iTunes 9 Breaks Palm Pre Syncing Once Again

[50548]

^^ I have a feeling Apple will win this one.

Of course it will, for three reasons:

- pirates cannot win, especially those that disguise themselves behind a false image of correctness;

- the Pre is an utter failure that has barely impacted iPhone margins; not to mention Palm's desperate move to launch a lower-cost model now;

- in case Apple gets really pissed off, it can buy Palm with some change money it has in its pocket.

The Pre sucks big time. And Palm IS DEAD.

 

[CylonGlitch]

Apple already broke the AAC standard, so Itunes Plus songs don't play on Nokia devices. So it isn't really surprising that they are now breaking the USB standard as well.

Doesn't look like Apple did much wrong with the AAC and they didn't violate the standard. The Pinf atom of the AAC from iTunes is listed as Sibling, where one created from Quicktime (which works on the Nokia devices) is listed as Child. They are basically the same; but the Sibling tag is not supported by Nokia; it is a valid tag (almost every other device works fine with it). Thus it really is a Nokia problem.

In this case, Apple is NOT doing anything wrong with the USB ID information; but Palm is.

 

[charlituna]

Apple already broke the AAC standard, so Itunes Plus songs don't play on Nokia devices.

are you sure you are putting the blame on the right folks. can you show that Apple made a change to the standard and keep those details from people. and not that Nokia simply didn't bother to ask for the details to test that they had everything correct.

So it isn't really surprising that they are now breaking the USB standard as well.

and how exactly did Apple do that. where in the code of conduct does it say that you have to allow anyone to use your software however they want even if you don't want them to. cause that's the only thing Apple might have 'broken'. when you plug a pre in it is recognized as a USB device on the desktop, allowing you to treat it like a hard drive and drag whatever you want into it. if Apple had actually broken the standard, the Pre would not mount

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

1 cent? Apple's gross cut is more like 30-35 cents, which on $8.5 billion sales (songs only, not including movies) is nearly $3 billion in revenue. You won't see Steve Jobs in the queue for the homeless shelter for some time yet..

Wow. First off: we know that the record companies got 70-75 cents for each song sold (who knows what it's at now that they have songs at $1.29). Second: Apple has to pay for the hosting and bandwidth. Third: they pay for the credit card charges. Apple is barely skimming money off of each sale. They also must staff support for the store. I'd bet that they lose a penny for each song sold, and make it up with iPods.

 

[whooleytoo]

for the same reason they control the computer hardware you can use MacOSX with. easier to revise and to fix when you have a limited number of device hardware configurations to support. If they opened up itunes syncing to every possible device they would have to test all changes on every device to ensure each thing works on everything.



why should Apple have to sell anything that supports someone else's hardware.

no the "simple fix" is for Palm to pull a Blackberry and write the software themselves.

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

It's actually less work for Apple.

 

[pdjudd]

Why? Because Apple is actively blocking that functionality. Again that is a fact not an opinion as this article is about exactly that. There is nothing incorrect in my assertion. You may then argue that you can get around it but that does not negate the fact.

Apple can hardly actively block something they never supported in the first place. As far as APple is concerned, this is closing a security hole to block a hacker.

 

[tbrinkma]

Also, with the Pre "spoofing" the Apple ID to work with iTunes, what I was trying to say is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to make that a requirement for iTunes. Sure they can at this point, but again they aren't the underdogs in this area anymore. They can get away with that sort of thing with computers because their competitors are so huge, but that's not the case with Apple's other products.

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you actually saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to check what the hardware is before trying to sync to it?

If that actually *is* what you mean, then iTunes would be forced to try syncing music/videos/etc to *every* USB device plugged into the computer (printers, scanners, thumb drives, cameras, speakers, etc.)

The idea behind those USB IDs is that they are supposed to enable the computer (and software on it) to uniquely identify any particular type of device. If Apple shouldn't be allowed to use those IDs for their intended purpose, how would you recommend they distinguish an iPod from a USB microphone?

Apple is intentionally blocking the Pre's (and now Pixi's) ability to pretend to be an iPod because doing otherwise opens them up to much more painful risks in the future. If Apple were to simply allow it, here's a few scenarios that would happen.

