iTunes 9 Breaks Palm Pre Syncing Once Again

[CylonGlitch]

Why not look it up first and see if you are correct before building an entire belief system based on no actual knowledge?

Because it is completely irrelevant to the information in the rest of the post; who cares if other things can sync or not. The point is that they still have the same set of options in front of them. Either do it through the proper channels or not. I also mentioned that they may not have access to the proper channels and thus it would lower their options.

Again, the initial statement that it's a guess was just that, because it didn't matter, and thus didn't constitute additional time to research the information.

Besides, what believe system are you talking about. I gave very specific choices that Palm has in front of them. Some of which are under their control, some aren't. They can develop their own software, license the interface, perfectly mimic the iPod/phone, or give up. No one said that they can't write their own software, no reason they couldn't. The licensing may or may not be a path to explore -- who knows, maybe Apple thinks they smell funny? Mimic the iPod (their current approach); they will need to do it perfectly, otherwise it will be detectable. Or give up.

Which one is a belief? Did I miss an avenue which they could explore?

 

[Kludge420]

Sync Services is an Apple designed and documented service that has been available for years that actually pre-dates the iPhone (its the successor to iSync). Heck, its built in to the OS and is designed for teh purpose that you want. You are calling it a block, however your definition of a block is flawed. You have proved nothing.

You are not even address the issue. Yes you have stated another fact that is true but it is not relevant to my statement of fact.

I stated, "2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products."

When challenged I demonstrated that Apple blocks the Pre from synching with iTunes. That fact proves the truth of my statement.

You then go on to discuss ways AROUND it but that does not negate the previous statement. It's like saying, "My dog can't eat brand X or he'll get diarrhea so I feed him brand Y." Feeding your dog brand Y does not stop it from having diarrhea if it eats brand X. That is a fact. Do you understand?

I have no problem with you saying, "Yeah, but..." as long as you acknowledge what I have said as true. Saying there are ways around the fact does not negate the fact. "My wife was shot but the doctor saved her life." The doctor saving her life does not mean the shooting never happened. Get it?

 

[CylonGlitch]

Which one is a belief? Did I miss an avenue which they could explore?

Ohh.. I guess I did miss one, they could force / convince Apple to open the doors to their IP to all their competitors for free. (I think I just heard the Devil Shiver)

 

[HLdan]

Companies need to go to the source if they want to use the other company's technology to profit from it. I wondered how Apple managed to get the iPod Touch, iPhone and Snow Leopard to have Exchange support without any additional software. What did they do? They licensed it from Microsoft. What didn't Apple do? They didn't go telling their customers that Snow Leopard and the iPhone have Exchange support because they hacked their way into Microsoft's framework unknowingly by Microsoft only to have Microsoft find out later and break it for Apple's customers. At that point it would Apple who burned their customers, not Microsoft.
A company has a responsibility to properly license stuff if they want to take care of their customers. If they can't get the license then "F" it, but don't go advertising on your own website that your new product (Pre) has iTunes support when it really doesn't.

 

[slackpacker]

Why would they do that? Then they wouldn't be in the tech news cycle every three days.

Notice no one focuses on Palm Pre sales anymore. Rubinstein knows what he's doing.

This is quite negitive actually I would not want to purchase a phone that I could never be sure it could reliably sync. Or one that I would have to upgrade the firmware everytime itunes gets patched.

Not good press....for Palm

 

[Eddyisgreat]

You are not even address the issue. Yes you have stated another fact that is true but it is not relevant to my statement of fact.

I stated, "2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products."

When challenged I demonstrated that Apple blocks the Pre from synching with iTunes. That fact proves the truth of my statement.

You then go on to discuss ways AROUND it but that does not negate the previous statement. It's like saying, "My dog can't eat brand X or he'll get diarrhea so I feed him brand Y." Feeding your dog brand Y does not stop it from having diarrhea if it eats brand X. That is a fact. Do you understand?

I have no problem with you saying, "Yeah, but..." as long as you acknowledge what I have said as true. Saying there are ways around the fact does not negate the fact. "My wife was shot but the doctor saved her life." The doctor saving her life does not mean the shooting never happened. Get it?

