Did you even look at the link? This isnt my opinion, its simply how long it took them to fix it, I don't understand why you wont concede, give it up...
Someone find him a time line of iTunes and WebOS releases...
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 re-enables iTunes sync
- Thread starter 9822737
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Did you even look at the link? This isnt my opinion, its simply how long it took them to fix it, I don't understand why you wont concede, give it up...
Someone find him a time line of iTunes and WebOS releases...
And that is an official Palm site? NOPE. So again, cite an OFFICIAL Palm source, that is just the Palm version of this site, "an anonymous tipster"
You are a share holder? Ah, that explains your anger, for profit and greed are your motivations in life and the choice of the consumer for unfettered competition instead of companies that would turn themselves into virtual monopolies means nothing to you so long as you get your share of the bounty.
iTunes is a lot more than a syncing application and goes far beyond the scope of such a program. To even suggest that I should STILL use iTunes to control my library, my other Apple devices, etc. and then start up ANOTHER program just to sync a competing phone is LUDICROUS. It's like asking me to use someone else's web browser to visit Palm's web site because Apple has purposely blocked Safari from accessing it because they're a competitor with people like yourself shouting out that the competitor in question should develop their own web browser if they want anyone to view their web site, completely ignoring the fact that a web browser (or rather in this case a music database and control program) and and a phone are two different products and from two different markets. Tying to block competition is illegal and that is the very reason why a company's web browser is not allowed to purposely block web sites of companies it doesn't like. The fact we're talking about Apple's music manager and store front program is irrelevant. If Apple PURPOSELY blocks competitors from its program to prevent competition, it has broken the law. By constantly modifying its code system to keep Palm out (with no other reason or motivation involved), it is as guilty as if it had blocked Palm's web site in Safari from appearing in order enrich itself by trying to deny the consumer freedom of choice.
Whether your own personal greed and lack of moral ethics is outraged at the laws of this country is IRRELEVANT. Companies like Apple will obey they law or they will be held accountable, as you will if you break the law to line your own pockets. These laws exist to protect both the consumer and the market place from companies that would shut out all competition by any means possible and become monopolies if they could. It is only legal for a company to become a monopoly if it does so by a consumer's preference for that product, not because it tried to rig the market place to deny competition and used leverage in other markets and other products to do so, which is what Apple has done here. It's using its music player software to thwart a phone product from competing with its own phone product. Those are different markets, the software music manager and the smart phone hardware. Or would you have me believe that Apple designed iTunes strictly for use by the iPhone clear back in 2001??? I thought not. It is not strictly for the iPhone even today as it needs no other hardware to serve its core music player/library function (those were added later) and it works with other devices than just the iPhone or even iPods, but also Apple TV.
Until recently, most music from the iTunes store was encrypted in such a way that even the music files themselves purchased thereof could not be used by competing products and several countries were preparing to sue Apple for blocking competing hardware from playing their music files under the guise of not wanting to license their decryption keys for fear of them being stolen by the licensees, which was a very poor deception to maintain their overwhelming market share of digital music downloads and iPod sales to play them, while denying makers of other hardware the ability to even play those files. Some say Apple negotiated unencrypted music files with the record companies for selfless reasons, but I find it far more likely that the looming lawsuits against them for leveraging encrypted music to sell hardware music players while denying competition access to the former is the more likely motivation. Here too, it will take a lawsuit to make Apple behave in a morally acceptable manner.
You seem confused my friend. Your accusations are like saying that Palm stole Apple's web browser because it wishes its web site to be seen from Safari by users. No one is forcing anyone to sync their Palm Pre with iTunes. Palm has not hacked iTunes or forced Apple to accommodate them in anyway. So how in the UNIVERSE do you arrive at a conclusion of THEFT??? I swear that some of the hyperbole on here is so ABSURD and LUDICROUS that one would think the Universe had suddenly shifted all its laws of physics and that it was now Bizarro World. Palm would have to hack or otherwise take Apple's source code in order to "steal" its property in this matter. To suggest otherwise is folly itself. But such seems to be the way on here with fanaticism instead of wisdom ruling the day. Should an operating system maker not allow anyone to use its operating system? Should users only be allowed to browse Apple's web site from Safari? Should I not be able to use my own music library with own my hardware devices? Must I let Apple control my every motor nerve function? While you may desire others to control your life and make your choices for you, rendering you an automaton with no free will or free choices in life, some of us would rather separate our music player managing software from our telephones and use what serves us best, not that which profits a company like Apple the most.
