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 9 Breaks Palm Pre Syncing Once Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We all know that companies (many) promise things before they know if they can fully deliver the goods. Often this is done to see if there is demand for it and if there is, then produce the product. Seems like Palm is trying this, not wanting to fully fund the effort, but trying to see if it is something that people really want and if they can do it easy enough. At least that is how it appears.
I used to love Palm. I really hope that that is the case and they have a fantastic Palm Desktop/Synch app being readied in the wings.
Emotion? Me? Nah. I've been in academia too long to try to pull that off. My peers would tear me apart if I didn't provide evidence.
But since you don't really know what's going on from a technical standpoint, i'll start with this.
This was the first time around. This is the important part that DVD Jon mentions :
What did Apple do in return? They did not block the pre as you *want* to believe, Apple simply put in code that verified the device as an iPod made by Apple.
What did Palm then do? They identified themselves as an iPod manufactured by Apple, instead of an iPod manufactured by Palm.
Absorb the above. Apple did not block other devices. Again, Apple does, not, block other devices. Apple is simply verifying their own devices by device type and vendor ID before initiating the syncing process.
We have no data on how they did it this time, but i'd bet it was in the same fashion. In fact i'm pretty sure its by serial number hash or file system checks, point is, Apple doesn't have to specifically block Palm, and they havn't. They have been verifying and connecting their own devices, of which they are fully allowed to do. You can question their motives, but it doesn't change the fact that palm isn't being blocked, but Apple is enhancing their own verification measures and Palm is playing catch up by sitting on the side lines and reverse engineering legitimate devices.
I believe you are ignorant to the true technical facts that are taking place. Again, Apple isn't saying "Block all devices that say palm". They are saying "allow all devices that appropriately authenticate as Apple, after the following verifications". No different than a vehicle that uses transponder based keys (doesn't work with a copy that fits in the ignition but only a key that fits and has the appropriate signal)
Thank you for the excellent response.
I need clarification.
Are you saying if the Pre didn't lie about who it was it could synch?
I THINK I understand you to say, "Apple only allows Apple products to synch with iTunes."
But it also sounds like you're saying the only problem is the Pre lies about who it is and that violates some internal checksum. From that I infer that if they had not "lied" in their ID's there would be no problem. Is that what you meant to imply?
If not I understand the statements as such:
I said, "The bouncer blocks non-Apple employee's from getting into the bar."
Where you more accurately state, "The bouncer only allows Apple employee's in the door."
or
I said, "Heads I win."
And you said, "Tales you lose."
I see the result as the same. I'm not getting in the door and I lost the coin toss.
As a programmer I see arguing HOW it's done as irrelevant (obviously I'm simplifying parsing an array of ID combinations for simplicity):
if (x != AppleID)
{ return;}
Synch();
return;
Vs.
if (x == AppleID)
{ Synch(); }
return;
What I think you may have been confused about is you might have though I was saying:
if (x == BlockedID)
{ return; }
Synch();
That would make no sense and would be a really silly way to do it so it never occurred to me that anyone would think I meant that. My fault for not being clear enough.
So, are we saying the same thing but just from opposite sides of the door?
Thanks again.
I don't understand this kind of argument. I think it's safe to say that Apple has spent millions of dollars in developing iTunes - a lot of time and effort has gone into making it what it is. I think I'd be pretty annoyed if another company decided to just piggy-back on years of my company's hard work, without any permission or compensation. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants!
Why not? Apple put a significant amount of R&D and money into the development of iTunes. Remember that iTunes was designed primarily as a way to seamlessly sync music between your iPod and your Mac. Yes, other devices were supported back in the OS9 days, but the primary motivation for the development of iTunes was the iPod.
BlackBerry has a separate sync client that "connects" to iTunes to allow the synchronization of music to their devices. This "connection" is utilized by a number of programs, such as iVolume and Fetch Art. There is no reason at all that Palm didn't make their own sync client, like BlackBerry. If they did, we all wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
Palm tried to take the easy way out and engineer their OS to sync with iTunes rather than creating a separate application to do so. I think that was a short-sighted and poor business choice.
-Aaron-
Thinking about it some more...I think the problem that I'm having with your original statement [aside from blocked/locked] Is that your stating that Apple intentionally blocks the user from legally obtained media, when in fact they are just blocking a device that is accessing it inappropriately, no? There lies the difference. It's gotta be upsetting for Pre owners to lose that excellent functionality, but Palm knew what they were doing when they set out on this path.
YES! You are correct. I intentionally said it that way to get the point across but it was very, very poor wording on my part as it was incredibly easy to misconstrue.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's an interesting point! It would certainly annoy Pre users, perhaps enough to make them regret not going with an iPhone.
