Palm Pre Emulating an iPod to Accomplish iTunes Sync?

[.Andy]

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

I'm simply saying from a consumer point of view just using itunes to sync all one's media devices is more convenient than installing multiple programs to accomplish the same task.

I've said nothing about apple doing anything at all. On which level I completely agree. It shouldn't be up to apple to support 3rd party players from within itunes if they choose not to do so.

 

[Roessnakhan]

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?

Because Apple could still make money through the iTunes store?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Because Apple could still make money through the iTunes store?

Lawls! You think Apple makes money from the iTunes store????

 

[.Andy]

Lawls! You think Apple makes money from the iTunes store????

Don't they?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Don't they?

pennies if anything. the record companies take 70 to 80 (of the 99 cent songs, I assume the record companies get 30 cents more for $1.29 songs) cents per song, and Apple has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, server support, and credit card fees.

 

[.Andy]

pennies if anything. the record companies take 70 to 80 (of the 99 cent songs, I assume the record companies get 30 cents more for $1.29 songs) cents per song, and Apple has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, server support, and credit card fees.

It's more than just songs though. There's the app store, movies, and tv shows as well. If only apple weren't so secretive about it all. I agree with you that the margins are small when costs are taken into account, but I'd guess that on volume the profits apple are making these days through itunes are quite handsome. Certainly a lot different from when they announced their business plan all those years ago. I very much doubt they are just breaking even or are making a loss. But it's all conjecture .

 

[grisjuan]

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

Nice crowd around here.

 

[adbe]

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.

How is this going to work? Without Apple going through the effort of creating a true iTunes API, how are all these different devices, with differing feature sets, requirements, etc just going to plug into an app that only knows about Apple's own product range?

You talk about convenience as if a window that offers a list of playlists is a major hassle (I'm not sure why you insist that there need be major duplication of features), but would appreciate making iTunes larger, bulkier, and more difficult to update/extend as a convenience thing. The lowest common denominator model is supposedly the very thing that Apple fanbois most hate about Windows.

Anyway, this whole thread go started because a bunch of people feel that either a) Apple needs to start acting like a bunch of monopolistic *******s, or b) that they already are. Neither of these two things are true, and that's why iTunes is just fine as it is. There is plenty of facility for the market to create a better iTunes if one is needed[1], and best of all they can do it in a way that doesn't force the user to sacrifice an existing music library, or hours spent categorizing and organizing said.

[1] Some would argue that the zune market place already is a better iTunes.

 

[.Andy]

How is this going to work? Without Apple going through the effort of creating a true iTunes API, how are all these different devices, with differing feature sets, requirements, etc just going to plug into an app that only knows about Apple's own product range?

Indeed. I completely agree with this. My point was simply no more sophisticated than lamenting the fact that it would be easier for the consumer to use a single program. I was certainly not saying that apple is under any obligation to produce an API or go out of their way to support 3rd party devices.

You talk about convenience as if a window that offers a list of playlists is a major hassle (I'm not sure why you insist that there need be major duplication of features), but would appreciate making iTunes larger, bulkier, and more difficult to update/extend as a convenience thing.

Are palm making itunes "bulkier" by facilitating syncing with the pre?

 

[adbe]

Indeed. I completely agree with this. My point was simply no more sophisticated than lamenting the fact that it would be easier for the consumer to use a single program. I was certainly not saying that apple is under any obligation to produce an API or go out of their way to support 3rd party devices.


Are palm making itunes "bulkier" by facilitating syncing with the pre?

No, and I don't have any problem with them doing what they're doing.

I wonder how they're getting around the memory size/availability issue, but assuming they have done this in a way that doesn't involve shenanigans, good on them. There's a distinction though between Apple turning a blind eye to people using undocumented features to gain access to iTunes' sync ability, and Apple actually providing and supporting a framework to do it officially.

Where this is a just a little unfair on Apple is that it removes from them the right to just update iPod communication layers as an when they need, since if they inadvertently break their competitors products, everyone will assume the worst. That said, MS have to fall over themselves to prop up the idiocy of other companies, so it's about time Apple started facing up to some of the downsides of owning a market.

 

[.Andy]

I wonder how they're getting around the memory size/availability issue, but assuming they done this in a way that doesn't involve shenanigans, good on them. There's a distinction between Apple turning a blind eye to people using undocumented features to gain access to iTunes' sync ability, and Apple actually providing and supporting a framework to do it officially.

I too was hoping we'd hear more about this. Especially with DVD Jon weighing in on the issue. Hopefully he'll have some more to say on how it was technically achieved in the future.

Where this is a just a little unfair on Apple is that it removes from them the right to just update iPod communication layers as an when they need, since if they inadvertently break their competitors products, everyone will assume the worst.

