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
Um, how about plugging in your mp3-player and using some other app top sync the library?
How so? Why is it easier to plug in an iPod and sync with itunes, than it is to plug in some other player and sync with some other library-manager?
They already do on Windows.... iPod does not sync with Windows Media Player, consumers are expected to install iTunes. And they seem to do that with very little problems.
Your argument was about the library, not iTunes.
Why do you think that iTunes is the only choice?
your argument is about the contents, not the app you happen use with that content.
How are they making it more difficult for you to sync your content with some other app? They aren't. Your argument wasn't about the app, your argument was about the library.
So use some other app instead, Apple is not stopping you.
Why is iTunes more convenient than some other app?
I fail to see how syncing with some other app is more difficult than syncing with iTunes. It would still be automatic. And like I said: your complaint was not about the app, your complaint was about the library.
It bears wery much to what you posted. You wanted to use your library with some third-party hardware. And you can do so just fine. You seem to think that you are somehow required to use iTunes to access that content. You are not.
If you want to whine about iTunes not supporting third-party hardware, then do so. But you didn't. You whined about not being able to use your library with third-party hardware. That's a whole different argument.
Use hyperbole much? All Palm did was make their product work with another product. If a company A invents a pentagonal nut, why is it "reprehensible" if company B invents their own pentagonal wrench? It's called "bringing a desired product to market." It's not immoral, it's not illegal, and it's not wrong.
Oh, really? Name one law that's been broken. As a matter of fact, it's more likely that it's illegal for Apple to block this, as that would be anti-trust. In this society we value innovation and interoperability. For example, there is a new lawsuit out that is fighting car manufacturers who keep their engine diagnostic codes secret. Do you want to be able to bring your car to any mechanic or would you prefer to be forced to always take it to the dealer and pay higher prices for worse service? The latter is what you are advocating here in Apple's case. Palm represents competition in a truly free market, and therefore choice for the consumer. Choice is good.
You are rallying against an argument that I've not made. My point was that it's more difficult to drag and drop from folders than to sync my playlists. Not that it is impossible to do so.
Palm could take the same route as Microsoft. The Zune software has a helper application which monitors user definable folders. When you download a track off the iTS, it is automatically added into the Zune database and is then sync'd through the Zune software. It's very clever and there is nothing difficult about it.
Apple has been tuning iTunes for eight years. They are in no way obligated to allow their competitors to use their software to enhance their competing product experience. There's no reason to prevent the use of the iTunes Store, but the sync experience is another story.
Why do I care? I have a sizable stake (by my measure) in Apple through AAPL stock. Seeing another company enhance their product by leeching off Apple's R&D sucks and I hope Apple fights it. Without Jon Rubinstein, I doubt Palm would have taken that route.
Actually, if it worked at first and stopped working after an iTunes update, I'd guess people would point the finger at Apple instead of Palm. I know I would.
And Palm haven't actually advertised this, so far.
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.
Which is a smart way to do it however a route that is less convenient for the consumer. Two jukebox programs is just duplicating functionality. I'd rather I could just freely sync third party devices with itunes, however failing that I wouldn't be adverse to paying a bit extra for my 3rd party device to cover a licensing agreement with Apple or alternatively paying apple directly for the ability for 3rd party devices to sync (itunes pro or something).skwoytek said:
Which makes complete senseskwoytek said:
. However you'd have to agree that your interest is financial one and not what is more convenient for the consumer. In a purely consumer role presumably you'd rather the choice to be able to sync third party products with itunes.They showed it to the Wall Street Journal and then argued their case that what they're doing is reasonable. Is that not enough to be considered "advertising" the feature?
do you think it is saying "synchronizing ipod" because to change it that would have meant that Palm woul ahve to go into itunes and force a change to the itunes coding?
I think Apple will stop it and it may give themselves a black eye and then the catch and mouse chase, jail breaking, games will begin.
I think Apple will stop it and it may give themselves a black eye and then the catch and mouse chase, jail breaking, games will begin.
This is what brings you enjoyment? Did you say the same thing when Apple used the patent for Visual Voicemail, but instead of making their own software paid for their mistake?
Which makes complete sense
I can do whatever I want with my music, nobody's stopping me. As I mentioned, Microsoft's Zune software handles iTunes Store purchases in a manner that is completely transparent to the user - so Apple doesn't prevent choice.
