Palm Pre Emulating an iPod to Accomplish iTunes Sync?

[JGowan]

What if…?

Suppose that the top dudes at Palm decided to pull a "Producers" deal here (theatre-people understand) -- what if they were intentionally trying to ultimately get sued into bankruptcy? Think about it. Until the Pre was announced, they were going to die anyway, but with the top guys poor. Since the Pre has been announced, their stock is up. Their initial sales could be really good, causing stock to go up even more. What if, at some point before litigation and ultimately huge losses the company can't afford, the top guys sell off their shares individually?

Even though Palm dies (as it was going to), the main players are rich, go buy an island and pinacolatas?

 

[redrabbit]

Suppose that the top dudes at Palm decided to pull a "Producers" deal here (theatre-people understand) -- what if they were intentionally trying to ultimately get sued into bankruptcy? Think about it. Until the Pre was announced, they were going to die anyway, but with the top guys poor. Since the Pre has been announced, their stock is up. Their initial sales could be really good, causing stock to go up even more. What if, at some point before litigation and ultimately huge losses the company afford, the top guys sell their shares individually? Even though Palm dies (as it was going to), the main players are rich, go buy an island and pinacolatas?

How old are you?

 

[adbe]

I do wish however that they would choose some "standard" volume setting. Now every CD or song that I buy is a different level

No argument there. The loudness wars have gone on for far too long now. It makes the music sound bad, eliminates any appreciation of quiet passages, and is frankly irritating if your mixes contain anything that is older than about 2002 with more recent stuff.

, and no, the iPod/iTunes volume check does not do a good job of equalizing the average volume (it seems pretty worthless IMHO).

I'm not sure what the iTunes model is for measuring power. If it's just doing a straight RMS, it's going to pretty far off the mark in most cases. A large number of factors come into play when evaluating 'loudness' (I.E. what we hear, not what is actually being conveyed). Your ears will, at medium levels, tend to perceive a lack of mid-range as being 'loud'. Highly harmonically rich sounds also often seem loud in comparison to more natural acoustic sounds. Dance music, with an emphasis on bass, and harmonically rich (bright sounding) leads, and huge amounts of compression limiting will sound extremely out when played against a live folk recording from the 70s, even if the RMS values of the two recordings were balanced.

It's impossible to get it exactly right, but there are broadcast standards that can be used. iTunes could do a much better job of giving music a representative audio level, such that auto-adjusting actually means something.

(As I'm writing this, my iPod just flipped over from an Evanescence[1] track, to some early acid house[2], and I'm fighting the impulse to reach for the volume control) <sigh>.

[1] best not to think about it.

[2] best not to think about it.

 

[chuckiej]

I don't think Apple has much to worry about from the Pre nor do I think they will want the PR issues. However, if they want to break this connection, it would be best to do it before the release.

 

[Sam Smith]

The greatest form of flattery is thievery (at least in business)

So wrong. Apple makes money thru hardware sales. iTunes provides a very small revenue for Apple. iTunes exist to drive hardware sales. This has been covered many times over here and SEC reports and analyst ( the smart ones )

It's true and it sounds like Palm want to adopt the same strategy without the development costs.


It's amazing to me how few of these companies get it. Take the printer industry. A company designs the most incredible printer ever and builds a shotty piece of software to interface with it. That ultimately leads me to conclude that the printer itself is lame, and it might as well be if I cannot interface with it in an intuitive manner.

That's what I love about Apple. They understand that a piece of hardware (even a world changing technology) is still just a worthless shell without a way to interact/communicate with it. I'll be very interested to see the calibre of software Palm releases for to interface with computers. Since they're ripping off apple so heavily, hopefully they won't stop at the hardware.

 

[danny_w]

No argument there. The loudness wars have gone on for far too long now. It makes the music sound bad, eliminates any appreciation of quiet passages, and is frankly irritating if your mixes contain anything that is older than about 2002 with more recent stuff.



I'm not sure what the iTunes model is for measuring power. If it's just doing a straight RMS, it's going to pretty far off the mark in most cases. A large number of factors come into play when evaluating 'loudness' (I.E. what we hear, not what is actually being conveyed). Your ears will, at medium levels, tend to perceive a lack of mid-range as being 'loud'. Highly harmonically rich sounds also often seem loud in comparison to more natural acoustic sounds. Dance music, with an emphasis on bass, and harmonically rich (bright sounding) leads, and huge amounts of compression limiting will sound extremely out when played against a live folk recording from the 70s, even if the RMS values of the two recordings were balanced.

It's impossible to get it exactly right, but there are broadcast standards that can be used. iTunes could do a much better job of giving music a representative audio level, such that auto-adjusting actually means something.

