Palm re-enables iTunes sync

[kbrittle]

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

mmm... i could go for a Cohiba right about now.

 

[Mackan]

Palm could have licenced the technology, Motorola has in the past ...

I think Palm must have considered such licensing a "a bag of hurt". You know, just what Steve thinks about Blu-ray licensing...

 

[cjmillsnun]

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.

It's not just the developers though is it?

You have FIT testers, UAT Testers, Regression Testers, Release management.

All require manpower and time.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I think Palm must have considered such licensing a "a bag of hurt". You know, just what Steve thinks about Blu-ray licensing...

Surely STEALING Apple's IPR is a "bigger bag of hurt"

 

[Mackan]

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?

You are on the right track buddy. I like the way you argue and reason, it's a rare sight on these forums.

Apple is pretty much about controlling everything, and quite greedy. No doubt about that for someone who is interesting in the matter, and with a reasonable objective perspective. They don't play fair on a number of things, and tend to punish consumers that simply want more options and freedom.

It's all about tieing consumers into their ecosystem of products, make them work only well within this ecosystem, and make consumers buy new products as often as possible. Sounds like standard procedure for companies in this business. It's just that Apple is actually going to the extreme about this, in my opinion.

So all companies have their advantages or disadvantages. To be aware of this is very important. That's what many 'fans' are not. They take a one sided stance, and stick to it no matter what. For people aware of this, you just have to make up your mind if the advantages outweighs the disadvantages. I think this is where many of us have problems, causing some dilemmas; because no matter how they behave, Apple is producing rather well polished products. That's why I own a MacBook today.

For me to consider buying an iPhone, it would have simply be fine for Apple to support USB mass storage, ie just plug and play to drop data to your iPhone. But of course Apple didn't chose this. But Palm did. That's one reason I consider a Palm Pre. They are more open, give the consumers more choice. There are other things I don't like about Palm, but like I said, weigh advantages to disadvantages and make up your mind regarding a product purchase.

For the 'Pre syncing issue', let's just say I am not surprised Apple blocked them. At least this is page 2 rumor...

 

[kate-willbury]

lol @ apple fanboys getting mad over the most moronic things. who gives a crap if the palm pre (which you probably don't even own) can sync with itunes?

 

[devburke]

I just don't understand why they're going to this trouble. Couldn't they just write their own sync software that would work with the iTunes Music Library.xml file? Isn't that kind of the POINT of that file? It's just there for third party apps, all the real library info is stored in the iTunes Library file.

 

[.Andy]

I just don't understand why they're going to this trouble. Couldn't they just write their own sync software that would work with the iTunes Music Library.xml file? Isn't that kind of the POINT of that file? It's just there for third party apps, all the real library info is stored in the iTunes Library file.

They could just write their software. However tapping into itunes enable a number of benefits. iTunes is already a very popular program. They can tap into that popularity. Consumers can use a program they are familiar with without having to replicate all their playlists or learn a new user interface. Nor does the consumer have to have multiple library software front-ends for each of their devices. And writing their own program would take a lot of time and effort and investment - it's not a simple case of being able to pop one together.

Of course the validity and ethics of each of these points is subjective and up for debate*.


*ad nauseum.

 

[devburke]

They could just write their software. However tapping into itunes enable a number of benefits. iTunes is already a very popular program. They can tap into that popularity. Consumers can use a program they are familiar with without having to replicate all their playlists or learn a new user interface. Nor does the consumer have to have multiple library software font-ends for a single library for each of their devices. And writing their own program would take a lot of time and effort and investment - it's not a simple case of being able to pop one together.

Of course the validity and ethics of each of these points is subjective and up for debate.

I think you misunderstand. With the XML file, users can use iTunes for all of their library management. The XML file is created and updated by iTunes and readable by third party software, allowing any software to see all of one's iTunes library files and organization, including playlists and everything. It would be EASIER for consumers if Palm just did this, because they could still use iTunes for all of their music management, and they wouldn't have to worry the sync being broken and fixed again every other week.

Edit: From http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660 :

iTunes Music Library.xml

This file contains some (but not all) of the same information stored in the iTunes Library file. The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your music and playlists available to other applications on your computer. In Mac OS X other iLife applications (like iPhoto, iDVD, and iMovie) use this file to make it easier for you to add music from your iTunes library to your projects.