The only fallacy in your arguments (all of them it seems) is the fact that you want to yell your First Law of Kludge420 that states that if you are forbidden from accomplishing a task one way it cannot be done irregardless of any alternative methods that serve the same purpose.

You can spin it the way you like, but your statement was that "Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products", which implies that if I purchase unprotected (plus) music on itunes, there is absolutely no way for me to utilize it on competitors products. Is this your position? I truly hope not as it will illuminate your inability to uphold logic and reason in your arguments.
Your statement would have been true if you said "Apple blocks the use of their proprietary syncing model on competitors' products".

Using generic, broad terms doesn't make your argument any better, and its quite silly.

 

[Erwin-Br]

If you'd replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this news story, the people who are now applauding would be criticizing.

 

[Kludge420]

Because it is completely irrelevant to the information in the rest of the post {So you start off your post with a totally irrelivant belief? How is that helpful?}; who cares if other things can sync or not. The point is that they still have the same set of options{No they don't because one of them is just your belief} in front of them. Either do it through the proper channels or not. I also mentioned that they may not have access {So you don't KNOW, you are guessing?} to the proper channels and thus {drawing a false conclusion based on assumptions} it would lower their options.

Again, the initial statement that it's a guess was just that, because it didn't matter, and thus didn't constitute additional time to research the information. {Then why state it if it's so unimportant?}

Besides, what believe system are you talking about. I gave very specific choices that Palm has in front of them. Some of which are under their control, some aren't. They can develop their own software, license the interface, perfectly mimic the iPod/phone, or give up. No one said that they can't write their own software, no reason they couldn't. The licensing may or may not be a path to explore -- who knows, maybe Apple thinks they smell funny? Mimic the iPod (their current approach); they will need to do it perfectly, otherwise it will be detectable. Or give up.

Which one is a belief? Did I miss an avenue which they could explore?

You believe that you can license the Apple interface and even though you say it's not important to your argument you go on to say that is a valid choice for Palm. So you ARE basing your argument on that supposition.

You state:

"c) License the interface from Apple"

Do you KNOW that or do you believe that? You may be right, you may be wrong, but until you actually research it you don't KNOW it you only BELIEVE it. That is the belief I'm talking about.

These are not personal attacks. I just want people to argue logically. Look at your own arguments first before replying and make sure you are addressing what I said, not your own personal beliefs.

 

[Unspoken Demise]

If you'd replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this news story, the people who are now applauding would be criticizing.

Nice generalization, too bad you are incorrect.

 

[Kludge420]

You can spin it the way you like, but your statement was that "Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products", which implies that if I purchase unprotected

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have clarified my position. You don't seem to want to address the actual meaning but instead want to start your a new argument that is irrelevant.

Notice that no one has actually bothered to answer my questions about the Pre being blocked. This is a classic logical fallacy. Avoid the issue by bringing up a similar but unrelated argument.

Please use logic when you address me. Not emotion.

 

[Unspoken Demise]

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have proven you wrong.

Classic.

In case you're wondering, thats called a straw man arguement.

 

[CylonGlitch]

"c) License the interface from Apple"

Do you KNOW that or do you believe that? You may be right, you may be wrong, but until you actually research it you don't KNOW it you only BELIEVE it. That is the belief I'm talking about.

How about reading the section that says, that this is out of Palms hands because Apple for one reason or another may not want to License it.

Palm obviously isn't taking that approach, they are just trying to pretend they are Apple and thus get a free ride. It is very possible that Apple just doesn't like them and doesn't want their stuff talking to their IP. Well, it is their IP and they can do with it what they want.

or

The licensing may or may not be a path to explore -- who knows, maybe Apple thinks they smell funny?

Again, not a personal attack, why bother nit picking minor details when the meat is on the table.

 

[madog]

If you have a nice movie collection in your house, but you won't let me in to watch them, should I break in and then cry when you throw me back out? Nope. Also I shouldn't go around telling people that I can get them movies from your collection either.

.

But that's the difference between breaking into someones house and breaking the law, versus Palm bypassing "policy" because they don't think it's right/fair and accessing material that you already own. You can't steal what you already own in the sense that all the music in your iTunes library is already your music, your just accessing it with a different device (or playing it on a different media player).

