Just don't upgrade to 8.2.1, and if you did, just downgrade, I don't know of any special features that Apple will release in iTunes that would push Palm Pre users to update to a version that disables iTunes with their Palm Pre.
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
A printer with a scanner (all-in-one) is not a door stop without paper. That in no way excuses a company from forcing you to buy their paper to use the printer function. Regardless of iTunes functionality as a jukebox player, Apple PURPOSELY *BROKE* Palm-Pre support in order to decrease their competition. That ALONE in this case invokes the tying rule. The whole point of Anti-Trust legislation is promote competition and prevent companies from trying to limit consumer choices. There was NO REASON WHAT-SO-EVER for Apple to change those ID checks in iTunes EXCEPT to remove Palm-Pre syncing. There is no valid reason to remove Palm-Pre syncing from iTunes EXCEPT to try and keep people buying iPods and iPhones instead of devices by Palm. The fact you point out that iTunes has a separate function beyond just syncing hardware devices only proves that software and hardware are separate markets and that tying them together in ways that attempt to prevent consumer choice definitely fits the tying portion of the Clayton Anti-Trust act. The articles I linked to make this perfectly clear. Apple has substantial economic power in the music market, both store and hardware devices (meets the first condition) and Apple has acted to actively prevent competition by tying together two different markets (hardware and software) in such a way as to actively prevent competition (purposely modifying iTunes for the sole purpose of removing Palm compatibility). While it's possible a judge might still rule for Apple if Palm took them to court (watching judging trends as of late for judges to change and/or make laws from the bench, which most people believe is WRONG and outside the powers the Constitution gives the courts), it's certainly well within the previous court precedents to rule against them given those basic facts.
You or anyone else doesn't have to like it. Some people think companies should be allowed to do anything they want and prevent competition and consumer choice and charge as much as the market would possibly bear under those conditions. That doesn't means it's legal under current laws. The heart of Capitalism is competition and it is that desire for competition and consumer choice that created those laws in the first place. Some people are not for the consumer, but the corporations and that is well apparent on these forums where Apple fanatics regularly make their approval for all things Apple does quite obvious for all to see.
Sorry, but you're wrong and clearly don't even know the definition of a trust as it is most certainly NOT a synonym of "monopoly". While a monopoly is always a trust, a trust is not always a monopoly. This is quite clear in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in Section 1 as it does not deal with monopolies at all (that is left for section 2). The Clayton Anti-Trust Act makes anti-competition even more defined by including specific impermissible activities such as TYING arrangements. A monopoly created *BY* Trust activity is what is impermissible by law. A monopoly is a market condition. A trust is a legal support arrangement between two entities (either companies, persons or parts of companies/divisions). If a company such as Apple engages in more than one market and engages in tying arrangements, it falls under Anti-Trust legislation. This article should make it even more clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Look under PURPOSE to start. You might then try reading the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts.
Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act clearly says, "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".
Nowhere does it mention a "monopoly" there. Section 2 of the Act deals with monopolies. A trust is NOT a monopoly. Also notice the words "contract" and "otherwise" in there. That wording alone gives Psystar a case against Apple as it is the legal CONTRACT that prevents you from using OS X with someone else's hardware other than Apple's as their intent is to prevent you from buying competing hardware to use with OS X. The Sherman Anti-Trust could not be more clear on this matter.
Microsoft is NOT a monopoly either, BTW and their legal problems were not because of a monopoly, but because they tied (what was seen as) two separate products together to prevent competition in the browser market. That was two SOFTWARE products (some might say they are part of the same product even and so it should not have applied), but tying hardware and software together for mutual economic benefit and exclusion of other competing products CLEARLY falls under the tying clause of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.
Show me where it's a "requirement". A link or quote specifically indicating that will suffice.
The most basic example given in precedent for tying arrangements is that of a printer with paper. Here you are telling me that if I don't like that "X" printer company requires you to use THEIR paper and ONLY THEIR PAPER, I can simply go buy a printer from someone else. That defeats the ENTIRE POINT of the legislation. The point of the law is that a company has NO RIGHT to say you cannot use so-and-so's *paper* in their own printer because those are two different products. If they have the best printer out there and their market share reflects that (i.e. substantial economic power in that particular market or product), they fit the tying clause. Because it's *NOT* a matter of IF you can buy a different printer, but *IF* you can but someone else's *PAPER*! Even IF the printer maker uses a non-standard type of paper, if another company comes along and produces a paper that will work in that printer, that does not give that company the right to simply say in a license that you MUST use THEIR paper even if other paper is available!
