Palm Pre Roundup: Public Launch Tomorrow, iTunes 8.2 Syncing

NinjaHERO said:
Itunes is free. Apple makes their money on the songs they sell thru it right? So why would they block Pre from providing another avenue for them to make money? Doesn't seem like good business to me. What am I missing here?:eek:
Click to expand...

That Apple would prefer you to buy their hardware if you want to use the iTunes Music Store. Hardware makes *serious* money. Content doesn't.
 
Its funny that people think the iPhone glory is over once a competitor launches a presumably better product. It's not like Apple cannot make the iPhone better ~_~...
 
NinjaHERO said:
Itunes is free. Apple makes their money on the songs they sell thru it right? So why would they block Pre from providing another avenue for them to make money? Doesn't seem like good business to me. What am I missing here?:eek:
Click to expand...

First got to agree with the "sue them first and ask if there is any basis for it later" crowd being out of control. Huge misapplication of the law (to interoperability interface values; not code) at best and just rabid fanboy rantings at worst. As if you can copyright the strings "Apple Inc" or "1234456".

This hack is very closely similar to putting a different web browser agent string into your web browser so that some website will talk to you. There is no "invasion" of the website talking to. Microsoft isn't sue you because you posed as IE8 on the web. The string is just an interoperability string. That's it. There is no "creative expression" in a fixed , small amount of data in a specific format.



As for the above quote, the same basic rationality should have motivated Apple to block you from ripping your music off your CDs or importing music from any other source than the "got to pay us" iTunes store. Why didn't Apple do that? It would drive more sales right? Those el-cheapo record companies should come up with their own redundant programs to rip music from the CDROMs <cough>. Never mind, that you had already bought the music (or in this case, the player). Nor the colossal waste of reinventing the wheel.

Palm's solution works for DRM free music. All of the DRM music requires as iPod anyway (it is still locked under FairPlay on the iPod). For folks who over the recent years acquired a ton of FairPlay only DRM music; the solution is a "no go". So primarily what Apple would be doing is going out it is way to make unconvienent for *YOU* , the users who bought the music that can be played through multiple devices, from playing the music with multiple devices. Could luck to Apple if that goes to antitrust trial along with some more deeper issues..

When iTunes was young there was alot of DRM-free music (many folks ripping their CDs). For last couple of years that changed to mostly DRM music for those building new collections. Now the pendulum is swinging back to DRM-free. iTunes needs to evolve back into that direction again.
Apple could close its eyes as to where things are going but would just ignoring the competition; not meeting it head on.


If tying iPods to iTunes to the Store was critical profitability why did apple drop the DRM? That pretty much guaranteed had to use that chain to get to your music.

Likewise apple gives away Quicktime player (QTP) for free. Shouldn't Apple restrict everything that your can play through QTP to stuff they require you buy off the store?

Safari browser..... holy mackerel... better make all those web browser users go through some "for pay" site at Apple to indirectly pay for it otherwise Apple's bottom line is doomed , doomed , doomed.
 
Imagine if all Apple computers came with the ability to use Windows XP or Windows 7 for free. No development cost for Apple, no extra cost for the OS for customers, no royalties paid by Apple to Microsoft. Apple gets all the benefits of having it's users be able to use Windows and the associated applications on its own hardware, while only having to modifying a couple lines of code and no one paying Microsoft a dime.

Sure that would be a glorious world, but honestly tell me the Microsoft lawyers wouldn't be ******** themselves. It wouldn't happen, just like syncing the Pre with iTunes won't happen.

It's not fanboism; it's capitalism. Proprietary =/= Monopoly.
 
jmnikricket said:
Imagine if all Apple computers came with the ability to use Windows XP or Windows 7 for free. No development cost for Apple, no extra cost for the OS for customers, no royalties paid by Apple to Microsoft. Apple gets all the benefits of having it's users be able to use Windows and the associated applications on its own hardware, while only having to modifying a couple lines of code and no one paying Microsoft a dime.
Click to expand...
You can put windows 7 on you mac for free right now.