Naturally . But that doesn't mean that apple won't go out of their way to purposefully break syncing. And Apple could be defended in doing so to protect their ecosystem they've invested a lot of money in. Unfortunately it will be the consumers that ultimately lose out.

That said, MS have to fall over themselves to prop up that idiocy of other companies, so it's about time Apple started facing up to some of the downsides of owning a market.

This is an interesting take.

 

[adbe]

It's more than just songs though. There's the app store, movies, and tv shows as well.

The app store probably isn't making them beans. Far more apps are free than are pay, and far more apps are 0.99c that 1.99, and so on. Factor in the updates, and you could be talking serious amounts of data being moved for no monetary return. That's before you consider the app review process.

TV shows and movies are perhaps a more interesting area as I've seen no figures on what Apple might be doing here.

I agree on the volume thing with songs, but operating a business with margins that low is to be living on the edge of a precipice. Consider what would happen if Amazon suddenly hits one out of the park and drops iTunes music revenue by 15%. Apple can't easily offload server capacity[1] so they end up losing money fast. Since this is Apple we're talking about though, razor thin margins are essentially no margins. I don't doubt they'd shutter the store without a backward glance if they felt it no longer served its principle purpose.


[1] Obviously they can, because they have so many other bandwidth utilizing services, but you get the point.

 

[adbe]

I too was hoping we'd hear more about this. Especially with DVD Jon weighing in on the issue. Hopefully he'll have some more to say on how it was technically achieved in the future.

Well if there's any suggestion that reverse engineering wasn't done in an impeccably clean way, or if they've had to wonder into any of Apples' patents to duplicate the functionality of an iPod, I suspect we'll be hearing *plenty* soon enough.

Naturally . But that doesn't mean that apple won't go out of their way to purposefully break syncing. And Apple could be defended in doing so to protect their ecosystem they've invested a lot of money in. Unfortunately it will be the consumers that ultimately lose out.

They very easily could, but it'd be a PR and legal minefield if they did. I'd be surprised and disappointed if Apple did decide to go hostile with this. If anything, as I said above, I'd expect the lawyers to be uncaged first.

 

[danny_w]

Well if there's any suggestion that reverse engineering wasn't done in an impeccably clean way, or if they've had to wonder into any of Apples' patents to duplicate the functionality of an iPod, I suspect we'll be hearing *plenty* soon enough.



They very easily could, but it'd be a PR and legal minefield if they did. I'd be surprised and disappointed if Apple did decide to go hostile with this. If anything, as I said above, I'd expect the lawyers to be uncaged first.

All of this argument assumes that Apple and Palm did not work on this together, which they very well could have done but aren't saying at the moment. Nobody knows that at this point, so any argument as to what will happen is pure speculation.

 

[MacFly123]

Fixed that for you.

Guess we'll see ha? Just take my told you so in advance since I won't take the time to actually post that to you when Apple breaks Pre syncing!

It's more than just songs though. There's the app store, movies, and tv shows as well. If only apple weren't so secretive about it all. I agree with you that the margins are small when costs are taken into account, but I'd guess that on volume the profits apple are making these days through itunes are quite handsome. Certainly a lot different from when they announced their business plan all those years ago. I very much doubt they are just breaking even or are making a loss. But it's all conjecture .

Don't they?

This is not a matter of debate. If you follow Apple's financial announcements you will see that iTunes INCLUDING the App Store makes practically NOTHING and is run pretty much at break even to push hardware sales. This is a well known FACT! Do some research.

 

[redkamel]

holy shnikes

this is a long thread! let me sum up the basic arguments

1. Pre should sync with itunes since itunes is Apples software vs Apple is locking down peoples music and limiting choice

# well, it is apples software. Your music is on your harddrive, organized, freely accesible to any program. Yes, if you want to switch phones, you may have to switch music management programs. Apple is not limiting choice; you would be just as free to use Pre's music software. I can see how this is inconvenient, but its not overly so, and iTunes is Apples music management and sync software for their products. THERE IS NO universal music management app. iTunes is a free tease so you use Apple products. Palm is trying to muscle on Apples terriority by appropriating their own software. They need to write their own, or use iSync.

Keep in mind this is different than a third party developer or a home brewer. A home brewer is modifying stuff he owns. A third party developer is trying to fill a niche by making a product. Palm is trying to sell its own product by piggybacking on someone elses work. I hope that difference is clear (no sarcasm, the last two are a little blurry).

If you want a free universal music management and sync application, contact Steve Jobs. Maybe he'll start charging 40 bucks for iTunes and then have to deal with the headache of making sure every phone syncs with iTunes seamlessly, as they are updated over time.

It is not fair for them to lock your content though, and they are NOT doing that (I dont know about movies though).

 

[adbe]

All of this argument assumes that Apple and Palm did not work on this together, which they very well could have done but aren't saying at the moment. Nobody knows that at this point, so any argument as to what will happen is pure speculation.