There is NO QUESTION that you can go and use someone else's software here (like buying someone else's printer in the given precedent), but that does NOT give a company like Apple the right to *purposely* and actively prevent another product from working with iTunes, especially AFTER the fact and for only that purpose. Their ONLY motive in the last iTunes update is to get you to buy an iPod or iPhone and NOT a Palm Pre.
That doesn't matter. That's like saying another printer maker could make his own paper if the paper comapany told them they cannot use their paper in their printer! The whole point of anti-trust legislation is that you are not allowed to make those kind of agreements whereby one product ONLY works with another product for mutual economic advantage! That is the very SPIRIT of the law! People like you trying to find some excuse for companies like Apple to not have to compete on all levels is purely trying to defeat the intent of the laws in place in this country, like looking for some loophole to get out of paying your taxes.
So now it's an all-in-one printer (which w/o paper still has the printing abilities of a door stop) and iTunes being a completely functional, stand alone piece of software is meaningless. Seriously?
Lethal
iTunes never had Palm Pre support.
No, that does not ALONE invoke the tying rule. As the link you supplied clearly showed, tying claims require four things to be proven.
1. There must be two separate products or services.
This one is pretty clear though it is debatable since an iPod or iPhone has limited use without iTunes.
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
Ah. There is no such agreement. If you buy an iPod or iPhone you are under no obligation to "purchase another product or service."
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
Again. No claim. Apple does not have sufficient economic power in the music manager software market to restrain free competition in the mobile phone market.
4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.
I haven't seen any numbers from Palm to demonstrate an impact, substantial or otherwise.
A possible reason could be that Apple is does not want to risk that the use of private and undocumented API by third parties could affect the users iTunes library.
I said "monopoly as defined by the FTC."
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power."
Forgive me for ignoring your Wikipedia links and going directly to the FTC. You know, the organization responsible for enforcing the laws.
Microsoft is a monopoly as defined by the FTC.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
See the example at the bottom of the page.
"Microsoft was found to have a monopoly over operating systems software for IBM-compatible personal computers."
"Microsoft illegally maintained its operating systems monopoly by including Internet Explorer, the Microsoft Internet browser, with every copy of its Windows operating system software sold to computer makers, and making it technically difficult not to use its browser or to use a non-Microsoft browser. Microsoft also granted free licenses or rebates to use its software, which discouraged other software developers from promoting a non-Microsoft browser or developing other software based on that browser."
It wasn't simply tying that was the problem. It was tying combined with technical and business practices that prevented competition.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/tying_sale.shtm
"If the seller offering the tied products has sufficient market power in the "tying" product, these arrangements can violate the antitrust laws."
Remember, "monopoly" is used as shorthand by the FTC to mean sufficient market power.
And from the link you provided.
http://www.aurorawdc.com/arj_cics_tying_arrangements.htm
"The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product."
I wouldn't call it a "mint" by any stretch. Full membership is only $4K a year. Just getting a one-off id is only $2K.
Either one is pocket change for a corporation. Heck, buying paper clips probably costs more
This does not negate your other points, btw.
Well I would call 4K a mint to me! Ok, just kidding - I was led to believe the amount was larger and I can't find mention of fees on teh USB website when I last looked at it. Suffice to say, they could have paid one cent and it doesn't change the fact that the rights to their purchased ID numbers are an exclusive one as you point out.
So now you are talking about "limited use" as if it matters while ignoring examples of an all-in-one printer having limited use without paper. Why even point it out? I could say a Palm Pre has "limited use" without being able to sync to iTunes. The point is MOOT and has no bearing or relevance.
I guess you are incapable of reading what you wrote yourself. "Or an agreement" is in there but you ignore it while telling me in the last paragraph that an iPhone has limited use without iTunes. In other words, to even ACTIVATE an iPhone you must agree to use iTunes. You must use iTunes to load software onto it. You must use iTunes to sync music to it. What part of this agreement can you not see???
Your point is moot once again (big surprise).
Again, you make a ridiculous statement. An article that appeared just yesterday listed the iPhone as being worth over 40% of the cell phone profits of this past year. This is for a company that has been in the market for less than four years. And you are going to claim that is not "sufficient economic power" ?? The iTunes store is SO significant for music sales that the record companies ganged up on Apple, using DRM as leverage to get some traction against their own demands. Apple practically controlled the online music market until recently. Again, you imply they do not have sufficient economic power. iPods are by FAR the best selling mobile music players on the planet and require iTunes to sync music or at least enable disk mode (for non iPhone based iPods). But again, you dismiss Apple's products which run off iTunes as having insufficient economic power. My god man, what kind of power would it take for YOU to consider "sufficient" for an anti-trust case???