Scenario 1) Apple silently allows the Pre to sync with iTunes by pretending to be an iPod. Apple makes a change to the protocol (say encrypting it to allow syncing across the internet). Suddenly, the Palm devices that worked for years stop working. Apple can't send an update out for the Pre, and since Palm didn't actually license the syncing protocol, they have no access to the new encryption keys. Apple gets a real black eye on this one because they've 'supported' syncing to a Pre for years. Users sue because *Apple* has disabled some functionality.

Scenario 2) Apple silently allows the Pre to sync with iTunes by pretending to be an iPod. Palm makes a change to the Pre's firmware, and in a small percentage of cases this change causes iTunes to trigger a glitch which bricks the Pre. Again, Apple gets the bad press, because plenty of *other* users aren't having any problems with their Pre, so it must be *Apple's* fault.

Scenario 3) Apple does its best to actually support syncing with the Pre with the iPod sync protocol. Then one day Apple updates iTunes the same day Palm pushes a firmware/OS update to the Pre. Users who update one but not the other have no problems, but users who update *both* run into an issue where a small number have their Pre irrevocably bricked during the sync. Who should the users be upset with?

Apple is actually unable to *support* syncing with the Pre, because they can't control what the software on the Pre does or how it behaves. If Palm wants their users to be able to use iTunes as their media library, they should go the route RIM (and several other phone manufacturers) went, and create a utility that uses one of the documented *and supported* interfaces Apple provides to allow 3rd parties to interact with iTunes. Instead, they decided to pass the support responsibility off onto Apple.

If Apple needs to change the sync protocol for iPods in order to enable new functionality, but they aren't allowed to break syncing with the Pre, you've just created a constraint where Palm is allowed to restrict Apple from providing new.

Palm advertises functionality which is not, and never was, within its ability to guarantee, but somehow this is Apple's fault? How?

 

[kdarling]

Nah. You hire disgruntled Apple employees, recruit the Apple executive that wasn't involved with the iPhone and move them all over to a dying company that's been bankrolled by a rock star (and run by Apple's former CFO) to wage a battle with their former employer.

Heck, it worked for Jobs , back when Apple was a dying company run by a soft drink exec. Jobs brought back employees he stole for NeXT and took over again. If an untrained salesman who lives off the innovation of others can do it, so can smarter people.

As for iTunes, there's no doubt that Palm should've come up with their own solution by now. The first time was fun and clever. Now it's just silly and wasteful.

 

[karlfranz]

Apple don't own the house. Apple built the house, then sold it to me. If I want Palm to come through the window, the keyhole, or sliding down my chimney one day in December, then that should be my choice, not Apple's.

Sounds to me like someone needs to understand the concept of a "software license". Apple didn't "sell" you iTunes (in fact, it's free). By clicking on the "I Agree" button during the installation process, you consent to play by their rules. Or to use the house analogy: Apple built the house and owns it. They are the landlord and they allow you live in it rent-free as long as you follow their rules and don't destroy or vandalize the place. If you violate these terms, it is Apple's right to evict you.

 

[pdjudd]

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

It's actually less work for Apple.

Except by not doing something, there can be implicit support from the end user. That is work for Apple because they have to train their people on how to treat users making unreasonable requests.

 

[theBB]

Is that really the "right" solution? If I had an iPod, and a Pre, I wouldn't want to have two entirely separate syncing solutions. The whole point of syncing is to simplify things for the user, not complicate them.

All you need is hitting a button on a separate piece of properly written program. You may have to re-enter which playlists or movies to sync, but unless you want to use the exact same syncing options for both devices, you need to do that anyways.

 

[silverwarloc]

Kinda makes me dislike Apple policy. Why not let other media players use iTunes? What is the harm in getting more people exposed to the Apple way of doing things? \
" hey this iTunes is great,!, think I'll get a MAC !! "
more like ........"hey this sucks ...screw Apple"

I don't have a PRE but I do belive in fair play

Mr. Gates,

If you are so kind, please, post your home address on this forum. While your at it, turn off all security alarms and monitors. Inform your security guards that I will be coming around and to let me in without questions while driving my empty 18-wheeler to your front door. And, don't forget to leave your door unlocked.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do this. So, would you expect this from any company, not just Apple? I think not.

 

[zacman]

are you sure you are putting the blame on the right folks. can you show that Apple made a change to the standard and keep those details from people. and not that Nokia simply didn't bother to ask for the details to test that they had everything correct.