What Palm did was save themselves months of work and expenses by using a "hack" to sync with iTunes. Honestly, Palm probably doesn't even have the capital to complete their own sync software without another round of investors.
What Palm did probably isn't illegal, but Apple ensuring that their sync software works only with their products won't be either.
It's just as easy to sync with some other library-manager than it would be with iTunes. Sure, there might be some effort required to install that app in the first place, but it really isn't that hard. I mean, we ALL install apps all the time. Every single Windows-users who uses iPod installs a library-manager on their computer, since iPod does not work with media Player. Lots and lots of people install web-browsers. Installing apps is something we all do, all the time. Yet no-one complains that "it's so hard!".
It's just as difficult to use some other library-manager as it is to use iTunes on Windows. Both cases require an installation of an additional app.
The difference is neglible. Launch the other library-manager, plug your device in, done. How exactly is that harder than launching iTunes and plugging in an iPod?
And it would be easier for consumers if iPod synced with Media Player, but it doesn't, Apple expects that you install iTunes instead. And we seem to manage that just fine.
What you are arguing here is a marginal difference. That installing an app is oh so hard. But it isn't.
Oh ish!
So Rubinstein took his skinny ass over to Palm and with it, a bag of Apple tricks. I bet John wanted something and Jobs shut him down. But don't worry, the Pre is going to die a flaming death. The competition is going to be all over that phone. And then Palm is going to have to drop newer versions fast fast fast to keep up the bell and whistle hustle so very common in the cell phone game.
Then there will be Palm Glut. Tons of unsold models sitting on Rubinstein's desk. Palm will incur debt and POOF! Dead.
So Rubinstein took his skinny ass over to Palm and with it, a bag of Apple tricks. I bet John wanted something and Jobs shut him down. But don't worry, the Pre is going to die a flaming death. The competition is going to be all over that phone. And then Palm is going to have to drop newer versions fast fast fast to keep up the bell and whistle hustle so very common in the cell phone game.
Then there will be Palm Glut. Tons of unsold models sitting on Rubinstein's desk. Palm will incur debt and POOF! Dead.
However as I said, apple is most definitely blocking the ability for you as a consumer to sync with itunes freely. 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.
Your are agruing they could just use another music library program. This argument falls apart when 99% of people to not actively use 2 music player program. They use one library management program as there primary one. In most cases that seems to be iTunes. iTunes will be the only program that contains all the play list and the one they use all the time.
it is stupid to expect people to MAINTAIN more than one program. I have on my PC at least 3 if not 4 different programs that could handle libary mananagement. Guess what I only actively use 1 program to maintain that list of songs and to create and store all my play list. for me this is iTunes. This means that WMP, WinAmp and real player (if I have the POS program still) go largely unused expect for a few things hear but those other programs do 0% of my library maintenance. That all fall to iTunes.
I have no intention of having to use another program for that.
You expect them to make a program that on the same level as itunes. The closes thing out there is WMP and it really is any were close. iTunes change the rules on library management. people are not going to switch to some program other program after they have been using iTunes for years. Hell you could make a program 5-10% better than iTunes and people will not switch because it is a lot of trouble to do so and iTunes works. Once you find something that works people do not switch.
While for apple it may be good for them to lock out others it SCREWS over the consumer and in many ways is noncompetitive. Hell apple has to tred on thin ice and they run the risk of getting slapped with a anti trust law suit and losing. hell in this case if htey lock out the Pre they have stuff against them because other device work just fine with iTunes. What makes the pre so different. To me it would tell me Apple does not have the balls to do a fair fight. If some thing really threaten them they screw it over.
rawr
I just had to register to reply to this thread; I'm that annoyed. I skimmed the thread to make sure this hasn't already been said before and I am satisfied that it hasn't.
First of all, you all seem content to say that anything that isn't Apple should have retribution if it's able to sync with an Apple product. I disagree. I'm an author of a library that provides some of the baseline features for synchronization with the iPhone -- under Linux. I did this without Apple IP (I don't use their code or binary blobs), without any internal (company) knowledge about Apple protocols or Apple internal documentation. The information I used to code the parts of my library that speak the Apple protocols is all public; the methods I used to get this information (USB port sniffing, essentially) are all legal.
Should Apple retaliate against me? Really? For me putting something together that's a step closer to allowing me to properly use the device that I purchased on the operating system that I have chosen to use? Because that would be, pardon my language, ****ed up. Have I somehow stolen their sync software, when iTunes is distributed freely and I've already purchased the phone? Despite the fact that I coded mine from scratch (with help from lots of others of course)? You're dreaming!