You are only fooling yourself if you actually believe that Apple is not making a profit from its iTunes store. The company had a virtual monopoly on digital music sales until only recently and used propriety encryption to ensure no other hardware competitor could make use of the music files purchased from its store. Apple makes a HUGE profit from the iTunes store. But it makes an even LARGER profit selling iPods and iPhones and thus it has good reason to try and thwart competitors in any number of vertically aligned markets. The problem with vertical markets is that it means Apple has a hand it just about everything these days it will gladly cut off its hand to lighten the load and make more progress by its feet. iTunes is a part of the OS X operating system just as Internet Explorer is part of the Windows operating system. The fact one or the other may be cut out and made to work under another operating system is moot. They designed it to leverage their computer platform and make more sales. The fact that Apple charges less for OS X than Microsoft for Windows is only due to the fact that Apple operates in another market that Microsoft does not...computer hardware sales. The fact that Apple makes more money selling iPods than selling Aerosmith songs is irrelevant. They are still two different markets and if I count phones as separate, three different markets. Whether one division makes more profit than another is also irrelevant. And so long as Apple does not use ONE MARKET TO THWART COMPETITION IN ANOTHER MARKET to substantial economic effect, they have not broken the law. But in Apple's case, they ARE breaking the law because they continually leverage their multiple markets to block competition in a different market (in this case sales of real honest to goodness hardware phones). That is called tying and is illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. Palm has a clear court case against Apple here due to the differing markets utilized to try and thwart their phone sales. Apple has a much harder job finding a law that states you cannot "spoof" another software vendor's ID. Apple themselves do it in Safari to achieve better compatibility with web sites that were designed with other browsers in mind. It is the height of hypocrisy for them to accuse another company of doing what they've been doing for years themselves.
No, I'm afraid no matter how much the fanatics on here on here want you to believe Apple can bring a "world of hurt" on other companies, but deny users the right of choice to things like Blu-Ray in their OS to merely benefit themselves in a different market (i.e. movie sales on their iTunes store), it doesn't make it right. Denying iTunes access to Palm is no different. They seek to prevent a competitor from having the same access to their operating system and support programs as they themselves have, no different than Microsoft blocking access to their OS to competing web browsers and the like. The choice of things like Blu-Ray should be the consumer's choice and Apple should not deny its users that choice because it would prefer they buy their movies from their iTunes store, which is in another market (media sales). Yet, they regularly do this to their advantage and use their vertical structure to "persuade" the consume to buy ONLY Apple products. They denied USB 2.0 for some time before finally giving in because they hoped to push Firewire as the high speed format of choice. They will likely do the same with USB 3.0 in order to give their own vested interests in Light Peak a better chance of success, instead of leaving it up to the consumer as Windows does. Why does Apple do this? They do it because unlike Microsoft, they have a real vested interest in the outcome of a different market. OS X doesn't care whether it uses USB 3.0 or Light Peak nor should it. But Apple will make sure it doesn't appear in OS X if it thinks that will help it make more money with Light Peak. That is where the consumer should actually be ANGRY with Apple because they would deny the consumer choices for no reason other than to greater enrich their pocket books. Corporations have become dens of greed in this world and little more. There is no incentive for them to make the world a better place so long as there is profit to be made. Since when did the planet Earth become renamed Ferenginar, anyway?