Fortunately, for the rest of us on planet Earth, YOU don't get to determine what is or is not "sufficient". That is for the courts to decide.
Your point is not only moot, it's absurd.
You seem to have things 100% *BACKWARDS* there guy. By stating that Palm has little to no impact, you are in fact ADMITTING that Apple *HAS* had a VERY SUBSTANTIAL impact on the market place that no other company can get much traction. The fact Palm felt the need to be able to sync with iTunes in order to get some traction in that market only goes to show that IN FACT, iTunes *does* have VERY substantial economic power in the industry and that other hardware will have a hard time competing without the ability to sync music from iTunes.
One does not have to prove in court that Palm has substantial power, but rather that *Apple* has substantial power in the market to make an anti-trust case. Europe has file an anti-trust lawsuit against Intel. They are not a monopoly or even close to one compared to Microsoft. That doesn't mean they don't have substantial power of commerce and that they are then free to make contracts that restrict such commerce (violating Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust act and similar such clauses in European law).
I have no clue what you are getting on about here. Apple doesn't have to support Palm. They don't have to use some 3rd party API. That doesn't mean they have the right to actively try to prevent competition either.
Again, what is your point? You just quoted me something that say verbatim that a company *does not* have to be a monopoly before applying anti-trust rules. You are making my case for me now. Thanks.
It doesn't seem to be doing you much good since you apparently cannot comprehend what they are saying on the FTC site. The encyclopedia page explains it to a level a grade school child could comprehend. But since you refuse to even read the arguments tirades, what's the point in even replying to someone like you except to make clear to others that you are posting falsehoods?
So a court (not you) found them to have "monopoly power". A court then later also overturned the case against Microsoft. What does this have to do with Section 1 of Anti-Trust law or the Tying arrangements of the Clayton Act? If you want a quote off the FTC site, I can provide one.
From:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm
Notice the word *AND* in there. There are two things listed because the Sherman Act has two parts. The first part deals with companies attempting to prevent competition and the second part deals with companies that have already suceeded in preventing competition. Section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws any contracts or agreements that prevent competition. Apple is in violation of Section 1. They do not have to be a monpoly or even have monopoly power to violate section 1. They simply have to have substantial economic power (easy to prove in any number of areas given the percentages of markets for online music sales, music players, phones and Apple's enormous profits in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression). It is VERY clear Apple is in violation of Section 1 in their OS X agreement to install ONLY on Apple Brand Hardware and by purposely changing iTunes to eliminate competition there related from Palm Pre, they violated it AGAIN recently.
Section 1 is quite clear:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal"
Section one requires these things for a lawsuit:
1. An agreement (present in both OS X and iTunes license agreements)
2. which unreasonably restrains competition (no hardware is allowed to install OS X and no hardware can use iTunes but Apple)
3. and which affects interstate commerce. (a given with Apple's international reach).
Sorry, but Apple meets all three criteria for a potential lawsuit. It is up to a judge to decide whether the case is "substantial" or not and certainly not YOU (thank goodness). It IS up to Palm to present the case in court, though and this comes full circle back to my original OPINION that Palm should take Apple to court on this matter since Apple has made it clear they changed the ID process simply to get rid of Palm's ability to sync with iTunes. I believe they have a very good case. That doesn't guarantee a judge will find in their favor (the fact courts overturn cases against companies like Microsoft means I don't trust the courts to do what's right in the end; too many judges make law from the bench these days and one wonders if they aren't being bribed to do so, like so many in Congress are for special interests).
Not true. You can have an iPhone and never open iTunes or touch a computer (although I wouldn't recommend it). AT&T activates phones in-store and you can download music, videos, and apps directly on the phone from the iTunes Store.
I agree that there are two separate products.
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
There is no sale or agreement to sell an iPhone on the condition that the buyer purchase iTunes (and the buyer does not agree not to purchase a Palm Pre).
The buyer does not need to purchase iTunes. You currently do not need iTunes to activate an iPhone. You can use an iPhone without ever using iTunes.
That figure was an estimate of Apple and RIM combined.