 

[.Andy]

I think you misunderstand.

Perhaps I do. I didn't realise that playlist functionality was 100% replicated in the XML file. How about things like photos etc?

And the rest of the points stand. There are multiple reasons why it would be attractive for palm not to opt to write their own software above and beyond simply tapping into the XML file. But again they are easily debatable about how valid they are depending on your POV.

edit: and who's to say they aren't working on such a program? They could be for all we know and intend on leeching itunes as a stop-gap or an adjunct.....

 

[KnightWRX]

Perhaps I do. I didn't realise that playlist functionality was 100% replicated in the XML file. How about things like photos etc?

And the rest of the points stand. There are multiple reasons why it would be attractive for palm not to opt to write their own software above and beyond simply tapping into the XML file. But again they are easily debatable about how valid they are depending on your POV.

You mean like your "familiar program" argument ? That's patently wrong. iTunes the Sync panel and iTunes the music management app maybe part of the same App, but they are completely different.

Someone who has never synced using iTunes isn't going to find it familiar. In fact, iTunes for all intent and purposes, is just a bunch of apps jammed together into 1 interface. The UI is different wether you're in the store, in the library, in the playback module or the sync module.

So using an external syncing program or iTunes' built-in facility for iPods and iPhones, the user will be faced with a bunch of UI panels he never saw before, making the point moot.

 

[sterlingindigo]

he he he

Psalmstar

 

[Shasterball]

Yawn.

Because of stuff like this, in 10 years, people will be saying "what was a Palm?"

 

[Shasterball]

Market share isn't the only factor is a Monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly because they have control over the market itself. People don't choose Windows, OEMs can't afford to not be able to sell Windows and most software packages are Windows only.

Microsoft got in trouble from the DOJ because Windows was something essential. They bullied OEMs saying "We won't sell you Windows licenses if you ship Netscape as your browser". To Dell, HP, Compaq and many others, that meant suicide because no one would've bought a Ubuntu PC.

Also, most software makers, be it retail or custom will be made for Windows and only for other platforms if there is demand. That means you need Windows to run the new software used at your office.

Microsoft is very in control of the market with Windows. It doesn't matter that there is competition, because for the desktop, that competition is moot and relegated to niches.

Apple doesn't share the same level of control over either Music or media devices even though they have a big share of both (and for music, it's only 25%, not a majority share).

Ummm, again, being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. If you use anticompetitive tactics to achieve monopoly status or use your monopoly status for anticompetitive purposes, then you are in violation of the Sherman Act (and others). Achieving monopoly status legitimately is the ultimate goal!!!!!

 

[M2M]

Even though I think the way Palm has chosen is ..errm.. interesting - at least (and as a company I wouldn't have chosen that outlaw style), I must also say people comparing and arguing with Consoles when defending Apple are on the wrong track:

The case would be similar if i.e. Sony would issue a Software-Update only because they don't like Logitech Controllers working with their PS3 in order to boost their own Controllers Sales.

The Case would be Similar if Nintendo would deny other Developers making Jump'n Run Games, because they already have their Mario franchise (Mimiks already existing functionality of the iPhone Apple calls it - OK thats a different Case i agree)

Anyway as a consumer I can only applaud Palm bold move. Currently there is no licensing program available for the (Music) Sync capabilities of iTunes - wouldn't it be great if there is ?

Also Apples decision NOT directly involving lawyers regarding that case is also telling a story... probably they are not too sure winning.

Just for the record I'm not a "frustrated" Non-Apple owner. In fact I own a Macbook Pro, Mac Mini, 2 iPhones, and an iPod Classic (and also Apple Stocks).

I think it would be a great move by Apple to do 2 things:

• Open iTunes to other devices
• Introduce an iTunes Sync Licensing Program

Man they could (and should) charge for the Licensing Programs on per device level ( $$$ ). If other companies want iTunes Sync they have to pay for it. Also this would expand Apples iTunes Store customer base enormously.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ummm, again, being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. If you use anticompetitive tactics to achieve monopoly status or use your monopoly status for anticompetitive purposes, then you are in violation of the Sherman Act (and others). Achieving monopoly status legitimately is the ultimate goal!!!!!