And that is an official Palm site? NOPE. So again, cite an OFFICIAL Palm source, that is just the Palm version of this site, "an anonymous tipster"
yeah like all of those official links you showed from Apple detailing how it somehow takes them weeks to fix this when in fact, not only have you been proven wrong by everyone else here, Apple plugged up the first Palm Pre sync over the weekend. Two or three days = weeks in your mind. lol
Even though i don't condone it, i honestly think in many respects illegal hacking crews that rip off software and share it with others are more honest than Palm... At least the hacking crews are honest about what they do, whereas Palm is trying to flower up what it's doing by claiming it's all because they think iTunes should be open to the community as a whole. Well that's not their decision because it's not their product.
It's not that i'm defending Apple here, i'm just gobsmacked at Palm's decisions. They are acting like a spoilt school kid that wasn't invited to a party so they decide to gate-crash. They are sycophantic in the extreme; leaching off the talent of others. I used to like Palm, i've even got a load of their products (my partner loves their PDA's), but this has really put me off buying their products in the future because it's the users that really suffer while they're playing their silly cat and mouse game with apple as they still don't have any sync software that is upgradable and fully supported.
Trust me, if the roles were reversed i'd be on this forum slagging off Apple just as vigorously.
So its totally fine for other people to rip off software, download tens of thousands of songs, download tv shows and movies, as long as they are 'being honest' parading it around and being conspicuous, but if you are dishonest or 'sneaky' about stealing, it somehow makes it worse?
And you aren't defending apple? Good one.
Sorry where did Apple break the law? They provided a legitimate free syncing route. It's not hard to make a service that would fire up automatically when your Pre is plugged in and then syncs your iTunes library without using iTunes itself. They could even make it use iTunes Playlists (all held on a plain text XML file that Apple provide). Believe it or not the music is held in a completely industry standard format.
Palm could have licenced the technology, Motorola has in the past, however they chose to emulate an iPod which is Apple's own IPR, and breaks the USB-IF licensing guidelines.
So iTunes is a solution that is available for Apple and firms who have licenced the technology for use with their products (Motorola).
If you choose as a hardware provider not to licence iTunes, then there is a free open source route available that can make use of the music held in the iTunes library.
How many people worked on plugging the hole?
I can assure you it was more than one.
How much time would it have taken ONE person to plug it and test every single hardware/software permutation? Weeks and Weeks.
I work in software development. I can assure you that what it takes a team to do over the weekend, it would take one person weeks to do. Work it out by man-hours because that is what is used in the industry.
Ummm....so even though it didn't take weeks and weeks, according to you it did anyways. You should call up Palm and Apple and let them know they have a skewed perception of time.
I can tell you don't want to be wrong, so I will let you win.
ATTN, World: According to this guy the next Apple move shouldn't be around until the 16th at the very earliest, the countdown begins
Man hours is an industry standard. You are being purposefully obtuse. Something can take 200 man-hours and be done in 8 real hours. It's going to take 25 people to do it.
You understand his statement now ? Of course you don't, because it undermines your argument to say you do.
now what apple really should do is have itunes recognize the pre as an iphone, and then attempt to restore it, install OS 3.x and brick the pre =]P
Well Apple better sue or just leave it be....all of these "man-hours" are clearly already digging into their 29 billion in cash...
Lol - This is getting a little surreal now... I think you need to look at my posts again, but actually READ them this time....
I smell troll... There is no real debate to be had here... I'm out...
If Palm want to compete then they need to write their own software.
You don't compete by stealing other companies software, work and effort.
iPods are NOT a monopoly, the simple reason being there are many other players and place to buy music.
Apple are not cheating customers or Palm, they are in fact providing the BEST service they can. You really need to think about your arguments.
What would iTunes be like if Apple have to support every phone and music player in the market? Who decides what is supported and what is not? What happens when a manufacturer release a software update for their player and iTunes then does not work, who is to blame, who provides the support? Apple would be getting nothing for providing access to all those other players, but they would be expected to provide support. How would iTunes develop if it had to cover all those players, would it be more and more bloated? When your version of iTunes is not updated with bug fixes does not get new features because Apple have to make it work with all those players rather than develop new features, what would you think then.
