Wrong, your still violating IP by hacking your player to emulate an iPod on iTunes. Thats wrong and thats underhanded tactics to take away iPod sales.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Palm Pre Emulating an iPod to Accomplish iTunes Sync?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wrong, your still violating IP by hacking your player to emulate an iPod on iTunes. Thats wrong and thats underhanded tactics to take away iPod sales.
Maybe so, but from a multi-billion dollar international corporation that kind of money IS nothing. I don't think it is a stretch to say that they revenue from the store is nothing substantial to their Mac, iPod, iPhone sales which are the bread and butter of the company. The store exists to push hardware as you stated and is therefore operated as close to break even which 45 million dollars (out of 1 BILLION apps downloaded) for an entire year would be considered.
.Andy
macrumors 68030
Haha no, it is grammatically correct to say COULDN'T (COULD NOT) CARE LESS, because you care so little, it is not possible to care less. Otherwise it is a double negative and you are saying that you indeed COULD care less because you DO care. Make sense? It is a common mispoken saying in America. Sorry, when you learn another language you start to see things in your own that you never noticed before and that people say incorrectly all the time.
Anyway the figures for music etc. include also the accessories and peripherals that Apple sells which are most likely the majority of that number reported. I can state as a fact that iTunes and the App Store are to push hardware sales, Apple is very clear on that. They are not intended or expected to turn profit as a result but have come to do so overtime, but nothing of any significance to a multi-billion dollar international corporation. For example out of 1 BILLION app downloads in 9 months $45 million is nothing really.
Palm have nothing to loose. They are at rock bottom.
I am amazed at their audacity though but they are just delaying the inevitable bankruptcy.
1) UI seems to be similar to apples in many many ways (cough blatant copy)
2) Poaching and hiring of former apple iphone employees including some bitter ex 'big' guys to work on a similar looking multi touch phone- I just can't see how they can defend this one
3) apying an ipod to sync with itunes- This is the most desperate and lame. Just how can anyone take them seriously when they give another company the power to disable one of their key features. Madness.
Unless Palm are paying apple royalties and they are great friends really- this surely must be the logical reason, it has to be. They wouldn't be that stupid would they?
It would be like apple using google maps without googles permission then finding that surprisingly google has turned off their maps. Just what are they thinking???
Then there is the pre with its dodgy keyboard, plasticy non industrial designer designed industrial design and flaky " umm umm "webos" java applet browser. No wonder it can multi task. How many crappy java applets do you want to run at any one time??
Look we rightly tore apple to shreds when it was wanting to only release web apps- same thing different name fundamentally. I don't care how they try to dress it up.
Palm are going down. I will put money on it they are gone this time next year.
Well, fine, so you bought into that 1 billion App downloads marketing crap. I personally think, it would've made more sense, if Apple actually stated, how many of these 1 billion downloads were downloads of free Apps.
Just think about the following: Show me an iPhone without the FREE Remote App or the FREE eBay App. There you go. 100 million Apps downloaded.
.Andy
macrumors 68030
Hey Ok we'll have a sporting bet so if I loose you can use my name as a tag line to humiliate me- eg Needthephone said Palm were going down when they are now outselling apple-as if.
So if palm are still in business on June 1st 2010 you win...
.Andy
macrumors 68030
I'll do that as well 😀!
But I'd rather the cash 😉. How about $AU10 then? For Palm to not have gone bankrupt by the 1st June 2010.
OK why not (I think I will pay the price for my exagerating ways but why not)
I promise to pay but we'll do it by pay pal this time next year. AU 10 it is then.
iTunes Store was NOT BUILT specifically fot the iPod. It was built for earning money with DRM'ed music back then. Maybe check out good old Steve
iTunes Music Store introduction
I don't think, that the keynote leaves the impression of: Hey, guys, we built a tiny internet shop for music, so buy an iPod to use it! The speech is mainly about "Good karma" 😀
.Andy
macrumors 68030
Right and the business model changed when the iPod was developed. Thats the true purpose of iTunes. It's to sell iPods and iPhones. Again my statement holds true. If some company just walks right in and start using my music store without any type of permission for the use of their player, not the one I built. You bet I'll sue their pants off.
"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?"
gnasher729
Suspended
I think very few people doubt that Apple isn't entirely happy about this. But competitors have no obligation to keep Apple happy; they do have the obligation to stay within the law. When you say "Palm is using Apple's music store", that is not actually true. It would be people who downloaded iTunes, which Apple makes available for free to anybody, who would use the iTunes software, not Palm. Many of these people would be Apple's customers.
You'd have to go beyond "Apple is not happy about this" and find something that Palm is doing that actually breaks a law. In the Psystar case, which has been discussed here no end, (almost) everyone agrees that Apple is rightfully unhappy, and Psystar is actually breaking the law, but not because they made Apple unhappy, but because Apple's lawyers had the foresight to see such a situation coming and put the terms into the MacOS X license "must only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer".
If you check the license for the iTunes software, there is nothing that restricts your use of the software. You are restricted in making copies, but Palm doesn't make copies (if Palm shipped the Pre together with a copy of iTunes, that would be legal suicide). If you check the license for the iTunes Store, there were restrictions for DRM-protected music; you were only allowed to copy it to "Apple-authorized" players. But then the license says explicitly that this does _not_ apply to iTunes Plus contents. Your rights to make copies and put them onto a Palm device are restricted by copyright, same as with an iPod, but Apple itself doesn't restrict you.