Hence my "Bullied OEMs" comment that you seemed to have missed.

The poster was saying Apple and Microsoft were equivalent as far as Monopolies go, I was pointing out to him that they weren't.

 

[rumz]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are Palm literally unable to write their own sync app? They make a phone, make an OS and apps for that OS. And then they can't write a basic sync app?
It would be nice if they would stop stealing functionality like this. I guess the lawyers will be up soon.

What does the word "steal" mean in your statement? It's less theft than any mp3 you ever copied illegally. It may be unethical, but I don't see where the "theft" is happening-- promoting iTunes connectivity, in my mind, assumes that the user already uses iTunes, not that they should buy the phone and then go download iTunes to use with it.

All the apps Palm has written for the Pre reside ON the Pre itself. So they have written a sync app... this particular "sync app" resides on the Pre, it's called "Media Sync" and spoofs an iPod in order to use iTunes Perhaps there's another way they could run a sync app directly on the phone.

I've no doubt Palm could write a desktop app for leveraging the iTunes library as others have done. But that would be the only desktop app they wrote for WebOS devices-- its clear that, at least right now, Palm's new philosophy is to not write desktop software-- hence no desktop sync solution provided directly by Palm (and I mean sync of any sort-- calendar, contacts, e-mail, etc), only by 3rd party manufacturers. (And who knows. For all we know, Palm could be currently developing an alternative method of leveraging iTunes content, and simply buying time with their current methods, which Palm has stated they'll continue with until it becomes too time consuming to resolve).

Unfortunately, what Palm wants (a device that just integrates with a user's existing systems-- things like Outlook/Exchange, google mail/contacts/calendar, and hence iTunes, likely the most common music management software), doesn't jibe with what Apple wants (for only their hardware to play nice with their software). Too bad, really, but I can see both sides of it.

Honestly, I can't believe that Palm expects to be able to continue doing this. I think they're playing a game, and I think they have a game plan.

 

[M2M]

As an additional not I don't think from a judiciary point of view apple has a good case here:

itunes release notes, licensing terms, supporting documents, etc do not forbid using itunes with non apple devices (and it would be highly discussable if such a statement would even be allowed)

in case palm reverse engineered the itunes synchronization process on their own they didn't violate any copyright

itunes identifies apple products by various usb id's, but this can hardly be seen as copy protection, so dmca is not applicable

apple certainly has filed many patents, but certainly not for music synchronization, so copyright voilation is out again

palm says apples checking of usb id's in itunes is against the "free spirit of the usb implementers forum", apple says palm is illegally using apples usb id's. This is an internal issue of the usb implementers "club". It might become a legal issue when e.g. the "club" decides to kick palm out and palm is no longer allowed to use usb (i.e. the license is revoked). In case Palm continues to produce ubs devices after license revocation it might become a legal case. But even in the case of palm license getting revoked they can simply buy modules from i.e. Texas Instruments and continue their game.

It might be "immoral" by palm, but just as immoral as e.g. reverse engineered NTFS drivers for linux (and apple)

 

[Shasterball]

Hence my "Bullied OEMs" comment that you seemed to have missed.

The poster was saying Apple and Microsoft were equivalent as far as Monopolies go, I was pointing out to him that they weren't.

They definitely bullied OEMs!!!!

But I guess I was focusing on your "Microsoft is a monopoly because they have control over the market itself" comment which seems to more directly reflect your opinion of Microsoft's monopolistic status.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

What does the word "steal" mean in your statement? It's less theft than any mp3 you ever copied illegally. It may be unethical, but I don't see where the "theft" is happening-- promoting iTunes connectivity, in my mind, assumes that the user already uses iTunes, not that they should buy the phone and then go download iTunes to use with it.

All the apps Palm has written for the Pre reside ON the Pre itself. So they have written a sync app... this particular "sync app" resides on the Pre, it's called "Media Sync" and spoofs an iPod in order to use iTunes Perhaps there's another way they could run a sync app directly on the phone.

I've no doubt Palm could write a desktop app for leveraging the iTunes library as others have done. But that would be the only desktop app they wrote for WebOS devices-- its clear that, at least right now, Palm's new philosophy is to not write desktop software-- hence no desktop sync solution provided directly by Palm, only by 3rd party manufacturers. (And who knows. For all we know, Palm could be currently developing an alternative method of leveraging iTunes content, and simply buying time with their current methods, which Palm has stated they'll continue with until it becomes too time consuming to resolve).