I don't want Apple to release iTunes that has to support masses of other devices, why should the leading music software that is the most popular in the world give up its market leading position and help all the competition?
I don't see Sony / MS / Nintendo all making their consoles compatible? Why is that? Should they all be the same as well. Should we make all car manufacturers share their design / technology advantages?
Apple are a business in competition with Palm, direct competition.
Why on earth should Apple help a competitor sell more devices?
Palm look like a 3rd rate company now, not fighting for the users, but looking cheap, unable to develop their own software. In fact they are saying that Apple are better as they have the best software, maybe they even have the best phone. iTunes is NOT the OS, it is an Apple application for Mac AND Windows, it is not a tool to be hijacked by lazy companies like Palm.
Which uses the XML file that Palm could use to write their own. Missing Sync from Mark Space is another option that also uses that very same XML file.
You obviously have never developed software for a living. Have you ever heard of the book "Mythical Man month"? Adding more people to a project beyond around 10 people will actually start to slow a project down rather than speed it up. The reason for this is that a larger group of developers will require exponentially more effort to manage once you go beyond 10. There is a software industry de-facto standard that says that no group should have more than 10 people in it to remain productive.
Missing sync is certainly not something most consumers would choose to install instead of or in adjunct to itunes. It's utilitarian but not much more.
Can I use BMW car parts in my Mercedes? - No
Do Sony PS3 games play on my X-Box? - No
Do Canon printer cartridges fir my HP printer? - No
Apple are NOT blocking competition.
Palm can make a phone and software both of which can be installed on a Mac or Windows and work, no competition is being harmed. Palm just can't be bothered spending the time and money that Apple has done. Why should Apple spend money support a competitors device? I don't see Sony supporting X-Box games, are they breaking the law too by locking out owners of X-Box games?
On the other hand I don't see Palm allowing me to install my iTunes Apps Store purchases on the Pre? Is that not preventing competition in exactly the same way. If Apple have to make iTunes work with the Pre, then Palm need to make the Pre run Apps from the iPhone. It is the same argument.
Apple have NOT broken the law, and you are a bigger idiot than I thought if you think they have.
The theft here that you seem so willing to ignore, is the theft of all the work and money that Apple have spent developing iTunes to support its players, which Palm just steal to sell their own products.
If Palm want to compete then they need to write software that competes with iTunes.
Are you saying that there will never be a competitor to iTunes? Should one never be developed? Is that really what you want?
People saying apple are "Unfair" "Locking" others and Palm out of itunes are missing the point compleatly.
apple wrote it, developed it and are benefiting from it. Its not an "industry standard" like Blue ray or USB-it's apples on line store.
It would be like say a pavement Hot Dog retailer setting up his cart in a JC Penny department store, where there is lots of passing trade, whilst security wasn't looking- don't you think JC Penny has a right to object??
Same thing applies here.
Like the debate on illegal downloading. Lilly Allan is perfectly right and EVERYONE who downloads a song without paying something to the artist for it IS A THIEF. Just because you can get away with it in this virtual world doesn't make it right. A Thief is a Thief.
Its amazing that one of the biggest critisisms I hear of itunes is that is too restrictive, you can't play your purchases on another ipod or iphone . Why? because they are trying to ensure the artist gets something for their creative effort. Trying to ensure the artist can afford to make a living from creating the music we love to steal from them.
One of, if not THE main reason apple has been so successfull with the ipod and now iphone is itunes.
I know the illegal downloading debate is a different issue but the fundemental is the same. Palm is trying to steal and profit off apples IP. Period.
The "extra sales" they will gain from the extra itunes sales are insignificant in comparison to the sales of extra iphones.
So should apple be asking Palm for their specs and specs of their upcoming models to guarantee the Palms itunes experience will be flawless. Itunes may often not work perfectly with the palm and so Palm users will blame apple. Apple gets a bad name, not palm. So again what does apple hope to benefit??? NOTHING.