Yes I am sure. It's very well documented. In the AAC standard the pinf atom is a child of esdf. If you create an AAC file with Itunes, or Quicktime or whatever software it always will create pinf as an child. However only ITunes Plus songs have pinf in it as a sibling and not as a child of esdf. As the Nokia player (and TiVO and XBox etc.) expect pinf to be a child and not a sibling they don't recognize an Itunes Plus song as a legimitate AAC file and won't play it. There is a fix available though.

More information is available here: http://techtransit.blogspot.com/2007/06/putpinfinitsplace-itunes-plus-fixer-for.html

Or google for pinf and Itunes plus.

 

[FakeWozniak]

can I have your account password so I can post as you because thats how I want it to be and I shouldn't have to be tied to my account to post on these boards when yours is better.

Very good point and funny too! Palm is doing corporate sponsored identity theft. I hope they loose the priviledge of using USB and are sued until the ports are removed from every manufactured Palm device. Nice class action lawsuit material... "They advertised it would be compatible with iTunes syncing!" :-(

I bet many of the ignorant youngsters posting communist views in this thread (you know the ones, they don't own any phone themselves yet, but by golly gee, they won't buy an apple product now) would change their stance after having their identity stolen. BTW, if any of you want to send me your credit card numbers and give me permission to sign your name, I would be happy to run up your personal account balances for you. Oh wait, you are too young to have credit, let alone a paying job.

 

[whooleytoo]

Wow. First off: we know that the record companies got 70-75 cents for each song sold (who knows what it's at now that they have songs at $1.29). Second: Apple has to pay for the hosting and bandwidth. Third: they pay for the credit card charges. Apple is barely skimming money off of each sale. They also must staff support for the store. I'd bet that they lose a penny for each song sold, and make it up with iPods.

Not according to every figure I've seen quoted, which states the record companies receive 60-65 cents.

As I stated, that was Apple's gross cut. Out of which comes their costs.
I'd be astonished if they were losing money on that revenue.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Not according to every figure I've seen quoted, which states the record companies receive 60-65 cents.

As I stated, that was Apple's gross cut. Out of which comes their costs.
I'd be astonished if they were losing money on that revenue.

So you're ignoring how much they have to pay for bandwidth, staff, upkeep, serving and credit card charges.

You really think it's cost them any less than 3 billion to keep this running for the past 6 years? Please.

 

[aristotle]

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

It's actually less work for Apple.

Wow. You are totally not getting the issue. They are fixing security holes in their software. Palm is trying to exploit those holes. Apple is not breaking compatibility with legitimate compatible devices.

 

[karlfranz]

I'm not disputing Apple have the right to change iTunes as they choose (at least, until such time as they have a monopoly in the industry, and seek to abuse it).

I'm just disappointed they choose to break Pre compatibility. I'm just tired of vendors trying to tie you into their other products at the expense of interoperability and ease of use. It seems to me this parochial mindset is holding back what's technically possible.

It's not just Pre users who are affected, they're also iTunes/Mac users.

Apparently many of you don't seem to understand the concept of protecting your intellectual property. You seem to think that Apple is doing this to be mean, piss off Pre owners, piss off Palm or some other ridiculous reason. The fact is that Apple may be legally required to do whatever it can to disable Pre-syncing. If they don't they are establishing a precedent—essentially saying that it is OK to do this. Given enough time, Apple will find itself losing the rights to its intellectual property and, worse yet, may be required to provide support for competing products.

You may find it petty on Apple's part that they are doing this, but understand that they may have no choice. Palm, on the other hand, does have a choice. They could very easily have a solution that plays by the rules and chances are that they already have a syncing app written in-house. However, the amount of free publicity from the tech media and blogs may be worth the controversy for them because it keeps them relevant. How quickly would the tech world forget about the Pre if they simply released their own syncing app? Palm would probably get 2 days of publicity from articles, blogs and press releases stating that the Pre now has its own app and then the Pre would fade into obscurity until their next model comes out.