(As I'm writing this, my iPod just flipped over from an Evanescence[1] track, to some early acid house[2], and I'm fighting the impulse to reach for the volume control) <sigh>.

[1] best not to think about it.

[2] best not to think about it.

Great description. Thank you! At least I am not the only one with this problem; so many people on this forum simply say "turn on soundcheck".

 

[danny_w]

They understand that a piece of hardware (even a world changing technology) is still just a worthless shell without a way to interact/communicate with it.

Exactly why I left hardware design and became a software engineer!

 

[hugo7]

Lighten up

Why would any third-party want to "ipod-masquerade" its device to allow for seamless music/video syncing (what, no apps?) with that bloatware iTunes?

... "Syncing iPod"

And I think we can all now agree that the word iPod is universally ripe to replace the phrase portable mp3 music player

/sarcasm

 

[dragossh]

Oh, noes! A product of another company interoperates with a product of Apple! Apple should sue Palm into oblivion!!!!!!!! /s

Did I tell you that neither Steve Jobs nor Apple give a **** about you? This "love" is not mutual.

 

[jouster]

Suppose that the top dudes at Palm decided to pull a "Producers" deal here (theatre-people understand) -- what if they were intentionally trying to ultimately get sued into bankruptcy? Think about it.

Nah. I don't think there's any point wasting time thinking about that.

 

[.Andy]

It is becoming more obvious with each post that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) If you make a hardware device it is YOUR responsibility to develop the software that your customer needs to sync that device. It is NOT Apple's responsibility. Arguing otherwise is asinine.

2) The idea you were conveying is that people couldn't use their iTunes purchases with other players. You said, "Why buy from a company that makes it difficult for the media you buy to be used on devices made by other companies?" This is NOT the case. If a device manufacturer enables their device to play AAC files then they can play your purchases from the iTunes store.

3) It is close to corporate espionage in that the highest level Palm employee responsible for the development of the Pre used to work at one of the highest levels within Apple. It is VERY possible that he is using the Apple-specific knowledge he gained while working for Apple that is allowing Palm to sync with iTunes. He was responsible for developing the iPod. Hello? McFly?

Frankly you need to read more carefully. Your arguments here bear little relation to anything I've posted. Here is all I've said again;

I completely agree with you that apple has no obligation to enable/maintain syncing with 3rd party players. Nor is it impossible to install alternative media software or drag and drop your files so as to use other media players. Just that doing so is simply more difficult than straight syncing with itunes. That's all my point amounted to. I never said or implied that you are required to use itunes to access the content within.

To reiterate for the 4th (?) time: It makes complete business sense for apple to keep itunes syncing to itself. However for a consumer that maintains and purchases their media with itunes it makes it more difficult to use other media players. The absolute simplest thing for consumers would be to sync with their pre-existing itunes library and playlists without having to install other software or drag and drop.

This at least I would agree with. .andy seems to be unaware that the itunes library offers a nice plain text xml file from which *any* app can safely determine pretty much everything it needs about your library, and use it quite legally.

I'm not unaware with this at all. I've addressed it numerous times in this thread.

As Evangelion and skwoytek have pointed out you can use your music in your itunes library with any 3rd party device you like. You just can't sync through itunes. Although inconvenient, it should be pointed out that apple aren't stopping you using other devices per se...

Sure there are workarounds, but for consumers workarounds and duplication of software that accomplishes the same task isn't the most convenient path. Which is exactly why it provides leverage for apple to sell more hardware.

If apple were to provide consumers the choice of straight syncing of 3rd party devices with itunes or installing additional software to do so I can tell you what 99% of them will choose .

Having two separate jukebox apps that duplicate functionality is inconvenient for the majority of consumers. And it isn't just about installing another app. It's about another user interface to learn and become familiar with. For you and I and many posters here perhaps there is a marginal difference with these aspects. But for my parents/grandparents/average joe computer user having two different programs that accomplish the same functionality with differing user interfaces is significantly more confusing and difficult. This is exactly one of the reasons why apple keeps syncing to itself. It allows ease of syncing with itunes to be a positive in the sales pitch. Which is exactly what palm is trying to hussle in on.

 

[grisjuan]

If Apple pulled a stunt like this (say, make their iPhones work with some software Sony or Microsoft had written), people would out picketing over in Cupertino.

Sorry to repeat myself...but iPhone does sync to Microsoft Outlook. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close.

 

[aristobrat]

Sorry to repeat myself...but iPhone does sync to Microsoft Outlook. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close.

