Palm Pre Emulating an iPod to Accomplish iTunes Sync?

[gnasher729]

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.

Apple has sold about five thousand million songs on iTMS. The store would have to be run by a bunch of morons if Apple didn't make some significant cash from this. Every one cent of profit per song means fifty million dollars of profit for the company.

While the iTMS is beneficial for Apple as a whole even if it doesn't make profit, just like the Apple Stores would be beneficial for Apple as a whole even if they didn't make profit, and even though iTMS is only a tiny percentage of Apple's profit potential, you can be sure that there is a department at Apple that works very, very hard to make as much profit from iTMS as possible.

Just quoting Steve Jobs from memory (his words were probably different, and he said he learned it from someone else): "Profit is a small number that is the difference between two big numbers: Revenue and cost. If you have lots of revenue, you can make lots of profit". iTMS as a billion dollars revenue per quarter.

 

[goosnarrggh]

As an example that might be easier to understand lets say Microsoft put out the next versions of Xbox but "reverse" engineered the way Sony identifies its players so that you could play any Playstation game in an Xbox.

What you're proposing would require more than just "identifying its players". It would involve hardware emulation (for interoperability between the different peripheral devices, for translating between the Cell and Xenon variants of PowerPC processors, etc) and software emulation to produce a common set of APIs, firmware entry points, etc. If Microsoft managed to do that by building its emulation from scratch from the ground up without reusing any of Sony's copyrighted code, then yes, that would be perfectly legal and I would be just fine with it. If Microsoft simply created a verbatim copy of Sony's copyrighted code it would be illegal and I would oppose it.

Lets say for a moment that Apple didn't produce iTunes for Windows. Would people be ready to accept Apple faking the Zune IDs to allow iPods to use Zune's syncing software to break into Microsofts market if there were no windows compatible iPods?

That could never have happened; Apple decided they wanted to start marketing the iPod to Windows users several years before the Zune marketplace ever came into existence. Anyway, they already had a working media library program available, and thanks to their experience with a QuickTIme player for Windows, they already had a procedure in place to port their OSX software over to Windows. But, hypothetically, if Apple had decided to go down the "fake Zune" route, I would not have any philosophical objection to that.

 

[windywoo]

Who cares!? If I worked at an Apple Store I would still post here. I would just keep it hush-hush at work

I love the irony here. It's ok for an Apple employee to break Apple's rules but not Psystar or Pre?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

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].

iPod services and third party apps are the money makers.

 

[charlituna]

APPLE has stated in their annual shareholder reports that they make most of their money off of iPods and iPhones, and barely make anything from iTunes. This is a threat to the iPod/iPhone business, and Apple will certainly enact a software fix for this ASAP!

but the appeal of an ipod/iphone isn't itunes. it's that the device is what it is. itunes just makes it easier to get stuff into the device.

so the issue is really if the Pre or whatever is better than what Apple offers. At this point, it doesn't seem so.

if anything Apple will hit Palm with a DCMA charge (if possible) but possibly counter for the sake of avoiding anti-trust negative tying charges by offering to drop their claim and give Palm the chance to legit license the protocols etc.

and who knows, the whole thing might actually boost DRMfree music sales on the Itunes store. which isn't a bad thing, especially if it draws people into the store who then see what they could have if they had a real ipod, they run out and get a nano or a touch or whatever.

This whole thread is just stupid.

Apple is not being anti-competitive with iTunes.

that may not be true. Unlike the whole Psystar/OS thing, one could argue that Apple doesn't have a significant market power with the ipod/iphone line as digital media players.

in which case, one could toss up the notion that Apple is using that market power to tie the devices and the itunes software and even the iTunes Store in a negative fashion. cutting off Amazon mp3 sales for example.

It may in fact be in Apple's best interest to open up things and allow licensing of the syncing protocols (a la what was up in the early days with the Rio etc) to other companies including even Palm and Microsoft at least for use by Mac computer owners. Said companies might be thrilled not to have to deal with porting their Windows software.

and it might be in Apple's best interest (legally) to open up video etc to other devices and treating the Itunes store as a separate beast from the whole ipod hardware line. thus lessening any threats of anti-trust etc. they might even be able to expand their 'apps' business by having portals for Pre compat apps, Blackberry apps and so on.

also for all those folks that are talking about the music store not really making any money. some of you might be the same folks complaining about the high costs of ipods. the infamous Apple Tax argument. there is probably a little something to that.