That doesn't make what they are doing a great thing, but also doesn't make it close to your analogy. It might be reversed from the IE/MS monopoly, but I could see it being similar because of how big iTunes is now.

Again, I'm not saying it is the case, or this is the law. All I'm saying is that I think Palm, as well as other devices, should be able to utilize iTunes in some fashion as it is the main app for Macs and many PCs for audio and video.

 

[HLdan]

If you'd replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this news story, the people who are now applauding would be criticizing.

Wrong, this is the one time I would side with Microsoft. As I mentioned earlier about Exchange support in SL and the iPhone, if Apple just hacked it without licensing it from Microsoft I would be counting the days when my Mac got bricked while logged into Exchange. I would be pissed off at Apple, not Microsoft for bricking it.

 

[rxse7en]

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have clarified my position. You don't seem to want to address the actual meaning but instead want to start your a new argument that is irrelevant.

Notice that no one has actually bothered to answer my questions about the Pre being blocked. This is a classic logical fallacy. Avoid the issue by bringing up a similar but unrelated argument.

Please use logic when you address me. Not emotion.

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.

 

[CylonGlitch]

But that's the difference between breaking into someones house and breaking the law, versus Palm bypassing "policy" because they don't think it's right/fair and accessing material that you already own. You can't steal what you already own in the sense that all the music in your iTunes library is already your music, your just accessing it with a different device (or playing it on a different media player).

Ok, agree, that the analogy isn't perfect; would be better if my movie collection was stored at your house. I couldn't break in to get a movie for a friend.

Again, I'm not saying it is the case, or this is the law. All I'm saying is that I think Palm, as well as other devices, should be able to utilize iTunes in some fashion as it is the main app for Macs and many PCs for audio and video.

Yes, that would be NICE. But there is no real reason why Apple would need that, and many people have pointed out it could hurt them.

My biggest complaint about what Palm is doing is that they are using someone else's license without their consent. That bothers me more then anything else. In this case Apple's VID. I know legally it may not be illegal, but morally it is kinda scummy.

BUT, I also say that if they can make the Pre look exactly like an iPod, more power to them. But it is damn hard to do that. The funny thing is, that they look like one of the old iPods. What would really mess them up is if Apple decided iTunes 10 won't support that iPod at all (including Apple's).

 

[Eddyisgreat]

And that's the flaw in your argument. You inferred something that I did not imply. You then go on to argue THAT false inference even when I have clarified my position. You don't seem to want to address the actual meaning but instead want to start your a new argument that is irrelevant.

Notice that no one has actually bothered to answer my questions about the Pre being blocked. This is a classic logical fallacy. Avoid the issue by bringing up a similar but unrelated argument.

Please use logic when you address me. Not emotion.

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 :

However, it’s only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod. The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above). This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.

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)

 

[Kludge420]

I'm failing miserably at conveying my meaning.

How about reading the section that says, that this is out of Palms hands because Apple for one reason or another may not want to License it.

Again that is an OPINION. "It may or may not want to... " but you don't KNOW. Then going on from there you draw conclusions based on that assumption. The very first assumption that Apple would even license their product is used to argue that Palm should.

The point I'm trying to make is you can't state an opinion as fact then build an argument based on it. If you don't see how you based at least part of your argument on that statement when you use it in your conclusion then I am out of my depth and cannot help you understand.

Again, not a personal attack, why bother nit picking minor details when the meat is on the table.

Logic and facts are not a minor detail. Would you say to a police officer, "You arrested 2 guys and you know one is the murderer, why not kill them both, why sweat the details. You know you'll get the killer."

Would you say, "Iraq, Iran. Bomb one, it doesn't matter. 'N' or 'Q' why sweat the details?"

Sorry but I can't allow someone to say truth is a minor detail; the truth is the most important thing behind the logical application of those truths.

 

[pdjudd]

I stated, "2) Apple blocks the use of legally purchased music on competitors' products."

But they do not. They don't open up iTunes for that role, but there is nothing stopping you from using any number of other methods that Apple does approve of. You seem to imply that iTunes is the only means to this. That is not true.