Either way your analogy doesn't work because you're trying to equate a software product which is sold (windows) with a free product (itunes). Sure itunes is given away free to the consumer with the business plan that it will leverage people into buying apple hardware. But as the consumer you are under no impetus to do so. And as a consumer I am under no personal obligation to use apple's software exclusively with apple's own products.
 
.Andy said:
You can put windows 7 on you mac for free right now.

Either way your analogy doesn't work because you're trying to equate a software product which is sold (windows) with a free product (itunes). Sure itunes is given away free to the consumer with the business plan that it will leverage people into buying apple hardware. But as the consumer you are under no impetus to do so. And as a consumer I am under no personal obligation to use apple's software exclusively with apple's own products.
Click to expand...

Actually my point was both looking at total cost of ownership and also at using software with any hardware. There is no perfect analogy that comes to mind to describe this situation, but it comes down to paying $150+ for a windows OS (did you really think an early beta version qualifies?) to use with your mac, or paying $200+ for an iPhone/iPod to use with iTunes. Either way, the money is going to the company that developed the software to cover the cost of development of that software. Just because the hardware/software cost ratio is different doesn't invalidate the analogy.
 
manu chao said:
They are reportedly called by their own name (and thus not an 'iPod'). But that list of players is very old. In a sense, Apple stopped supporting new third-party player when they brought out their own MP3-player, the iPod. Maybe not right-away but not too soon after.
Click to expand...

When you say they "stopped supporting" do you mean that the devices in that list will not sync with iTunes any longer? The date of the last update on that list was July 2008. That implies to me that they are still supported as of then and the iPod has been out for what 7 or 8 years?
 
.Andy said:
You can put windows 7 on you mac for free right now.

Either way your analogy doesn't work because you're trying to equate a software product which is sold (windows) with a free product (itunes). Sure itunes is given away free to the consumer with the business plan that it will leverage people into buying apple hardware. But as the consumer you are under no impetus to do so. And as a consumer I am under no personal obligation to use apple's software exclusively with apple's own products.
Click to expand...

Actually the analogy is fundamentally flawed in that Palm's solution doesn't involve doing anything to iTunes at all. It is not being copied, given away, moved, or anything else. It is a device on the outside on a USB wire sending singals that identifies itself as an iPod. That's it. iTunes says "what's your name" ... "My name is iPod" . "OK, we're going to synch this way". That's it is has to be.

Unless someone comes up with proof the code that implements the protocol over on the Palm Pre was stolen from Apple then there might be a case. However, just being able to talk the wire protocol is no way, no how is a copyright issue.

The closer analogy would be the folks who have implemented WINE to mimic windows. You run your windows programs bound to that library (a different implement that presents a compatible API. ) and they run. No copy of Windows is being "stolen" from Microsoft at all.

This copyright violations are coming from starting off with something that is copyrighted and then trying to back-fit them into the Palm Pre context. As opposed to started with what they are doing and going forward to see if it is.
 
Wow

After reading this thread my view remains unchanged. I believe I counted 4 decent posts, the rest.. well..

Heres the deal. To all of you out there claiming the Pre is 'infringing on the Apple {trademark,copyright,patents,ip,etc}'. Stop. The Pre is not claiming to be an iPod. It doesn't say anywhere on the device it is an iPod. Its not falsely sending image of the iPod saying, "Hey, this is me! An iPod!". It is however, during this 'media sync' sending a vendor id, which, is just a string. Nothing sophisticated. iTunes/OS X is however recognizing it as an iPod, treating it like one, and calling it. Hence the, 'syncing with ipod' line. Again, that is iTunes, not the Pre.

I have not seen anyone actually back up the claim that Apple spent 'millions' developing some magical, mystical syncing protocol that should be exclusive to them. And if they did? Well, they should have shot their lead developer for wasting company time and money.

iTunes isn't even that great of a media player. It's basic. Want cover art? You have to get an iTunes account! Not only that, but provide your personal information and credit card info! What a bunch of crap.

To those saying, 'no one said it was crap'. Try reading earlier threads, they did, and will continue to do so.

To those saying they aren't fanboys. Well maybe you aren't, but when you go out of your way to try and prove a point and say that a company (ex: Apple) is the best ***** on the planet, you sound like a fanboy, and likely are.