This is for a company that has been in the market for less than four years. And you are going to claim that is not "sufficient economic power" ?? The iTunes store is SO significant for music sales that the record companies ganged up on Apple, using DRM as leverage to get some traction against their own demands. Apple practically controlled the online music market until recently. Again, you imply they do not have sufficient economic power. iPods are by FAR the best selling mobile music players on the planet and require iTunes to sync music or at least enable disk mode (for non iPhone based iPods). But again, you dismiss Apple's products which run off iTunes as having insufficient economic power. My god man, what kind of power would it take for YOU to consider "sufficient" for an anti-trust case???
Fortunately, for the rest of us on planet Earth, YOU don't get to determine what is or is not "sufficient". That is for the courts to decide.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."
The only market where Apple has over 50% of the sales of a particular product or service is digital music players. Fortunately, that market has nothing to do with this thread.
You completely misread what I wrote. In order for a tying case to be proven, it must be demonstrated that a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce was affected. I haven't seen any numbers to prove this claim. It could go either way.
Palm is using Apple's private and undocumented APIs. Improper use of these APIs could affect a user's iTunes library. By blocking Palm, they may be preventing potential problems.
Monopoly, like many other words, has several definitions. The one I am using is the one used by the FTC - "a firm with significant and durable market power."
And you claimed "Microsoft is NOT a monopoly." But they are according to the FTC.
No. They didn't.
All of this, of course, ignores the fact that restraint of trade by a single firm can only be found if the firm is shown to have significant and durable market power.
Let's concentrate on the iTunes part, since that is the point of this thread.
How does preventing native iTunes syncing restrain competition? Palm is perfectly capable of developing their own syncing solution. Nothing is restraining them from competing.
Microsoft made it "technically difficult not to use its browser or to use a non-Microsoft browser". The also "granted free licenses or rebates to use its software, which discouraged other software developers from promoting a non-Microsoft browser or developing other software based on that browser." These practices restrain competition.
Apple is doing nothing to prevent Palm from developing or marketing their own solution.
No, it is up to the FTC to take Apple to court for any alleged antitrust violations.
This is getting extremely ridiculous and childish. I wonder what the latest hack that Palm is using. They should be ashamed of themselves. Be slightly creative and come up with an alternate, if not better, solution.
I've stayed out of this but this is a childish move by a company which is upposed to have grownups. Respect another company's IP. At least RIM doesn't piggyback on the iPod and actually build their own plugin. The best thing is for this turd of a company to go bankrupt.
Go, Palm, Go!
Let's all root for the underdog - that's what Apple fans have been doing for decades!
Go, Palm, Go!
Let's all root for the underdog - that's what Apple fans have been doing for decades!
I don't recall Apple piggybacking on another company's hardwork, nor do I recall Apple breaking the rules about using USB...
Notice the picture shows iPod when Palm Pre is synced? I find it kind of funny. Palm Pre should just make a deal with Apple so that it is officially supported by iTunes. Or just make the syncing software on their own. But this cat and mouse thing is bad for the consumer.
Apple needs to be careful because they are giving Microsoft some very nice ammo to throw at them.
Ad .. "Unlike Apple iTunes Microsoft Media player is not racist. It is very open to supporting other people products" or something like that.
Like it or not Microsoft Media player libary while still a little clunky compared to iTunes I think it will push a lot of people over to it because it plays nice with almost any device out there.
Personally I think apple is acting like a little kid intentionally breaking it.
People keep saying Palm should make its own software to do it. My is will that software be able to keep the iTunes play list people make in tack. I have never messed with blackberries or any of the 3rd parties so I do not know. I know they can get the library but can they also keep the play list. If they can not keep the play list the the syncing argument is mute because it is a lot of trouble for the user to remake god knows how many play list.
People do not like change. iTunes is a great music playing piece of software. It is what I use to keep my library in order even though some of the bugs in it drive me crazy. For the most part iTunes is great and motivation to change is not that high. Plus I would have to remake all my play list. Converting my iTunes songs is not as big of a deal but the play list is a problem.
Ad .. "Unlike Apple iTunes Microsoft Media player is not racist. It is very open to supporting other people products" or something like that.
Like it or not Microsoft Media player libary while still a little clunky compared to iTunes I think it will push a lot of people over to it because it plays nice with almost any device out there.
Personally I think apple is acting like a little kid intentionally breaking it.