When challenged I demonstrated that Apple blocks the Pre from syncing with iTunes. That fact proves the truth of my statement.

Your initial statement made no mention of iTunes. You simply stated that Apple blocks the Pre. In fact Apple has never granted anything to Palm in the first place. Its only "blocked" by the nature that they do not publish the API that you want. You essentially are claiming that iTunes is something that it is not. You cannot block something that is not offered. My camera doesn't sync with iTunes nor does my printer. Of course thats because iTunes was not designed to interact with those devices. Is Apple blocking my camera's ability to sync with iTunes? No. Same with my Printer. Apple does not enable nor publish the software to do that. Could it, perhaps, but Apple has to define iTunes as something. It does. That definition does not include third party devices.

Again, iTunes is not the exclusive gateway to Syncing. In fact it only one way of several. Apple has it's own syncing of its own devices for obvious reasons - it's interaction with iTunes is quite unique. Apple provides a generic sync system to make sure other devices can be covered but so that APple doesn't have to do anything. Sync services offers everything that iTunes Sync could offer besides having an icon (which doesn't relate to anything Palm anyway).

I ask you to properly define what you mean by "block" and not have it include "stuff that Apple doesn't support out of box". That is not blocking. Blocking involves a malicious intent to prevent an action. Apple doesn't open up iTunes. That is their choice. Palm is using backdoor security holes to get access to something that they were never granted. Last time I checked, I can't just barge into the Oval office - that doesn't mean that the White House is blocking me, it just means that they haven't allowed me to be there even though I elected the president.

How is Apple stopping Palm from interacting with the iTunes content that they would be naturally be able to get? My music is not locked into iTunes. You imply that if there is not a a direct A to B path - there is a block. No. There isn't. There just isn't a direct path. For there to be a block, Apple would have to push out an update that says "anything with the word "Palm" in the hardware is 86'ed. That is not happening. OSX still picks up the Pre as a hardware device. That's the only concern Apple needs to have. ITunes interaction is farther down the road.

You then go on to discuss ways AROUND it but that does not negate the previous statement.

You need to read up on what Sync Services is for - Apple built it so that other companies can tie into Apple technologies to save Apple the effort of supporting other systems. It was designed to provide a direct method of syncing that can work with any device maker.

I have no problem with you saying, "Yeah, but..." as long as you acknowledge what I have said as true. Saying there are ways around the fact does not negate the fact. "My wife was shot but the doctor saved her life." The doctor saving her life does not mean the shooting never happened. Get it?

Except thats not what happened. If Apple said "Sure Palm come on in" and changed their minds, you can claim that. But that never happened. Apple never welcomed Palm in. They did the equivalent of dressing up as the president to get into the oval office and later tried to say that they were the president but they were impeached. Your analogy is flawed.

 

[madog]

Thats nice, but that is a decision for Apple to make - iTunes is closed source proprietary software that is owned by Apple. If you do not like it, one is free to create or use another device of their choosing. I can tell you though, it isn't going to be an ideal situation.



Linking hardware with software is how the computer industry was founded on - it happens all the time. Heck, even MS does it with the Zune. The popularity of the iPod gets people to seek out iTunes - even on Windows where you actively have to download it. Second, the only reason that iTunes supported other players was from a legitimately licensed (and now obsolete) API that companies licensed from Apple. Nowadays it's all legacy code back from it's origins as SoundJam

That's why I would like Apple to allow it because it's the only ideal solution on a Mac. I'm not saying they must or have to or that I will cease to use their products if they didn't because I like iTunes, I like my iPhone. I just don't see anything wrong with them allowing other devices to utilize iTunes and don't think it would suddenly destroy their market in this regard.

Everyone does it, yes. MS does it with the Zune, but the Zune is just a tiny fraction of the digital player market. I think their developers head's would explode if they tried to make their own software compatible with each other (specifically their DRM nonsense. Plays for sure doesn't play for ****).

I just imagine that because of the size of iTunes, they might have to start playing nicely with others out there.

So... it sounds like you're saying that there should be an anti-dog-eat-dog rule proposed in congress, forbidding "destructive competition" by companies in certain fields... eliminating competition and forcing them to be interoperable and use each other's resources (so that NO company has an advantage no matter how hard they work, or how much they've done for consumers). Or, better... forces the railroad... er, corporation with the most seniority to get all the business in a particular field (as competition hurts consumers).