There really is just no winning here. People will constantly, without thought, bash anything 'threatening' to Apple, because, you know.. they need your protection!

Oh and to the person who said I said something about the UI: Try reading what I wrote. I didn't mention the UI. I didn't hint at the UI or in anyway shape or form bring it into the conversation. I did however, reply to someone mentioning the UI. Which, btw, Apple doesn't own the rights to "rounded buttons", "touch screens" (even multi touch ones!), "rounded phone design", "rounded phone with chrome trim design", "rounded phone with chrome trim and single button", et al. It's just a company people, and its just a phone, media player, [poor] music player, operating system; surely you must have better uses for your time than going balls out crazy on the internet.

<3 :apple:, hate {irrational,illogical,rabid} fanboys
 
Chase R said:
...

While I wouldn't want Apple to break the syncing that the Pre has with iTunes, Palm shouldn't rely on a smartphone-rival, Apple, for media support.
Click to expand...

it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it?

I would have more respect for the pre if their creators would have chosen to be more ethical. This is borderline unethical to use other company's successful tool to advance your own agenda... without acknowledgment of doing this in any way, shape or form.

Apple should recognize that this is going on, and then adjust the price of itunes to include a 'parking fee' for unauthorized devices. This would be fair, I would say.
 
deconstruct60 said:
...
It is a device on the outside on a USB wire sending singals that identifies itself as an iPod. That's it. iTunes says "what's your name" ... "My name is iPod" . "OK, we're going to synch this way". That's it is has to be.

....
Click to expand...

day care: "what is your name?"
other guy: "my name is Peter"
day care: "ok, that matches this boy's father's name. Here is the kid"

Another example:

gangster in police uniform: "step out of the car, give me your keys and your license."
you: "ok"
gangster in police uniform: "great. wait right here, I'll be back"


[edit: do not miss the point that you loss both your car and contents in your house]


impersonating without proper protocol and permissions is not a good thing. Abusing an established and trusted protocol is not a good thing either. Both are unethical, to say the least.

Your move.
 
Iam9376 said:
Want cover art? You have to get an iTunes account! Not only that, but provide your personal information and credit card info! What a bunch of crap.
Click to expand...
Uh huh, your statement sure is. :rolleyes: ...because one does not have to get an iTunes account for artwork, fool. All you have to do is find one, drag and drop. Voilà!

:rolleyes:
 
Iam9376 said:
The Pre is not claiming to be an iPod. It doesn't say anywhere on the device it is an iPod. Its not falsely sending image of the iPod saying, "Hey, this is me! An iPod!".

It is however, during this 'media sync' sending a vendor id, which, is just a string.

Nothing sophisticated. iTunes/OS X is however recognizing it as an iPod, treating it like one, and calling it. Hence the, 'syncing with ipod' line. Again, that is iTunes, not the Pre.
Click to expand...

So it's kinda of like saying, this is my social security number to some government rep, they look it up and call you by the name on that SS number. Who's in the wrong then?

I call troll.
 
Drag'nGT said:
Not even worth worrying over.

It's on Sprint.

[/thread] :p
Click to expand...

You, sir, make a valid point. The Pre is a CDMA phone and isn't going to have the same global penetration as the iPhone. It's also on Sprint, and many people see Sprint headed the same direction as Palm.

I think the OS is nice, but I've heard too many times that the build quality sucks. Gizmodo did a review and bitched extensively about the cheap, crappy feel of the phone and the "plasticky" keys:

body6small.jpg


And, OMG! :p No landscape keyboard...just the same tiny, cramped keyboard as found on the Centro.

Here's my take: All the screaming Apple fanboys can calm down. This is about as far from an "iPhone killer" as you can get without leaving the galaxy. ;)
 
Iam9376 said:
...

Its not falsely sending image of the iPod saying, "Hey, this is me! An iPod!".


It is however, during this 'media sync' sending a vendor id, which, is just a string.

...
Click to expand...

are you contradicting yourself in the above two sentences?

so, you say that 'sending a vendor id' which belongs to the competition is not false impersonation, and that doing so to advance your own agenda (with your competitor's tool nonetheless) is fair game?
 