 

[andyone]

If what this guy says is true it's beyond reprehensible. To fool a piece of software ( and underlying frameworks ) into believing the Pre is an iPod is illegal in many arenas. It's as close to corporate espionage as you can get.

The fanboyism here is becoming unbearable.

 

[Legolover64]

Patent infringement? Seriously?

Don't you think Palm, a company that's real and wants the Pre to be successful, would risk getting in trouble over something this trivial? I can nearly assure all of you it's either a licensed technology from Apple, or that the documentation for doing this is available to Apple partners. Palm would not risk getting in trouble over this.

All of you saying this is "bad" and "should stop" obviously are against competition, which makes everything better for everyone. Better phones, better software and better experience. It's never bad. That is, unless you think Apple is trying to be so great and nice to you, and not make money and be a business. Then you're delusional.

 

[adbe]

Patent infringement? Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. It's ridiculously easy to trip over patents. It's whether those patents are valid that is the crux of most patent lawsuits.

The only reason I would give odds for Palm in this one, is that they have enough people on staff who probably can remember most of the iPod dock relevant patents that Apple has filed.

Don't you think Palm, a company that's real and wants the Pre to be successful, would risk getting in trouble over something this trivial? I can nearly assure all of you it's either a licensed technology from Apple, or that the documentation for doing this is available to Apple partners. Palm would not risk getting in trouble over this.

You missed out option three: Palm could be quite deliberately rattling Apple's cage, with a good degree of confidence that if push come to shove, the law is in their side.

 

[MacFly123]

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.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...de_just_45_million_from_iphone_app_store.html

 

[MacFly123]

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".

So what exactly are you saying?

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...om_apples_q209_quarterly_conference_call.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...de_just_45_million_from_iphone_app_store.html

Oh, and it is COULDN'T CARE LESS. Sorry that is a pet peeve of mine

Oops double post. Sorry, didn't know I was replying in to a comment in the same forum.

 

[.Andy]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...de_just_45_million_from_iphone_app_store.html

I presume this is to back up your previous post where you claimed;

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.

The link you provide shows nothing but speculation. This doesn't remotely constitute "a well know FACT". Despite you claiming otherwise apple doesn't release their iTS breakdown at financial announcements. Secondly even the link you provide claims that they may have made around $45 million on the app store alone without taking any other media into account. Being conservative the estimates are still in the tens of millions of dollars, which I guess might qualify as "practically NOTHING" to you, but I consider this a small but handsome profit on something that Apple first announced to be a loss leader to sell hardware.

 

[Legolover64]

Yeah, seriously. It's ridiculously easy to trip over patents. It's whether those patents are valid that is the crux of most patent lawsuits.

The only reason I would give odds for Palm in this one, is that they have enough people on staff who probably can remember most of the iPod dock relevant patents that Apple has filed.



You missed out option three: Palm could be quite deliberately rattling Apple's cage, with a good degree of confidence that if push come to shove, the law is in their side.

I guess Palm could be "rattling Apple's cage," but I personally believe that competition (while lawful) is always beneficial to everyone. I think this is obviously legitimate competition - there are non-Apple MP3 players that play nicely with iTunes, my friend owns a USB MP3 player that shows up in iTunes just fine for DRM-free content. Did they violate some patent? I don't think so.

Just watch, this will make better phones, experiences, software and more for everyone.

 

[hiimamac]

I hope Apple don't allow this.

If it can be done, doesn't matter if apple trys to stop it, there will be 3rd party apps for PC and Macs out the ying yang. Then I suppose who knows maybe these 3rd party will be better as they will synch MPEG 4 movies, ema, xvid and we might see development fir paid content too followed by the zune having people write apps. Again, I see people starting to find not only better devices ala flash/media players, but less restrictive. Again, I see Apple getting hurt by the close ended thinking and new things happening.

 

[swagi]

So what exactly are you saying?

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...om_apples_q209_quarterly_conference_call.html

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...de_just_45_million_from_iphone_app_store.html

Oh, and it is COULDN'T CARE LESS. Sorry that is a pet peeve of mine

Oops double post. Sorry, didn't know I was replying in to a comment in the same forum.

Only mention of iTMS in the second article is:
"Apple's "Other Music Related Products and Services" segment produced $1.049 billion in revenue. The achievement is a 4 percent boost from the prior quarter and up 19 percent from year to year."