Such is the case with Palm. Most likely they did a cleanroom reverse engineering; that's when a group of engineers looks at how something works, writes extensive documentation on it (carefully to avoid the previous company's actual IP, like code, etc., infecting it), and then passes it on to another group of engineers who re-implements it. This is an established, legal process for reverse engineering.
Is pretending to be an Apple product for the sake of synchronizing with other Apple products illegal? Once again, you're dreaming, or we'd all be in a nightmare. It's called "interoperability" and it's specifically protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (ironically, one of the few things that stupid law got right!). It's what allowed me to make my library in legal peace, what allows others to improve on my library and make it their IP as well as mine, and what allows Palm's Pre to sync with iTunes by masquerading as an iPod or iPhone or what have you.
Should Apple retaliate against me for being able to do file operations and very limited syncing with my phone? No.
Should Apple retaliate against Palm for making their product interoperable and syncable with iTunes? No. Why not? Well, for one, it's anticompetitive and monopolistic -- two things people hate Microsoft for, yet tend to conveniently overlook when it comes to Apple. For another thing, it's not exactly like the protocols and file formats used by Apple are a big secret or anything; iTunesDB has been a public format for ages, used by libgpod and gtkpod, two programs used to sync music under Linux to various iPod products. AAC is well known and supported, USB Mass Storage is a freaking public spec for crying out loud (iPods being storage devices with special file organization; iPod Touches and iPhones use different protocols and formats that are surprisingly no less public! I will list them in [A].)
Finally, interoperability is not "stealing another company's sync product." It's all about making things more convenient for the customer and adding some competition to the arena. Sure, Apple could break compatibility with the Pre, and probably fairly easily (unless the Pre comes close enough to official Apple spec that they would have to cut all compatibility for a model of iPod/iPhone as well!); but if Pre's intelligent and releases their own sync software, or pushes firmware updates over-the-air, we can have a nice game of cat-and-mouse between the two companies with iTunes compatibility just as we have between Apple and the iPhone Dev Team with freedom to use the phone in ways not otherwise possible.
Nothing has actually been stolen. I'll grant that it might be a shortcut (but do you know how difficult it is to make something strictly compatible with someone else's product when you don't have much to go on?), but as no IP has actually been violated -- Palm likely reverse engineering their way to the information they need -- no theft or infringement has happened, and nothing illegal has occurred.
It annoys me that you all actually want the vendor lock-in for some promise of "better" technology. IMO, "better" technology plays well with others, not just itself and its siblings and cousins. Apple has a way of failing fantastically on that score when it comes to digital media.
With all due respect to DVD Jon Lech Johansen (who is one of my idols): if they truly can do it, which they probably can, it doesn't mean they should... or even that they will. Even if they don't have an agreement with Palm, there'd be a nice little PR backlash for blatantly locking people out.
tl;dr I think it's totally cool that Palm wants to make things easier for the consumer, and I wish more companies would do that sort of thing. Alas, we still have so many companies still treating customers like criminals -- Apple included. Interoperability is good for competition, which is again good for the consumer.
Oh, and on a further, somewhat more derogatory note: I thought you guys were all about things just working; Palm goes well out of its way to do this (I should know) and you get up their butt about it? Whatever.
[A]: The iPhone and iPod Touch use the following public formats and protocols in communication:
1.) TCP (over USB!)
2.) XML (propertylists; lockdownd)
3.) SSL (lockdownd again)
4.) BPLIST (Binary PropertyList; while originated at Apple, documentation and public, open-source/free-software-licensed code exists; this is used in backup, restore, and syncing protocols)
There is only one, however, that's mostly Apple-proprietary, and that is AFC, also known as Apple File Control. It's basically a binary FTP.
I just had to register to reply to this thread; I'm that annoyed. I skimmed the thread to make sure this hasn't already been said before and I am satisfied that it hasn't.
First of all, you all seem content to say that anything that isn't Apple should have retribution if it's able to sync with an Apple product. I disagree. I'm an author of a library that provides some of the baseline features for synchronization with the iPhone -- under Linux. I did this without Apple IP (I don't use their code or binary blobs), without any internal (company) knowledge about Apple protocols or Apple internal documentation. The information I used to code the parts of my library that speak the Apple protocols is all public; the methods I used to get this information (USB port sniffing, essentially) are all legal.
