It's not as if this is some kind of bug in iTunes. Palm is intentionally masquerading as such. They are using the vendor ID.
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
It's not as if this is some kind of bug in iTunes. Palm is intentionally masquerading as such. They are using the vendor ID.
I think you're naive about how software works. Palm hasn't stolen any IP or infringed any copyrights here as far as I can tell. What's so ridiculous about that?
Is this a joke? Have you ever written a piece of software? No? Well I have. I worked as a software developer for years. Yes, worked. It takes actually people real time to write software. It took real people real time to write and improve iTunes over the years. Apple owns all of that work. When they created the iPod and then the iPhone they had to update iTunes with code that enabled each of those devices to sync with iTunes.
Now Palm has created a new smart phone called the Pre. If they want it to sync with Macintosh and Windows computers it is up to them to write the software that will enable it to do that. Using software that another company spent a lot of money developing is patently unfair.
Now to the part of your statement that I said was ridiculous, since you couldn't understand what I thought was ridiculous. You said that it would be childish for Apple to protect that hard work by actively preventing Palm from being able to use their software to sync the Pre. That is RIDICULOUS, without a doubt. Whether they do or don't isn't even the point here. The fact is that they have every right to do so if they choose because they own iTunes. Since they own iTunes it is up to Apple to decide how it works and what devices it works with. Period.
People like you that have never written a piece of software crack me up. If this were hardware you wouldn't have any problem understanding it at all. For example, if Palm designed their Pre to charge with the same docks as an iPhone and then they walked into an Apple factory and stole thousands of iPhone Docks to ship with the Pre that would be pretty damn obvious to you that it was wrong. For some reason though once software is developed people like you think it is okay to steal that software because the work has already been done. Because it doesn't take any more physical material to let more people use it you think it is okay. What you seem to forget is all the hours that it took to create in the first place and all the hours that will be spent going forward to maintain and update it. It's like it isn't a real product to you. I'm sure you also think it is okay to steal music and movies via the Internet.
Amazing how you just read my post and don't even realize that you just proved my point. LMAO.
You only had hyperbole. Palm syncing with iTunes is not the equivalent of stealing ipod docs. The equivalent would be apple giving away free ipod docs in the hope that you'd buy an ipod/iphone, and another company using said doc. There's a world of difference.
A consumer is not stealing itunes if they don't buy media through it or purchase apple hardware.
No, there isn't any difference. The fact that you don't understand this is not surprising to me.
Maybe this will help. Try separating in your mind the part of iTunes that actually performs the syncing. Apple could make iTunes with the library and the store and make a separate piece of software that is used to sync iPods and iPhones. They could ship this software directly with each iPod and iPhone. Would you be able to see that as stealing if Palm then tried to use that software to sync the Pre? Because that is what is happening. It takes Apple's employees a certain number of hours to write the sync software. They wrote that software specifically to sync iPods and iPhones. It cost them a lot of money to do this. And now Palm wants to use that software for free.
And just because you don't understand something does not make it hyperbole.
I'm a professional software developer. Only 26 years old -- maybe that's why my perspective is so different -- but I've worked on proprietary business software (Fannie Mae) and commercial open source software (www.openfisma.org). I've been programming ever since I was old enough to use a computer. I won't claim to have more experience than you, but I do have enough experience to understand how much labor and complexity is inherent in software.
Ahem
What is Palm stealing from Apple? iTunes is free and Palm is only making their product compatible with one of the industry's most popular music management programs. I don't think the USB vendor ID is copyrighted, and that's the only thing that Palm is actually including in their software that could be construed as belonging to Apple.
Do you think OpenOffice is ripping off Microsoft because OpenOffice can save files in Word's native format?
You may think that Apple has every right to choose who gets to be compatible with iTunes, but I think the FTC might see it differently. It's probably not as clear cut as you think.
Your genial nature is wonderful.
No this isn't exactly what's happening. You just created an entirely different scenario.
Apple are giving away itunes for free with the business plan that they will make money by encouraging a consumer to be purchase media/hardware. All palm are doing is encroaching on that business plan. There is no obligation (as long as they are doing it legally) for them to respect apple's business plan.
Again, under your argument a customer that uses itunes without purchasing apple's hardware or making media purchases with it are stealing. That is not the case. Your problem is that as a software developer you see what palm is doing as somewhat underhanded and unethical. I don't disagree with you there. But it's business. It isn't however stealing akin to taking ipod docks or copyright infringement (unless it's proven that palm is doing such a thing with their work-around).