If the Palm Pre didn't lie about it's USB ID it wouldn't be able to sync, because it's not an iPod. iTunes looks for an iPod to connect via USB, and then syncs to it. It doesn't block other devices, it just ignores them (in the same way that iPhoto ignores all non-camera devices, plus cameras that it doesn't recognize as support).
While your argument about the difference between not allowing them in and only allowing in Apple's devices makes sense in some ways, it does make a huge difference when the rule is that you can't block a device by it's USB ID. What you are allowed to do (and have to do in order to design functional software) is look for specific ID's or types of devices (also identified in a similar way) and only recognize those devices (ignoring everything else).
jW
Yes thank you for the more succinct clarification. I thought I said that at the end of my post.
I've changed my "fact" to
2) Apple only allows Apple devices to synch with iTunes which could result in the inability for you to listen to your legally purchased music on a competitor's device without the use of 3rd party software.
But it just doesn't have the same ring...
If you are not trying to say that Apple is using this code (simplified version of course):
if (x == BlockedID)
{ return; }
Synch();
Then i'm not really sure what you are trying to say. The fact of the matter is that Apple IS using the first instance you describe :
if (x == AppleID)
{ Synch(); }
return;
Which is why palm is changing their spoof every time a new version comes out. Apple wouldn't be in the wrong for using the above. How the heck else could they distinguish an iPod from a keyboard or a webcam? But now, like I said, Apple is probably just upping the ante on their own verifications, so:
{
if (x == AppleVendorID) && (y == AppleDeviceID) && (NumCheck(z) == "true")
{Synch();}
else
{out.println("Go to hell");}
}
Even if the end result is the same, the fact that Palm keeps changing their metrics to match the above is where the problem lay. Apple can enhance their verification procedures legitimately for a myriad of reasons.
Excuse my weak code example. I havn't programmed a thing in about two years.
Now that Steve is back, it's probably more like
Code:
{
if (x == AppleVendorID) && (y == AppleDeviceID) && (NumCheck(z) == "true")
{Synch();}
else
{out.println("F**k off!");}
}Pretty crafty moves from Apple! But you make a great point - why would Palm choose to leave a significant part of their product's abilities in the hands of their biggest rival?
Yes, they can decide Palm can't use it. The question is whether they should. Apple is not hurting Palm very much--nobody buys a Palm with the #1 priority being iTunes synching. But Apple is annoying users. Companies rarely excel by annoying users. It's a dumb, petty move that Apple should be above.
I'm not sure the average user would blame Apple. I think most users would think there was a problem with their phone, not with another company's software.
Now that Steve is back, it's probably more like
Oh yes. I'm VERY excited to see how Jobs will respond now that he is back in the drivers seat. Rubenstein must be pretty angry now that his advisary has the liver of some guy in his twenties(mentioned in the keynote). I wonder how many benjamines he had to drop to skip the queue.
None. Unless you think the hospital where he had the transplant is lying.
http://www.methodisthealth.org/methodist/About+Us/Newsroom/News/Steve+Jobs+Receives+Liver+Transplant
It doesn't have the same ring because it doesn't sound like Apple's the bad guy anymore. It sounds like the competitor is being lazy. And that is precisely what Palm are and why people found your initial statement to be erroneous.
Apple didn't pour 9 years of manpower into iTunes to have Palm just piggy back onto it for free and then cause them headaches for it. If Apple lets the Palm Pre sync with iTunes, Palm Pre users will call Apple about syncing problems. This will result in more manpower being used to answer said calls and questions, even with only "we never intended for that to work, call Palm".
In the end, the facts are pretty simple : Palm has been using hack after hack in order to get a free ride in iTunes.
The price of a private jet + the fuel to put in it. It's pretty easy to get any organ transplant in a short delay if you can travel anywhere in the county in under a few hours.
The problem most people face with waiting lists is that they can only be one, because once your turn comes up, you only have a few hours to get to the hospital and get your transplant before the organ is wasted.
Steve, with his vast ressources, can just fly anywhere in the country to get his transplant, so he can put himself on any number of waiting lists.
Nope, not saying that. I though you might be thinking that's what I meant but it's not.
Yep that's what I was saying they use. They use an allow list, not a block list, so I can see how the use of the word "block" was a terrible choice in my statement. I would never use a block list for an unknown set. Especially when I already have an all inclusive allow list. It just never occurred to me that someone would think I meant that so I failed to clarify where it was needed.
Yes, I would agree that this example would be a more accurate representation of what was going on as we know it's not a single ID number. I was just simplifying my example to make sure I was focusing on the idea of a block list verses an allow list.
What's going to suck is if Pre starts using legitimate, but stolen, serial numbers in an attempt to get back in and that causes legitimate devices to break. Though that would be legally brilliant of Apple to force Palm to make such a stupid move because then Apple would have a clear argument for the Pre's synching hurting Apple's business.
I completely agree. Apple has the right to do whatever they want with their software as long as it does not break any laws or contracts.