Seriously. There is NO LOCK-IN. Customers can come and go from iTunes as they please. If there was a better deal, I'd jump ship in a hot second. I like polish though.

~ CB

iTunes can still have the advantage and play nicely with others. I never suggested that they make full interoperability with every device out there.

I like iTunes and how it works for me. I'm just imagining that iTunes could get so big it eliminates competition for digital players on the market because of the role iTunes currently plays. Competition helps customers and I never suggested that either. If iTunes could be used to transfer just music and videos to other devices, it would ultimately only encourage the use of iTunes and essentially the Mac as a whole.

Apple has always been about consolidation and design. All I'm saying is that iTunes should work with other players at a basic level, the same way iPhoto works with digital cameras (though that's not to the same scale as Apple doesn't have their own digital camera line).

 

[CylonGlitch]

Again that is an OPINION. "It may or may not want to... "

Sorry, that's a fact. They either DO want to license their interface, or they DON'T. There is no gray about it. Either they have a licensing program and it is very possible to license it, or they don't. Or do they license it only on even days of months with the letter B in them?

The point I'm trying to make is you can't state an opinion as fact then build an argument based on it. If you don't see how you based at least part of your argument on that statement when you use it in your conclusion then I am out of my depth and cannot help you understand.

/sigh, not everything has to be written out 100% perfectly.

Options
a) You give up
b) You legally license the tech, if it is possible; and if it is not possible you ignore this option because it isn't there.
c) You make your stuff perfect thus completely undetectable -- although very difficult to do, it is not impossible.
d) Write your own software and do whatever you want with the information given to you such as the XML file.
e*) Make Apple open up and give you everything you need to make your stuff work flawlessly with their software, even though it may not be in their best interest (see other arguments why it may not be in their best interest).

* Added later

Logic and facts are not a minor detail. Would you say to a police officer, "You arrested 2 guys and you know one is the murderer, why not kill them both, why sweat the details. You know you'll get the killer."

I think I was walking on the left side of the street on the other side of town when the murders occurred. <- minor detail that doesn't matter.

Sorry but I can't allow someone to say truth is a minor detail; the truth is the most important thing behind the logical application of those truths.

It is when it is almost irrelevant to the rest of the information provided.

 

[pdjudd]

Using generic, broad terms doesn't make your argument any better, and its quite silly.

Exactly. Just saying the word "blocked" is meaningless without context. Not proving a direct solution to a problem is not a legitmate use of blocked. The fact that my teachers won't tell me the answer to a quiz doesn't mean that I am being blocked from the answers since I could (and very legitimately should get them on my own). Her answer key is only built for grading purposes, not for taking the test.

If I tried to demand an answer key, my prof would laugh at me and tell me that I now have 59 minutes instead of the hour that I was given.

There are right ways to do things and wring ways. Doing things the wrong way and approaching barriers is not a block. If I want to get into my buddies house properly, I use the front door. I don't try to climb a tree to get in thorough the window that he mistankely left open last night. I don't get to break in if he forgot to provide me access.

 

[pdjudd]

I just imagine that because of the size of iTunes, they might have to start playing nicely with others out there.

How? Market size does not mean much if it was legitimately obtained. The iPods and iTunes are supremely successful products on their own merits. I remember sycing an iPod on a PC before iTunes existed. The software options stank until iTunes came out, but that didn't stop me from buying the hardware. I even went out of the way to buy a fire-wire card for my PC to get it. I even seem to recall that sales of the iPod exploded after it was made available on the PC.

The only legal problem that Apple could have is if it could be argues that they were using one monopoly to create a unrelated monopoly. That just isn;t happening because the demand for both products are high on their own merits.

 

[Chimpy]

It seems so petty of Apple to keep breaking it. Does it make good business sense? I guess so. Does it seem "right"? Not to me...

 

[Mr. Gates]

Except for the fact that the tiny amount of media that a Pre user may potentially buy does not outweigh the loss in Apple hardware sales.

thats kinda silly, the pre users have already bought the pre