Should Apple retaliate against me? Really? For me putting something together that's a step closer to allowing me to properly use the device that I purchased on the operating system that I have chosen to use? Because that would be, pardon my language, ****ed up. Have I somehow stolen their sync software, when iTunes is distributed freely and I've already purchased the phone? Despite the fact that I coded mine from scratch (with help from lots of others of course)? You're dreaming!
Such is the case with Palm. Most likely they did a cleanroom reverse engineering; that's when a group of engineers looks at how something works, writes extensive documentation on it (carefully to avoid the previous company's actual IP, like code, etc., infecting it), and then passes it on to another group of engineers who re-implements it. This is an established, legal process for reverse engineering.
Is pretending to be an Apple product for the sake of synchronizing with other Apple products illegal? Once again, you're dreaming, or we'd all be in a nightmare. It's called "interoperability" and it's specifically protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (ironically, one of the few things that stupid law got right!). It's what allowed me to make my library in legal peace, what allows others to improve on my library and make it their IP as well as mine, and what allows Palm's Pre to sync with iTunes by masquerading as an iPod or iPhone or what have you.
Should Apple retaliate against me for being able to do file operations and very limited syncing with my phone? No.
Should Apple retaliate against Palm for making their product interoperable and syncable with iTunes? No. Why not? Well, for one, it's anticompetitive and monopolistic -- two things people hate Microsoft for, yet tend to conveniently overlook when it comes to Apple. For another thing, it's not exactly like the protocols and file formats used by Apple are a big secret or anything; iTunesDB has been a public format for ages, used by libgpod and gtkpod, two programs used to sync music under Linux to various iPod products. AAC is well known and supported, USB Mass Storage is a freaking public spec for crying out loud (iPods being storage devices with special file organization; iPod Touches and iPhones use different protocols and formats that are surprisingly no less public! I will list them in [A].)
Finally, interoperability is not "stealing another company's sync product." It's all about making things more convenient for the customer and adding some competition to the arena. Sure, Apple could break compatibility with the Pre, and probably fairly easily (unless the Pre comes close enough to official Apple spec that they would have to cut all compatibility for a model of iPod/iPhone as well!); but if Pre's intelligent and releases their own sync software, or pushes firmware updates over-the-air, we can have a nice game of cat-and-mouse between the two companies with iTunes compatibility just as we have between Apple and the iPhone Dev Team with freedom to use the phone in ways not otherwise possible.
Nothing has actually been stolen. I'll grant that it might be a shortcut (but do you know how difficult it is to make something strictly compatible with someone else's product when you don't have much to go on?), but as no IP has actually been violated -- Palm likely reverse engineering their way to the information they need -- no theft or infringement has happened, and nothing illegal has occurred.
It annoys me that you all actually want the vendor lock-in for some promise of "better" technology. IMO, "better" technology plays well with others, not just itself and its siblings and cousins. Apple has a way of failing fantastically on that score when it comes to digital media.
With all due respect to DVD Jon Lech Johansen (who is one of my idols): if they truly can do it, which they probably can, it doesn't mean they should... or even that they will. Even if they don't have an agreement with Palm, there'd be a nice little PR backlash for blatantly locking people out.
tl;dr I think it's totally cool that Palm wants to make things easier for the consumer, and I wish more companies would do that sort of thing. Alas, we still have so many companies still treating customers like criminals -- Apple included. Interoperability is good for competition, which is again good for the consumer.
Oh, and on a further, somewhat more derogatory note: I thought you guys were all about things just working; Palm goes well out of its way to do this (I should know) and you get up their butt about it? Whatever.
[A]: The iPhone and iPod Touch use the following public formats and protocols in communication:
1.) TCP (over USB!)
2.) XML (propertylists; lockdownd)
3.) SSL (lockdownd again)
4.) BPLIST (Binary PropertyList; while originated at Apple, documentation and public, open-source/free-software-licensed code exists; this is used in backup, restore, and syncing protocols)
There is only one, however, that's mostly Apple-proprietary, and that is AFC, also known as Apple File Control. It's basically a binary FTP.
Welcome FxChiP. Great first post . Hope you can stick around. The more informed opinion the merrier .
. Hope you can stick around. The more informed opinion the merrier .So you want Apple to engage in the distinctly much more illegal act of remote destruction of property?
That's completely logical.