If I was apple i would be putting a warning on itunes that anyone using a non apple products (or not authorised) can not be guaranteed 1) Full performance as apple intended of itunes and 2) that the device once installed with apple itunes may not function correctly or even at all. Just how can apple be sure that some incompatibility may exist. Its not apples problem to know.
apple are fully in their rights to stop parasitic companies like palm trying to hack into itunes.
It will be a cat and mouse thing for years, with apple locking palm out, palm breaking back in and so on.
But if I was a Palm user this would p*ss me off big time-thinking will my itunes work today.
Palm go and create your own itunes- as if!!
apple wrote it, developed it and are benefiting from it. Its not an "industry standard" like Blue ray or USB-it's apples on line store.
It would be like say a pavement Hot Dog retailer setting up his cart in a JC Penny department store, where there is lots of passing trade, whilst security wasn't looking- don't you think JC Penny has a right to object??
Same thing applies here.
Like the debate on illegal downloading. Lilly Allan is perfectly right and EVERYONE who downloads a song without paying something to the artist for it IS A THIEF. Just because you can get away with it in this virtual world doesn't make it right. A Thief is a Thief.
Its amazing that one of the biggest critisisms I hear of itunes is that is too restrictive, you can't play your purchases on another ipod or iphone . Why? because they are trying to ensure the artist gets something for their creative effort. Trying to ensure the artist can afford to make a living from creating the music we love to steal from them.
One of, if not THE main reason apple has been so successfull with the ipod and now iphone is itunes.
I know the illegal downloading debate is a different issue but the fundemental is the same. Palm is trying to steal and profit off apples IP. Period.
The "extra sales" they will gain from the extra itunes sales are insignificant in comparison to the sales of extra iphones.
So should apple be asking Palm for their specs and specs of their upcoming models to guarantee the Palms itunes experience will be flawless. Itunes may often not work perfectly with the palm and so Palm users will blame apple. Apple gets a bad name, not palm. So again what does apple hope to benefit??? NOTHING.
If I was apple i would be putting a warning on itunes that anyone using a non apple products (or not authorised) can not be guaranteed 1) Full performance as apple intended of itunes and 2) that the device once installed with apple itunes may not function correctly or even at all. Just how can apple be sure that some incompatibility may exist. Its not apples problem to know.
apple are fully in their rights to stop parasitic companies like palm trying to hack into itunes.
It will be a cat and mouse thing for years, with apple locking palm out, palm breaking back in and so on.
But if I was a Palm user this would p*ss me off big time-thinking will my itunes work today.
Palm go and create your own itunes- as if!!
I was simplifying the man-hours thing to this guy so he would understand, now you've gone and fuel him up again by adding all the other variables of project ressource/time management.
Of course more people isn't always a good solution. This had nothing to do with the equation of man-hours vs real hours he was arguing didn't exist.
No see my post above yours.
itunes represents as business advantage to APPLE. Palm are trying to use apples infrastructure they spent millions developing for free. It's a huge deal. Itunes makes the Palm a real competitor. Without it they are are nothing
Yeah, the company's rights are more important than the consumer. Hands down.
It's in the consumers best interest for a company to give all their products away for free, but it's the company's right to sell their products OR give them away for free.
Nothing is in anyone's best interest, there has to be a compromise.
I'm sick of fanatical Apple users thinking it's OK for Apple to lock everyone out of their operating system and utilities if they think it will benefit them. Palm users represent more sales from their iTunes store, but it's apparent that Apple values the hardware sales more than any software sales or they would be HELPING companies like Palm access iTunes syncing. No, Apple wants its cake and to eat it too as usual. While Palm shouldn't be spoofing, Apple shouldn't be locking everyone out of their iTunes Store either (and you CANNOT access that store any other way but to use iTunes so spare me the total BS about Palm writing their own software to do it; Apple would deny that too and you know it).