Sehnsucht said:
You, sir, make a valid point. The Pre is a CDMA phone and isn't going to have the same global penetration as the iPhone.
Click to expand...

In case you missed it, Palm's going to also make a GSM version, which ATT has already said they want to sell.

That is, ATT has said they want to carry the Pre and its thinner offspring, the Eos. Verizon gets those next year as well.

So Palm will be able to sell to not only the world, but to the lucrative North American CDMA market that Apple has ignored.
 
jmnikricket said:
Actually my point was both looking at total cost of ownership and also at using software with any hardware. There is no perfect analogy that comes to mind to describe this situation, but it comes down to paying $150+ for a windows OS (did you really think an early beta version qualifies?) to use with your mac, or paying $200+ for an iPhone/iPod to use with iTunes. Either way, the money is going to the company that developed the software to cover the cost of development of that software. Just because the hardware/software cost ratio is different doesn't invalidate the analogy.
Click to expand...
Yes it's apple's business model to give away itunes to the consumer with the aim to recoup development costs and make a tidy profit on their hardware. However as a consumer you are under no obligation to play along with this. Other companies are under no obligation (within legal reason) to play along with this. By downloading apple's free software you have made no contract to purchase their products. Sure apple can, and do, go to great lengths to encourage you do to do, including blocking/making it difficult for other media players to sync. But anther company circumventing such a business model as apple has executed in is not the analogous to providing means of getting copies of retail software.


Sehnsucht said:
I think the OS is nice, but I've heard too many times that the build quality sucks. Gizmodo did a review and bitched extensively about the cheap, crappy feel of the phone and the "plasticky" keys:
Click to expand...
To be fair they actually gave it a fairly good review overall. They were similarly harsh on the iphone.
Gizmodo said:
I'm bored of the iPhone. The core functionality and design have remained the same for the last two years, and since 3.0 is just more of the same, and—barring some kind of June surprise—that's another year of the same old icons and swiping and pinching. It's time for something different. The Pre may have hardware that's worse than the G1/G2, but the whole package—the software and the hardware—isn't bad. It's good. It's different. That's something we can get behind. I can't wait to see what Palm gets dealt in their next hand.

Impressive start to an OS that should form the base of some quality phones in the future
Click to expand...
 
jmnikricket said:
Actually my point was both looking at total cost of ownership and also at using software with any hardware. There is no perfect analogy that comes to mind to describe this situation, but it comes down to paying $150+ for a windows OS (did you really think an early beta version qualifies?) to use with your mac, or paying $200+ for an iPhone/iPod to use with iTunes. Either way, the money is going to the company that developed the software to cover the cost of development of that software. Just because the hardware/software cost ratio is different doesn't invalidate the analogy.
Click to expand...
Do you really think what is probably going to be the final release version of 7 qualifies as an "early beta version?"

It does invalidate it though. Apple can cut Palm out with an update, but making hardware work with existing software (that another company makes) really isn't that groundbreaking. What about people who get their iPods to work with Linux? In this scenario they're making new software to work with hardware that Apple didn't intend to work with Linux, it's basically the exact same situation.
 
.Andy said:
You can put windows 7 on you mac for free right now.

...

And as a consumer I am under no personal obligation to use apple's software exclusively with apple's own products.
Click to expand...

- as a consumer, you are correct.

- as a company trying to use the competitor's tool for the advancement of your own agenda and to diminish your competitor's take, well, that is another matter, isn't it?



This reminds me of the case of the legless guy riding on top of and guiding a blind guy to food sources. If the blind guy does not eat, sooner or later the legless guy cannot eat either. Arrive at your own conclusion; it is easy.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
...
What about people who get their iPods to work with Linux? In this scenario they're making new software to work with hardware that Apple didn't intend to work with Linux, it's basically the exact same situation.
Click to expand...

it is not the same situation.

The difference is that (1) you bought the iPod, (2) you are the one who is making/hacking the software, (3) you are not in direct competition with the iPod's maker, you are a consumer, and (4) you are not exploiting the competition's creation

Notice: what does not feel 'proper' here is the exploitation part...
 
does any one know if there any overnight queues to purchase the pre?

any media waiting to film the first buyer?

what is david pogue saying about all of this? He had a song for the iPhone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top