People keep saying Palm should make its own software to do it. My is will that software be able to keep the iTunes play list people make in tack. I have never messed with blackberries or any of the 3rd parties so I do not know. I know they can get the library but can they also keep the play list. If they can not keep the play list the the syncing argument is mute because it is a lot of trouble for the user to remake god knows how many play list.
People do not like change. iTunes is a great music playing piece of software. It is what I use to keep my library in order even though some of the bugs in it drive me crazy. For the most part iTunes is great and motivation to change is not that high. Plus I would have to remake all my play list. Converting my iTunes songs is not as big of a deal but the play list is a problem.
But I cannot buy music from the iTunes store without an iTunes account so unless I don't want to use the music player or be able to upgrade the firmware on my iPod Touch or iPhone, I pretty much have to play by Apple's rules. If I have iTunes installed, I want to be able to use the sync feature. Otherwise, what good is iTunes to me? There are better jukebox players out there. I have iTunes so I can SYNC to my hardware (from AppleTV units to an iPod Touch). Like or not, I'm stuck with iTunes already. Am I going to buy a Palm Pre if I cannot sync with my existing iTunes library? Not bloody likely. Thus, Apple has restricted my choices of smart phones to their own products by getting me to use their software to buy and organize music. They don't want me to use anyone else's hardware, so they don't support anyone else's hardware or provide an API for anyone else to use...not even for the most basic of support (auto-copying, for example). Apple has NO INTEREST in letting anyone else duplicate their services or products. If Apple decided it wanted to do a software package to compete with Parallels and Fusion, you can be almost CERTAIN the OS would suddenly be modified in such a way that those two products NO LONGER FUNCTION with newer versions of OS X. But I suppose you think that would be legal too. It is their OS, after all. Why don't they start charging a 30% fee for ALL Mac software next, not just iPHone Apps? I wouldn't put it past them to try.
You can partially use it just like I can partially use an all-in-one printer like my Brother MFC-665CW without paper. I can fax out with it and scan documents. I cannot print, of course. I cannot update my iPod Touch to OS 3.0 without iTunes either.
Monopoly power is not needed to have a "not insubstantial effect on commerce". You throw around 50% and 40%, etc., but I see no evidence of a distinct line as to what is "substantial". A court would have to decide what's substantial and that's Apple's only real hope in any of these cases because they are in clear violation of the other requirements.
No, iPods have nothing to do with iTunes....
The Palm Pre is a music player, after all and the whole purpose in syncing to iTunes is to sync MUSIC. Apple has tied THREE markets together with iTunes. There's the music store business, the jukebox player and the hardware syncing, updating, loading, etc. support. A lot of people think iTunes is trying to do way too much to begin with. If iTunes were split into three different products, you probably would not have this issue to begin with. Once again, it's the vertical integration without regards to anyone but Apple that gets them into trouble...not because they have it but because they purposely shut everyone else out with no option to workaround the issue. I cannot sync to iTunes purchases except with Apple hardware. I cannot install OS X except on Apple hardware (without hacking). They've tied the products together and forbade any other choices to use one without the other. That is the violation and it's not hard to prove except to those that purposely choose not to see it.I've wasted too much time arguing in this thread as it is. I have better things to do with my time seeing as I do not benefit one way or the other from continuing this argument. Tell me how wrong I am all you want. It won't change a thing either way.
Now you are bringing in a third product: music.
Remember the first qualification you linked to for a tying claim. "There must be two separate products or services."
Additionally, Apple is not preventing a Pre from accessing the music that you purchase from iTunes.
What you want is irrelevant. Tying claims are based on requirements to purchase a secondary product as a condition of purchasing a product with significant and durable market power. Remember requirement 2 that you linked to.
Apple provides Sync Services as a way for any third party hardware to sync data and media. There is no lock in with iTunes except with DRMd media. Palm could provide seamless sync of iTunes music and playlists through the APIs that Apple designed for this use.
Okay.
Monopoly Power = Market Power = Economic Power
From the link you provided:
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
What are you defining as the tying product? What are you defining as the tied product?
I didn't throw around any of those numbers. I quoted the FTC as to the 50% threshold.
"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages."
No, iPods have nothing to do with iTunes....
Again, you are trying to bring in a third product.
Apple is not in trouble
As mentioned many times in this thread, there is a workaround. Apple provides a way for third parties to sync with an iTunes library.
That is not true.
http://www.markspace.com/products/missing-sync-family.html
It's wonderful that you acknowledge that you are going to believe what you believe regardless of any facts presented to the contrary.
Playlists and other data such as ratings is available to third parties through an unencrypted XML file.