Frankly, I think Palm is the lesser of two evils here. They are simply trying to compete their hardware against Apple's hardware and as usual, Apple is using its operating system and other programs as illegal tying leverage to prevent other HARDWARE from competing with Apple hardware on the same playing field. You cannot compare a Dell PC with an iMac because you cannot run the same operating system on the Dell due to illegal licensing contracts in the Apple operating system. Therefore, Apple used their software to thwart hardware competition. Here, you have Apple blocking all 3rd party access to the core of their operating system's music player/library/syncho/store-front/do-everything-under-the-sun-but-make-popcorn application. The issue here is not iTunes. iTunes is given out for free both with the operating system and on their web site. The issue is that iTunes has turned into a one-size-fits-all monster of a program that runs just about everything short of the Finder these days within itself.
I use iTunes to run my whole house audio system because Apple TV REQUIRES it to function. Therefore, my entire music library is organized through that interface. The entire house can play music through that interface, but along comes Apple and tells me I cannot control non-Apple hardware through that same interface because they want me to buy THEIR hardware, not a competitor. But that's a different market (hardware player/device versus a software controller that comes with the operating system and is required to buy software from the iTunes store and up until recently was ENCRYPTED (movies still are) so I could not use anyone else's device if I wanted to, regardless if they wrote their own "synchro" software.
Everything Apple does is designed to thwart competition and create vertical markets where you never have to (and mostly likely cannot even if you wanted to) buy products from anyone other than Apple and still use your other Apple products, since they won't play nice with anyone else. I mean that was a real bummer when half the Internet would ONLY run properly on Internet Explorer since its non-standards were becoming all too standard anyway due to market penetration. Microsoft LOVED that. It gave them control.
Apple is no different. They don't want USB 3.0, for example any more than they wanted USB 2.0 (they wanted Firewire since it meant huge licensing kickbacks). Now they want Light Peak instead of USB 3.0 for similar reasons. There's money to be made by not playing nice. You don't see Blu-Ray on Macs because Steve wants you to buy movies from iTunes, not from a Sony licensed format. You probably won't see USB 3.0 on Macs (you'll get Light Peak instead, which will be heavily leveraged on the next generation iPhone to PUSH REALLY HARD to try and make it the new standard instead). This behavior is WRONG, IMO. My operating system of choice should not hinge on Apple's vested vertical marketing interests. It should be independent of them. If I want to watch Blu-Ray movies on my Mac, that should be MY choice not Steve's choice. If I want USB 3.0 and not Light Peak, that should be choice as well, not Steve's choice to leave it out to try and force me to use Light Peak. If I want a Palm Pre, that should be MY choice, not Steve's choice. If I want one of each, that again should be my decision. Apple doesn't have to help Palm, but they don't' have to keep trying to stop them either. Two wrongs don't make a right and Apple is the best example ever of why hardware and software markets should not be "tied" together in a way that tries to thwart competition. In fact, it is illegal under the Clayton Anti-Trust act and no a company does NOT have to be a monopoly for the tying rule to apply. Once Apple modified their software in such a way to PURPOSELY prevent competition from other hardware vendors, they broke the tying provision of the Clayton law. Imagine if Apple prevented all printers from working with OS X except Apple branded printers...but because it's a phone instead of a printer, it's OK?
Next they'll be telling me I'm not allowed to have a choice for a public option in health care just so the insurance companies can maintain their insanely high profit levels....
It's no different than certain web browsers spoofing others so they can access sites that try to deny the user the choice of using anything but a certain web browser (oh say Internet Explorer?) regardless of whether it's capable of doing the task or not. Apple is ONLY trying to stop Palm because it wants to "nudge" the public into buying an iPhone instead of a Pre regardless of whether there are other legitimate reasons to consider it. Personally, I don't appreciate Apple trying to force me to buy their products by purposely breaking features on other products. Why should I keep buying music from the ITunes store if Apple wants to make my life difficult in the process? No wonder Amazon is gaining ground. They are trying to sell music, not hardware. Maybe if Apple wasn't trying to sell all things to all people they wouldn't keep stepping on their own toes the whole way. It's like cutting off your hand to get rid of a blister.
um. I couldn't really care less about the Pre iTunes thing. let the lawyers sort this out. but man you wrote a long post and I got bored really fast but I did notice healthcare in there so...WTF