverage Windows API? By this arguement we are saying Apple needs to write thier own PC OS because they are "stealing" from Microsoft.
iTunes prints from Windows. They need to stop stealing print preview, etc. You get my point.
The reason? iTunes is free and the missing sync will set you back 40 bucks. Alot of people feel they are either A) Entitled to free software that does everything and wouldn't pay for the missing sync or B) more comfortable using iTunes for end to end intergration (music wise atleast).
Hell I tried to use The missing sync but ultimately went away from it a few years back. I had a RAZR and some windows mobile phones, problem was I migrating away from the windows platform, so I ultimately had to move to the iPod and iPhone. I'm not going to sit here and say that the missing sync is the best or that its pretty, because it didn't work well for me, but customers can't argue that they can't be in the party because Apple says so. You gotta pay to play.
I love not having to use a seperate program and can do everything in iTunes. Activesync (WinMo) blows in my opinion and every other program i've used is just clunky.
They don't have to write their own software. They can pay someone else to do it for them. Or license a solution from someone else. Or rely on someone that has created a solution with public APIs that they can plug into.
They use APIs that Microsoft makes available to them. They do so with permission.
I think the point was that Palm could license missing sync for use with WebOS devices. Free for the device owners. I'm sure they could get it a whole lot cheaper than $40.
They don't. THey can hire or purchase other software. Of course software is not open for you to do with what you please. I cn't go out and modify intellectual property. That's how the law works. Software is never owned by the end user - it's licensed. If you want to own something, you make your own or purchase the rights.
Yes, I am betting that they do it using Microsofts giudlines and by properly licesing the API's that Microsoft makes Available. Apple sells their own API's too - they give them away under agreement with their development program.
No it isn't. Apple legally develops their software. MS publishes their API and even sells their developers tools. Of course there are API's that MS does not publish or allow others to use too.
No, your point is invalid. MS publishes their printing API and the API's for that. I should know - I have copies of their development software and I have books published by Microsoft that teach you how to use Microsoft API's,.
The API for iTunes is not open for outside development. That is Apple's given right as the owner of iTunes. Thats how the law works.
Oh yes. And Missing Sync isn't the only syncing software for the Mac (That was just a familiar example). There are many other options available.
iTunes may be popular and familiar, however there are lots of brands that are popular out there. I can't just go out and re-decal my Saturn as a BMW and expect to impress too many car enthusiasts or expect BMW to treat my car as it was one of their cars. Popularity is earned, not just granted by existence. If I want to hang out with popular people, they can't be forced to be friendly with them. I have to be accepted in their circle. Popularity is an aspect thats earned, not a god-given right imbued on you.
That's a better excuse not to use iTunes. As you pointed out, Sync is complicated thing to make right - hard enough even with Apple publishing SyncServices. I can't imagine how simply integrating into iTunes is going to solve the current problems that sync has - namely each device out there treats data differently and stores it differently. Most of the problems arive with companies like Marspace having to wrork in a vacuum because the hardware vendors don't offer any assistance because they are either foccues on Windows or they don't care about computer tools at all. Apple cannot be blamed for the myriad of proprietary inconsistencies that the mobile world has heaped on themselves over the years. Apple's system works so good because its an integrated solution. Making things less integrated isn't going to help things out unless there is some consistency first.
I suggest that these guys also take a lesson in history, law, programing, ethics. That would cut down on some of the more ignorant postings that I don't know how many times I have had to correct and refute. Of course it's a folly - these folks believe that fact is an opinion and not, you know, fact.
Agreed. And before the hypocrisy claims start flowing, I should make it known (I assure you, not to brag, because I am nowhere close to being an expert in any of these fields), but I have taken classes in debate, logic, history, and law. I have not taken an ethics class, because there's no real reason as I was raised with an ethical mindset. Truth is a lost cause around here, since as you mentioned, facts are opinions. Reminds me of a song I know: "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong."
jW
That's your opinion on how the law works.
I can pretty much guarantee most published development guides you're reading don't include a licensing agreement either. So, your invalid point is invalid.
For that matter, such licensing agreements rarely forbid developers from accessing undocumented APIs. More often than not, they just recommend against such things for compatibility reasons (and not in an agreement). In the case of the iPhone, Apple would most likely block you from distributing an app in the App Store that uses undocumented APIs, but there isn't some "law" preventing one from accessing them.