So this is basically what I have been saying. Show me the figures, where they break down the cost of licensing and server farms to equate 1 billion in a quarter.

Otherwise all those links still support the argument, that even the horrid AppStore is making profit, and we all don't know, how much profit music and video brings.

So please, if you don't have any proof of fact on your hand, stop spreading this BS, that Apple is operating the iTMS barely at break even and that it's an incentive to sell more iPods and iPhones.

And talking about could/couldn't care less...if I wrote "they couldn't care less", wouldn't that mean that they actually care? Just asking...

 

[funkdoctor]

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

It was reported in 2007 that Apple made 10 cents per song sold on itunes. The only reason they did not make more (in 2007) was credit card fees. They where looking for ways to circumvent this by selling more gift cards. I highly doubt that since 2007 the profit they are making has dropped. I would say it has probably risen.

Also, last year when Kid Rock withdrew his album from itunes, he claimed it was because Apple made more from the artists music sold on itunes, than the artist. If Apple made no money from the itunes store, this would mean that the artist was making negative money. Which obviously makes no sense. The idea that Apple runs the itunes store just so you can have songs for your ipod does not make any sense. You might want to take a business class. There is nothing that Apple does that they are not making money from. Also, since the itunes store is one of the biggest (is it the biggest?) music store offline or online, this would also mean that your local CD store was also breaking even on music sold.

Come on now.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The idea that Apple runs the itunes store just so you can have songs for your ipod does not make any sense. You might want to take a business class.

The iTunes Store is incentive for buying an iPod. It's not a special service for those who already purchased an iPod.

 

[swagi]

The iTunes Store is incentive for buying an iPod. It's not a special service for those who already purchased an iPod.

Aaaaaah. And I was always wondering, why the Store part magically disappears as soon as I plug in my iPod.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Aaaaaah. And I was always wondering, why the Store part magically disappears as soon as I plug in my iPod.

Apple lets you use iTunes without using the store or an iPod. That seems pretty silly, right? Since all that's doing is losing them money in bandwidth, developers, R&D, etc.

 

[woodsea]

Why is this bad? Competition brings out the best in all scenarios, especially when they are all out in the open. Now, if my Blackberry worked with my Mac I would be happy. But no, even the underlings at RIM have no idea why I need a PC to upgrade my phones OS.
All of this crap about not playing well with others should have gone out after the grade school years of each of the players.
I like how the iphone works, I wish it were lighter and had qwerty buttons. I like my curve, but the amount of RAM they hobbled it with pisses me off every day. The Pre promises everything I thought the Google phone was going to be. My Palm T/X still runs flawlessly, a great piece of machinery.

 

[funkdoctor]

Apple lets you use iTunes without using the store or an iPod. That seems pretty silly, right? Since all that's doing is losing them money in bandwidth, developers, R&D, etc.

I cannot tell what you are arguing anymore - but I checked and itunes did in fact beat Wal-Mart to become the #1 music retailer in the U.S.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/03itunes.html

So, either

a) It is impossible to make money selling music, because if the #1 retailer can't make money doing it, how could anyone else?

b) You don't know what you are talking about.

I'm going to choose option b, for the win!

 

[jhsfosho]

I would be very upset if I bought a Pre, used it for syncing music, then Apple broke that feature with a future iTunes update...

 

[MrSEC]

The fanboyism here is becoming unbearable.

Tell me about it.Some of these people goose-step to Apple like the Nazi's did with Hitler.

Peace.

 

[slapppy]

I would be very upset if I bought a Pre, used it for syncing music, then Apple broke that feature with a future iTunes update...

Why? It's not an iPod. Go buy your music at Walmart, Amazon, go buy a Zune. No one is forcing you to buy from iTunes that works with iPods and approved devices.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Why? It's not an iPod. Go buy your music at Walmart, Amazon, go buy a Zune. No one is forcing you to buy from iTunes that works with iPods and approved devices.

I suggest you read it again.

the Pre will not be able to play DRM music. It will just being using iTunes to sync up with all the non DRM music on a computer.

The rampid fan boys need to figure that part out.

 

[slapppy]

You missed out option three: Palm could be quite deliberately rattling Apple's cage, with a good degree of confidence that if push come to shove, the law is in their side.

Really. So if I built a #1 iTunes type store tailored for a PMP that I built that cost me millions of dollars and untold hours.

I'll be happy as a clam letting you and some other PMP company hack right in and take away sales of my PMP player?