I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. You do understand that just because Apple gives away iTunes for free that it still costs them money to create, maintain, and update it, right? You also understand that Apple owns the iTunes software, right?
And yet you don't understand that it is their right to change the software and decide what hardware it does and doesn't work with? The fact that you think the FTC has any say in this is absolutely amazing to me.
You don't need to simplify it. I'm not an idiot. I can't stand arguing with people like you -- lots of pejoratives but no substance. I feel like I'm a guest on Bill O'Reilly's show.
So this is the last I will say:
If Apple made sync software and then someone else used it... that would not be illegal. In fact, check out iSync on your computer right now. Case in point.
The only difference here is that you're saying Apple has a right to keep the syncing part of iTunes closed off to competition if they desire. My whole point -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- is that it may or may not be true. I'm not saying that you're 100% wrong. I'm saying that you're too stubborn to even understand that there might be other factors at play.
Does the FTC care if Apple locks out other companies?? I don't know. Like I said, I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. But are you familiar with EU versus Microsoft? The EU brought several complaints against Microsoft, all of which were centered around unfair bundling (or tying) of products. What was the result? MS paid a huge fine and was forced to unbundle some products (such as IE and Windows Media Player) when selling into the EU zone.
When you are the big fish in the pond in the modern era of anti-trust, then you are expected to behave differently. Apple can be proprietary as they want with their Mac OS/hardware bundle because they are a small fish in that market.
When it comes to digital music distribution, however, they are the big fish, and I can see how they might be held to a different standard.
You are arguing so many disparate points that it makes it a bit harder to respond so I'll do it in pieces.
1) Just because you don't agree with my points you don't have to claim there is no substance. Perhaps that is what brings out what you perceive as the pejoratives.
2) Sync Services is an open API that offers specific tools to programmers so that they can use it according to the rules that Apple sets forth. So this is not a "case in point" as you stated. It would be a "case in point" if Apple set up an API for iTunes specifically to be used to sync devices. The Sync Services are set up so that the person that wants to use it for their product has to WRITE SOFTWARE that will use the sync engine to synchronize their product, which is what I've been saying all along.
3) It's not that I'm stubborn. It's that I find it frustrating that people, even those who develop software like you, can't seem to understand that there is an underlying cost to iTunes that Apple has invested. And this cost is significant and they have the right to protect that investment.
4) People that equate Microsoft having a large market share with them having complaints filed against them continually miss the point of what Microsoft did wrong in order to have DOJ and the EU file suits.
5) Let's get something else straight, Apple may have a large portion of the Music Player market (but even 70% does not a monopoly make). However, they do not have anywhere near that in the cell phone or even the smart phone market. And I also don't think you've been paying attention lately if you think our current FTC or FCC care about large market share. Have you noticed any companies getting smaller lately?
6) The Pre is not in the digital music distribution market and that isn't what we're talking about here. Again, you aren't able to separate the sync part of iTunes from the store. Apple wouldn't be preventing Pre users from using iTunes or the store. They would just be preventing them from using it to sync their device. And Apple doesn't have the majority of that market.
Just picked up my Pre and hooked it up to my Laptop and started iTunes and it asked to sync it and now I am. Nice
Just picked up my Pre and hooked it up to my Laptop and started iTunes and it asked to sync it and now I am. Nice
Keep us posted if/when Apple breaks sync through an iTunes update!
I am running 3.0 B5 on my iphone so if they do another iTunes with the new Beta then we shall see about my Pre.
Thanks! How was the syncing experience? Just like an iPod? Did iTunes identify your Pre as an iPod, like we've been told?
Yes it does. I comes up as Palm Pre and then asks if want to sync as ipod. Synced my songs and has alot of the Album art as well.
Cool. How do you compare the Pre to your iPhone? I bet a lot of people are going to be asking you that!
As has been stated many times over in this thread, those were players that were created before Apple ever sold the first iPod.
What about the Contacts tab in iTunes when you have your Pre selected?
A: Samba is open Source
B: Microsoft was forced to share with the Samba team through court judgement. Samba appears on Linux as an NT server on Paid Versions (Varies from free distro to distro though). They have full rights to do this.
And they release it back through the Darwin project. Apple has never broken any OpenSource rights. They even own the CUPS project.
Just picked up my Pre and hooked it up to my Laptop and started iTunes and it asked to sync it and now I am. Nice
Given SyncTunes, here's the only thing that matters: does it also sync play counts?