So Apple _could_ have added terms to its iTunes software license or the iTunes Store license that forbid using the software with a Palm Pre, or copying the content on a Palm Pre, but they haven't. Again, that single license in the MacOS X license "must be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer only" makes all the difference between legal and illegal.
Ya we don't know all the numbers, but my guess is the majority of them (50%+) are free apps.
jmann
macrumors 604
frankly
macrumors 6502a
No, it simply meant that your statement was so full of ridiculous conjecture that it wasn't worth responding to point by point. It was worth pointing out how ludicrous it was though 😉
And in case you actually care I'm someone that developed software for years on Windows machines, which made me appreciate my Apple hardware even more when I got home from work.
Try thinking before you post to the forums and I'll spend my time crafting a more thorough response.
Any MP3 players from this century? Or better yet, any that were released post-iPod?
1) You missed the entire point. It isn't about whether or not you LIKE iTunes and therefore prefer to use it. It is about whether or not the Pre user experience is going to be hurt because Apple decides to update iTunes and, whooops, your Pre doesn't sync today. That is guaranteed to happen and guaranteed to SUCK if you are a Pre user. But then again, if you've owned a Palm device in the past 5 years or so you already expect that.
2) Please don't take this as an insult but it is obvious that you are not a software developer. If you were you would understand the difference between a hack (what Pre has done to sync with iTunes) and developing software using a legitimate API. Exchange Active Sync can be licensed (Apple does so for the iPhone), and Google and Facebook have public APIs that you can develop against. These are known APIs that they publish and you would have sufficient time to update your software if they changed. They would deprecate the item being removed from and/or changed in the API before they removed it completely (if they even removed it at all).
3) Palm Desktop is only a joke because Palm has made it so. They are not forced to stick with that as their solution. See above, they could use public APIs to sync with existing services.
4) Palm does need to reinvent the music sync wheel if the existing wheels don't have public APIs. You don't get to just steal someone else's work. If is up to the person or company that created software as to how, if at all, they want to let others use that work. It takes thousands of hours to develop good software. The fact that you think someone else should be able to use your software without your permission speaks volumes about your character.
You insist on ignoring the fact that the iPod family accounts for 70% of ALL portable music player sales and has for years running.
You also seem to have missed how many people in this very thread have praised iTunes for its ease of use when syncing an iPod. In fact, this is one of the reasons given as to why Palm should sync the Pre with it. So, the iTunes store sells so many songs because Apple has made it easy to do and easy to sync with your devices, which makes you love your Apple device even more. It is part of the package that makes the iPod line so damn popular.
Apple makes less than 30% of each song sold. This has to cover their costs for
1) Software development
2) Hardware
3) Network connections
and other associated costs. I'm not saying that they don't make any money from iTunes but it is small when compared to what they make selling iPods.
If they had then you can bet your ass the Pre wouldn't be showing up as an iPod in iTunes.
Let's get something straight for those of you that are too daft to figure this out. It isn't that Apple makes nothing from the store. It is that they make a small fraction from the store compared to what they make selling iPods and iPhones. Get it now???
Apple licensed that from Microsoft.
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/Features/2008/mar08/03-06EASqa.mspx
A sober analysis of this topic by Jon Gruber over at Daring Fireball
http://daringfireball.net/2009/06/webos_itunes_integration
Goona
macrumors 68020
If it was Palm that had come out with itunes and Apple was doing the same, people would be crying foul. Engadget and the rest of those useless sites would be up in arms. Apple develops itunes to sell their ipods and iphones and it becomes popular and all of a sudden other companies should be allowed to use it however they want. I wonder why didn't RIM do the same thing Palm is doing when they launched the Storm but instead they went about the proper way and developed their own program to sync with itunes. The lazy folks at Palm decide to be smart and instead of doing this, they decide to go the easy way out. I hope Apple finds a way to brick all the Pre phones that will be syncing with itunes, that will teach Palm a lesson or two.
diamond.g
macrumors G5
What hardware are you referring to? Pretty sure the iPod takes care of that all by itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the iPod (and iPhone) partially funds iTunes development.
frankly
macrumors 6502a
Please don't take this the wrong way but based on that response I guess you're unaware of how the Internet works so I'll give you some more information.
When you open iTunes and go to the iTunes store the store and all of the pages you see are not stored on your computer. Your computer connects to a server farm where the iTunes store software is actually running. Then when you actually want to purchase a song that server farm connects to any number of server farms in order to facilitate the transfer of your purchase to your computer. The more items that Apple sells on the store and the larger those files are (think HD TV Shows and Movies) the more hardware (servers and associated networking hardware) they need.
Apple currently sells over 10 million songs, over 40,000 TV episodes, and over 5,000 movies including over 1,200 in HD.
And as has been pointed out numerous times iTunes is the #1 music retailer in the U.S. They sell millions of songs per day. This is no small feat.
Let me know if you need additional information as to how this works or the type of investment this requires on Apple's part.
I would guess the poster is referring to the servers and all of that hardware, but I could be wrong.
I'm curious to see how many of you think Palm is doing this without Apple's consent. Of you who are against that, how many of you have jailbroken iPhones, or support the devcommunity and the unlocking/jailbreaking of the iPhone?