Microsoft has released public APIs for syncing with Outlook. They're public, so anyone can use these APIs in their applications to sync with Outlook. It's not like the iPhone is masquerading as a Windows Mobile phone in order to "fool" Outlook into syncing with it.

 

[adbe]

I'm not unaware with this at all. I've addressed it numerous times in this thread.

And yet you continue beating the drum that it's "inconvenient". What's inconvenient about it? I could, in under five minutes, write a script that could scrape your iTunes XML and load playlists on a USB drive, or PMP. Give me an afternoon, I'll throw a UI in for good measure. This is hardly setting the bar high for competitors.

The fact that the XML file exists, and is used extensively by third party devices to integrate themselves with peoples iTunes libraries, should be all the proof needed that Apple are not striving to make things inconvenient.

So, to hammer the point home here, one programmer could, entirely safely and legally, knock together a sync tool for a media device that natively and intuitively integrates with a user's iTunes library. As such, whilst Palm are perfectly in their rights to do USB masquerading, they actually don't need to. Apple have given them all the tools required to make their device iTunes compatible, with no inconvenience whatsoever for the user.

 

[grisjuan]

Microsoft has released public APIs for syncing with Outlook. They're public, so anyone can use these APIs in their applications to sync with Outlook. It's not like the iPhone is masquerading as a Windows Mobile phone in order to "fool" Outlook into syncing with it.

Sure, it's not a perfect analogy...but it answers the narrow point that Apple wrote software to work with MS software. And Apple did it to take advantage of the installed base of Outlook users and the existing functionality of Outlook in order to sell more iPhones. It's also interesting (tangentially) that MS did provide public APIs for Outlook while Apple hasn't for iTunes (or have they and I missed it?).

Moving further afield...a lot of the .NET Framework is standardized through ECMA and alternative implementations like Mono that run .NET apps on the Mac are allowed by MS. At this point I sound like an MS apologist so I'd better stop ;-) I just think it's funny that neither company is perfect at being open.

 

[.Andy]

And yet you continue beating the drum that it's "inconvenient". What's inconvenient about it? I could, in under five minutes, write a script that could scrape your iTunes XML and load playlists on a USB drive, or PMP. Give me an afternoon, I'll throw a UI in for good measure. This is hardly setting the bar high for competitors.

The fact that the XML file exists, and is used extensively by third party devices to integrate themselves with peoples iTunes libraries, should be all the proof needed that Apple are not striving to make things inconvenient.

So, to hammer the point home here, one programmer could, entirely safely and legally, knock together a sync tool for a media device that natively and intuitively integrates with a user's iTunes library. As such, whilst Palm are perfectly in their rights to do USB masquerading, they actually don't need to. Apple have given them all the tools required to make their device iTunes compatible, with no inconvenience whatsoever for the user.

So given the choice of (a) syncing all your digital devices through the itunes interface, or (b) installing a separate syncing app for each device you own, you think the latter is no less convenient than the former for the consumer? And by consumer think about the average computer user.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Sure, it's not a perfect analogy...but it answers the narrow point that Apple wrote software to work with MS software.

With the permission of Microsoft.

It's also interesting (tangentially) that MS did provide public APIs for Outlook while Apple hasn't for iTunes (or have they and I missed it?).

Not interesting in the least. Apple doesn't want other products syncing with iTunes. Apple has APIs for syncing with iCal, Address Book and Mail.app. iTunes and Outlook have nothing in common.

At this point I sound like an MS apologist so I'd better stop ;-)

Nahhh, you just sound like someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[cualexander]

This whole thread is just stupid.

Apple is not being anti-competitive with iTunes. No one is forcing you to buy music from iTunes. There are several good alternatives. The Amazon MP3 Store comes to mind. Same price or cheaper than iTunes and its in MP3 format so universally compatible.

Just because Apple doesn't support syncing to a Zune, doesn't mean they are trying to make it difficult. If you own a company that sells mp3 players do you want to spend valuable time supporting other companies mp3 players? Nope. But thats what Apple would have to do if they supported syncing with non-apple devices. You don't want the expense of training your employees on the Zune or Cowon, or Archos player, or whoever else pops up.

As for Palm syncing with iTunes, its brilliant and virtually unblockable. Why? Because if they emulate an ipod ID, Apple isn't going to release an update that all the sudden forces everyone with an ipod to upgrade their firmware.

If apple tries to force you to upgrade itunes, then just don't. It's not rocket science. They could force you to upgrade to keep using the iTunes store, but then again, newsflash just use the Amazon store. It feeds straight into itunes anyhow.

 

[adbe]

So given the choice of (a) syncing all your digital devices through the itunes interface, or (b) installing a separate syncing app for each device you own, you think the latter is no less convenient than the former for the consumer? And by consumer think about the average computer user.