 

[HLdan]

Kinda makes me dislike Apple policy. Why not let other media players use iTunes? What is the harm in getting more people exposed to the Apple way of doing things? \
" hey this iTunes is great,!, think I'll get a MAC !! "
more like ........"hey this sucks ...screw Apple"

I don't have a PRE but I do belive in fair play

You logic fails for one big reason, Palm is a big company, very big. They can easily afford software engineers to create their own software for the Pre, especially as much advertising has went into it. We are not talking about a small mom and pop deal like many of the developers for the app store, we're talking about Palm. It's shameless and embarrassing for them to feed off another company's success. They did not license iTunes with Apple to use the Pre on it. I would expect this kind of behavior from a small time developer and I might actually side with the small time developer but not Palm.

They already took Apple's idea of the Newton when Apple dropped it, now they want to use Apple's own iTunes to compete with Apple's iPhone, are you serious?

 

[whooleytoo]

So you're ignoring how much they have to pay for bandwidth, staff, upkeep, serving and credit card charges.

No. I'm saying I doubt Apple is dumb enough to make a loss on a service which has the potential to scale to a such a massive size. There's no guarantee that if iTMS sales double, iPod sales will too; hence Apple would be taking a big risk if they were making a loss on every iTMS sale.

 

[charlituna]

No they are just adding a line of code do it.

No one is suggesting Apple needs to support or certify 3rd party devices with iTunes, just that they stop deliberately breaking compatibility.

you two (and others) seem so sure that is what they are doing. so prove it. find and share with us, the 'line of code' (or probably lines) that specify search for, detect and block a Pre from syncing with itunes.

I agree with the user experience thing. Palm has done something stupid here. They have left part of their phones user experience in the hands of a competing company. Apple is probably thinking that they have no obligation to support the Pre and could care less about making iTunes work with it. In turn the average Pre owner has a worse user experience with their device if they are trying to sync it with iTunes and it doesn't work.

+1 Apple.

now there is a nice argument that isn't just "Palm isn't playing by the rules". I agree 100%. Palm is being stupid for leaving their experience in the hands of another company.

But Apple is annoying users.

Palm users, who they don't make any real money off of. so why would Apple care.

and I believe they are making an example of them.

to some degrees I believe you are correct. they are likely not just giving up on this little game as an example. Because if they let this slide, what's to stop Palm or someone else from doing something nastier.

it's not unlike continuing the fight with Psystar. they need to have the courts toss out all possible arguments so that someone with more resources doesn't try the same game later, and win.

I bet the real reason Apple removed DRM from the iTMS

Apple never wanted DRM. that was the labels condition for allowing the music to be sold. Once Apple was able to show that their store was, for the labels, a success, they have the power to argue that it was time to dump the protection. And if they can ever convince the studios of the same thing, it will be gone from tv shows and movies as well. this whole 'mock dvd' itunes extras could be a step in that direction

Palm never should have marketed anything that they don't have an agreement with and can guarantee. They had no right nor any assumption that iTunes was an open platform or had any such licensing. None. They simply should not have advertised it at all.

so I wonder if I can go buy a Pre, which advertises that it syncs with itunes and then sue them when it doesn't.

 

[whooleytoo]

Wow. You are totally not getting the issue. They are fixing security holes in their software. Palm is trying to exploit those holes. Apple is not breaking compatibility with legitimate compatible devices.

How does this security hole work? If someone malicious has physical access to your machine in order to plug a USB device in, you have bigger problems. I don't buy the security argument.

 

[agbot]

Kinda makes me dislike Apple policy. Why not let other media players use iTunes? What is the harm in getting more people exposed to the Apple way of doing things? \
" hey this iTunes is great,!, think I'll get a MAC !! "
more like ........"hey this sucks ...screw Apple"

I don't have a PRE but I do belive in fair play

Would you make the same argument that HP or Canon should be forced to allow knock-off printers to be sold w/o any software and instead just identify themselves as HP/Canon devices and get a free ride?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No. I'm saying I doubt Apple is dumb enough to make a loss on a service which has the potential to scale to a such a massive size. There's no guarantee that if iTMS sales double, iPod sales will too; hence Apple would be taking a big risk if they were making a loss on every iTMS sale.

So if the iTunes Music Store has produced 3 billion in revenue, as you stated, they've still lost money. There's no way that iTunes has cost them less than 3 billion to keep going for 6 years.

 

[dernhelm]

So what's the over/under on the number of days until the Pre is able to sync again?

I'm giving 3.