Unfortunately, what Palm wants (a device that just integrates with a user's existing systems-- things like Outlook/Exchange, google mail/contacts/calendar, and hence iTunes, likely the most common music management software), doesn't jibe with what Apple wants (for only their hardware to play nice with their software). Too bad, really, but I can see both sides of it.

Honestly, I can't believe that Palm expects to be able to continue doing this. I think they're playing a game, and I think they have a game plan.

I think you are getting way to deep in your ideology. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't believe this is as "for the consumer" as palm would like you to believe.

Palm could write a desktop application that was so miniscule in operation, a mere background process would suffice with a with a simple program that interfaced with the phone and initiated a background syncing processes. The level of integration with itunes would depend on how transparent palm wanted to make it.

But they don't want to. This isn't about the consumer. This is about Rubenstien trying to be palm's knight in shining armor by bringing his *former* brain child's technologies over to a different platform. The former employees with intimate knowledge of iTunes are his soldiers doing all the background work.

Rubenstien no doubt thought out the logistics of this before he tried to pull it off and probably got top legal council and probably figured he can't lose.

But all of this won't matter soon. Apple has provisioned checks for everything up to this point except I believe serial number hash checks because up to this point (in the device's history) this hasn't been needed for any legitimate reason, especially since Apple doesn't blacklist product stolen from consumers ( but will for ones stolen from their stores ). Once palm starts to spoof legitimate serials this creates serious issues for device identification and maybe have legal implications assuming apple has a legitimate need to check serials (and I could think of a few).

Staying in the news is just a side bonus.

I would believe your ideas if someone like GOOG or (shudder) MSFT were the ones trying to pull this off. This is just a case of a very angry little boy who won't admit that his girlfriend has moved on.

 

[KnightWRX]

They definitely bullied OEMs!!!!

But I guess I was focusing on your "Microsoft is a monopoly because they have control over the market itself" comment which seems to more directly reflect your opinion of Microsoft's monopolistic status.

Microsoft is a monopoly because they have control of the desktop Operating System market.

Microsoft got in trouble with the DOJ because they threatened OEMs into bundling their products using their Windows monopoly.

Stop not understanding what I said. We weren't talking about anti-trust problems, I was simply pointing out to the poster the difference between Microsoft and Apple as far as just having a monopoly goes.

 

[MacFly123]

I'm getting so sick of this from Palm.

Make a decent phone, a decent OS, and your own syncing software that pairs with the iTunes library.

AMEN! I honestly admire Web OS, but the more Palm acts like this, the more they just piss me off! Get a life Palm!

 

[rumz]

I think you are getting way to deep in your ideology. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't believe this is as "for the consumer" as palm would like you to believe.

Oh no doubt they're directly taking some shots at Apple, I agree with you there. I simply wanted to point out the "philosophy" of the product (as integrating with existing systems) and how a desktop app breaks with that philosophy.

And I did say that this has to be a game with more to it-- eventually Apple will be able to shut down access via spoofing. I'm just along for the ride, enjoying the show I still prefer my iPods for music over my Pre.

(no one seems to talk of theft or even really be aware that the Pre plays back Apple Lossless files, Apple's own codec. That's more attractive to me, as an Apple / Mac / iTunes user, than actually being able to sync directly in iTunes).

 

[rumz]

AMEN! I honestly admire Web OS, but the more Palm acts like this, the more they just piss me off! Get a life Palm!

Word of advice for you: stuff like this is not worth the energy to worry about or be pissed off at. If it means you never consider buying a Palm product because of it, well that's the risk Palm takes, and so be it.

Personally I wish I could sync a Zune with iTunes, but that's more a problem of MS not playing nice hardware-wise, isn't it? (If DoubleTwist would let me put iTunes music on a Zune... I'll buy one.)

 

[cjmillsnun]

Anyway as a consumer I can only applaud Palm bold move. Currently there is no licensing program available for the (Music) Sync capabilities of iTunes - wouldn't it be great if there is ?

Actually there is.

Some Motorola phones can sync with iTunes. They did this the right way and licenced the technology from Apple.