Actually, in this admittedly narrow case, yes.

It's more convenient for me to buy my music through iTunes than through Amazon's MP3 store, but given that the extra weight is just the effort of opening Safari, and watching a few weird boxes appear and disappear, I'm hardly put to any great discomfort by the experience. Equally, if I plug a media device into my PC, and a box appears with a lightweight interpretation of iTunes, from which I can populate my media device, then I'm fine, and so would be the average user.

It's up to the device manufacturer to make their user interface, and auto-running software intuitive and friendly. If I had to hit an import button that forced my sync software to briefly scan and reload my iTunes library, or if album art, genre tags, and playlists weren't available, I'd agree with you.

As is though, that stuff is present, and Apple is in no way being unreasonable, or unlawful in its current implementation of the iTunes software.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

This whole thread is just stupid.

Apple is not being anti-competitive with iTunes. No one is forcing you to buy music from iTunes. There are several good alternatives. The Amazon MP3 Store comes to mind. Same price or cheaper than iTunes and its in MP3 format so universally compatible.

Just because Apple doesn't support syncing to a Zune, doesn't mean they are trying to make it difficult. If you own a company that sells mp3 players do you want to spend valuable time supporting other companies mp3 players? Nope. But thats what Apple would have to do if they supported syncing with non-apple devices. You don't want the expense of training your employees on the Zune or Cowon, or Archos player, or whoever else pops up.

As for Palm syncing with iTunes, its brilliant and virtually unblockable. Why? Because if they emulate an ipod ID, Apple isn't going to release an update that all the sudden forces everyone with an ipod to upgrade their firmware.

If apple tries to force you to upgrade itunes, then just don't. It's not rocket science. They could force you to upgrade to keep using the iTunes store, but then again, newsflash just use the Amazon store. It feeds straight into itunes anyhow.

You attack the tread but the Pre is not going to be able to put DRM music on it. Now it will use iTune to sync up all the non DRM stuff and play list. All it is doing is tieing into the most popular music library program.

 

[cualexander]

You attack the tread but the Pre is not going to be able to put DRM music on it. Now it will use iTune to sync up all the non DRM stuff and play list. All it is doing is tieing into the most popular music library program.

I own no more DRM. I upgraded all my itunes to Non DRM. 98% of my library was non-drm anyways.

iTunes has no more DRM, Amazon has no more DRM. Screw DRM music. I want to own my music out-right and not be locked to anything.

 

[macfearless]

Yeah just like the Newton. Guess you forgot about that one.

ooooh... diss!

 

[.Andy]

Equally, if I plug a media device into my PC, and a box appears with a lightweight interpretation of iTunes, from which I can populate my media device, then I'm fine, and so would be the average user.

But there's just no point for the consumer to have iTunes and a "lightweight interpretation" of itunes, when just one version of iTunes could do just fine. It doesn't make sense to have multiple programs which in essence accomplish the same task from a consumer point of view, nor does it makes sense from a usability point of view. Apple most certainly wouldn't subject you to multiple programs to accomplish the same task. Because it makes the process more complicated and less intuitive.

Given the choice, I doubt that many customers would choose to install and use a third party "lightweight itunes interpretation" if they could sync and control the media (songs, podcasts, movies, photos, contacts etc) from within the itunes interface which they familiar.

As far as palm having an "obligation" to create their own syncing software, that's an entirely different matter altogether and not something I've addressed.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I guess it's the same way the iPhone wil soon mimic a Palm Pilot's ability to copy and paste. Among other long-ago standard things.

You've made so many good intelligent points and then you go and say this? Since when did Palm invent copy and paste? Apple's been using it in their products YEARS before Palm.

 

[cualexander]

But there's just no point for the consumer to have iTunes and a "lightweight interpretation" of itunes, when just one version of iTunes could do just fine. It doesn't make sense to have multiple programs which in essence accomplish the same task from a consumer point of view, nor does it makes sense from a usability point of view. Apple most certainly wouldn't subject you to multiple programs to accomplish the same task. Because it is less intuitive.

Given the choice, I doubt that many customers would chose to install and use a third party "lightweight itunes interpretation" if they could sync and control the media (songs, podcasts, movies, photos, contacts etc) from within the itunes interface which they familiar.

As far as palm having an "obligation" to create their own syncing software, that's an entirely different matter altogether and not something I've addressed.

What are you even arguing?? Who is forcing you to use itunes at all? If you buy a zune, you don't have to open itunes again.

You are saying Apple should support everyone? Why would they waste their money supporting other people's hardware? so you aren't inconvenienced?