I would assume the same except for the quote by the guy from Palm was antagonistic, which doesn't suggest the outcome of a cordial deal. As you say though, we don't know.

 

[chstr]

I hope Apple don't allow this.

Surely this must break some patent or law, if anyone else had done this there would be lawsuits left right and centre

yeah, apple will be all over this

This sounds like some Palm ploy to whine about Apple being unfair because other devices can't interface with iTunes. Apple will come back with "iPods can't dock with Palm Desktop" and Palm will look very stupid.

Just wait for an update to iTunes and all this syncing fun will be gone.

there gonna stop it because its patent infringement most likely.. and because the pre is a huge competition to the iphone.. You dont let competition use your stuff to make there product better..
thats like buying a verizon phone and at&t letting verizon use there towers in the spots where verizon doesnt have towers and at&t does.. so why would you buy a at&t phone then?? yea think a little there

Because I work at a Apple Store.

sniff sniff... anyone else smell bacon around here???

 

[.Andy]

This is not a matter of debate. If you follow Apple's financial announcements you will see that iTunes INCLUDING the App Store makes practically NOTHING and is run pretty much at break even to push hardware sales. This is a well known FACT! Do some research.

You're confusing what they've publically said their business model is with how the store has actually evolved. They don't release figures that I know, so I'm not sure you can claim it is fact. It's specualtion on both our parts. As I said I wouldn't be surprised if they are making a small, but handsome profit from the store these days given it's success and the volumes they are selling.

 

[slapppy]

People claiming iTunes is a monopoly doesn't understand the very meaning in the first place.

Is iTunes the only place in the US that you can buy music, movies, tv shows from? Absolutely NOT, so its not a monopoly. Is iPod the only PMP available in the US? NO. So if you don't like this ecosystem, go buy something else.

So buy a Palm, and if Palm has any decency, they need to provide their music/movies/tv store or partner with another reseller.

To stoop down to hacking its way to iTunes store proves that Palm has driven itself to an all time low.

 

[swagi]

Lawls! You think Apple makes money from the iTunes store????

Don't they?

pennies if anything. the record companies take 70 to 80 (of the 99 cent songs, I assume the record companies get 30 cents more for $1.29 songs) cents per song, and Apple has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, server support, and credit card fees.

<Irony>
Exactly. That's the main reason why the Revenue on "Other Music related Products and Services" surpasses the one from "iPhone and realted Products and Services".

Yes, Apple only made 101,000,000,000 pennies in revenue during Quarter 2 2009 from "Consists of iTunes Store sales, iPod services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories."
</Irony>

When was the last time you actually checked Apple's investor relations site?

 

[bruinsrme]

You're confusing what they've publically said their business model is with how the store has actually evolved. They don't release figures that I know, so I'm not sure you can claim it is fact. It's specualtion on both our parts. As I said I wouldn't be surprised if they are making a small, but handsome profit from the store these days given it's success and the volumes they are selling.

Everything that I have seen on the consumer side from Apple has 1 priority, profit. So to say itunes is not making a profit that in itself seems to be going against every thing I have seen so far from apple. I am not bashing apple just saying they don't seem to be in the business of providing anything free to the masses.

 

[swagi]

This is not a matter of debate. If you follow Apple's financial announcements you will see that iTunes INCLUDING the App Store makes practically NOTHING and is run pretty much at break even to push hardware sales. This is a well known FACT! Do some research.

Could you please point me to the source of the fact, that the cost of iTMS is about 4 billion $ per year?

You still think, they wouldn't rather pull the plug, if it didn't make any money for them? I mean, come on, they could care less how music movies and apps make their way on the iPhone. There was a time before iTMS, you know.

And basically less than 30 of my 3,500 songs in my iTunes library were obtained through iTMS. Or to put it into Steve's word: "iTunes is the perfect solution to RIP, MIX and BURN".

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

<Irony>
Exactly. That's the main reason why the Revenue on "Other Music related Products and Services" surpasses the one from "iPhone and realted Products and Services".

Yes, Apple only made 101,000,000,000 pennies in revenue during Quarter 2 2009 from "Consists of iTunes Store sales, iPod services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories."
</Irony>

When was the last time you actually checked Apple's investor relations site?

iPods make money. The iTunes Store does not, but the store is incentive to buy an iPod.

 

[swagi]

iPods make money. The iTunes Store does not, but the store is incentive to buy an iPod.

Thanks for bolding out the PRODUCTS part. Talk about polemics, heh. So, my fella, you definitely did not open this littly shiny PDF.

Hey look, it explicitly states, that the row below the row "iPod" is about "Consists of iTunes Store sales, iPod services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPod accessories.". Yes, it's annotation [4].

I know, revenue from the category iPod is three times higher, but you still need to get the data, that shows a total yearly cost of 4 billion dollars for iTMS.