Palm Releases WebOS 1.1, Restores iTunes Media Syncing

[GamecockMac]

Talk about apt response - you took time to actually see the time between my post and edit to turn around the troll on me?

Any way I am willing to heartily follow -

That's a lovely self-portrait you've posted. I'll indeed endeavor not to feed you any more. Thanks for the tip.

 

[ddTaylor]

Because those players have a license agreement with Apple and are grandfathered in.

Learn to read a licensing agreement and understand what one is.

Hey, wise-acre - I can read. Do you realize that you made my point? Those companies STILL MAKE SUPPORTED GEAR and that gear was NEVER LICENSED BY APPLE! What a pud!

D

 

[ddTaylor]

Don't blame Apple for that, blame the record companies. They're the ones who took advantage of the different price tiers.

At what point does Apple become responsible for that as THEY touted the $.69 songs and provided numbers of songs that would be available at that price?

Apple holds some responsibility as to the incorrect numbers of $.69 songs - period. They touted that number knowing it was likely false.

D

 

[gwangung]

Posts like yours show what double standards Apple fans have for Apple when compared to any other company.

So speaks the ignorant. Twould help if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[iAlexG]

Palm are way out of line

 

[Etnies419]

At what point does Apple become responsible for that as THEY touted the $.69 songs and provided numbers of songs that would be available at that price?

Apple holds some responsibility as to the incorrect numbers of $.69 songs - period. They touted that number knowing it was likely false.

D

I didn't know that they gave numbers of how many $.69 songs there would be. If so, then they have some blame on that. But they don't control the prices of the songs. Still, they shouldn't have given a number if they weren't completely sure.

 

[ddTaylor]

I didn't know that they gave numbers of how many $.69 songs there would be. If so, then they have some blame on that. But they don't control the prices of the songs. Still, they shouldn't have given a number if they weren't completely sure.

They claimed a percentage of songs @ $.69 and if the record companies refuse to honor that AFTER Apple told the customers of iTunes that since the new releases would be $1.29 there would be X amount of $.69 songs - then Apple should put their muscle behind their distribution network and demand that the record companies follow through! If that does not happen then Apple looks the fool, not the record companies.

D

 

[kate-willbury]

As a Pre owner I just don't care. The only time I used iTunes is when I owned an iPhone. Frankly, there are way better apps out there meant for syncing media. I know 5 people who use the Pre at work alone and none of them sync with iTunes. This really isn't that big of a deal.

On another note, Apple really needs to be careful how they handle this situation. It won't take much for the DOJ to look at Apple's iTunes/iPod as being a monopoly. They are by far the most dominate force in the multi-billion dollar industry that is online music. Considering the anti-business Democratic control in DC it will not take much. Obama's new appointee to the DOJ's antitrust division is already targeting Google as a possible monopoly, and they haven't really pulled anything "evil".

completely agreed. if my iphone werent locked to itunes, i would NEVER use itunes. this whole pre/itunes battle is only for the sad fools out there who are attached to itunes for whatever reason, despite it being the worst, most bloated media manager ever.

 

[charlituna]

Posts like yours show what double standards Apple fans have for Apple when compared to any other company.

Thus far, little Apple has done has been deemed against any rules. Psystar put the anti-trust issue out there, the courts nixed it. Palm has yet to bring proof that Apple wrote the code for the itunes update specifically to cut them off (ie, put in the palm codes with a 'if this is the code, don't sync') rather than simply updating with their current vendor code, whereas there seems to be proof that Palm violated a rule not to spoof someone else's vendor id.

someone sues Apple on a patent violation and it's all "yeah them, take that evil Apple", Apple even hits they will sue anyone and its boo hiss on Apple.

Sprint, Verizon etc all have exclusive phones but Apple is the only one that gets bashed over the iphone being on ATT for the first (not even 3) years.

seems to be the double standards are by the Apple haters. not the Apple fans.

 

[windywoo]

Thus far, little Apple has done has been deemed against any rules. Psystar put the anti-trust issue out there, the courts nixed it. Palm has yet to bring proof that Apple wrote the code for the itunes update specifically to cut them off (ie, put in the palm codes with a 'if this is the code, don't sync') rather than simply updating with their current vendor code, whereas there seems to be proof that Palm violated a rule not to spoof someone else's vendor id.

someone sues Apple on a patent violation and it's all "yeah them, take that evil Apple", Apple even hits they will sue anyone and its boo hiss on Apple.

Sprint, Verizon etc all have exclusive phones but Apple is the only one that gets bashed over the iphone being on ATT for the first (not even 3) years.

seems to be the double standards are by the Apple haters. not the Apple fans.

Stop grovelling to Steve. What if Microsoft stopped Exchange from working on Snow Leopard? Jesus, the amount of times I have seen qq about Microsoft dropping Internet Explorer and Media Player Mac versions would make you blush. There is still qq about wma and how it requires a license which Apple seem unwilling to pay.

Seems Apple fans are very selective in what they remember from these forums.

 

[charlituna]

What if Microsoft stopped Exchange from working on Snow Leopard?

microsoft had to grant a license in the first place so it isn't like they have cause to say Apple is doing something bad.

unlike Palm who did it without Apple's approval and then has had the gall to brag about it and go run crying when Apple hit back.

 

[windywoo]

microsoft had to grant a license in the first place so it isn't like they have cause to say Apple is doing something bad.

unlike Palm who did it without Apple's approval and then has had the gall to brag about it and go run crying when Apple hit back.

There are still plenty of other examples. What if MS were to stop making a Mac version of Office? What if they refused OSX to network with Windows. You will say, then they would lose business, but Apple is hurting their business by refusing to let any device than iPods synch.

The customers who have bought a Pre already knew they didn't want an iPhone, so Apple is just punishing them for buying someone else's product. They weren't going to get these customers money anyway.

 

[Bjohnson33]

I'd be pretty annoyed if I had bought a Pre and had to endure this cat-and-mouse game. It's not a huge hassle, but it's still a hassle. For people that don't know that the latest iTunes will break your syncing ability, it could be a pretty confusing situation.

 

[diamond.g]

There are still plenty of other examples. What if MS were to stop making a Mac version of Office? What if they refused OSX to network with Windows. You will say, then they would lose business, but Apple is hurting their business by refusing to let any device than iPods synch.

The customers who have bought a Pre already knew they didn't want an iPhone, so Apple is just punishing them for buying someone else's product. They weren't going to get these customers money anyway.

MS couldn't do that without being seen as using their monopoly power.

 

[windywoo]

MS couldn't do that without being seen as using their monopoly power.

Well exactly. Any time MS does something that doesn't suit the fanbois it's "Abuse of monopoly!", but if Apple do something that is harmful to a competitor, "No monopoly here! Nothing to see, move along."

 

[genovelle]

There are still plenty of other examples. What if MS were to stop making a Mac version of Office? What if they refused OSX to network with Windows. You will say, then they would lose business, but Apple is hurting their business by refusing to let any device than iPods synch.

The customers who have bought a Pre already knew they didn't want an iPhone, so Apple is just punishing them for buying someone else's product. They weren't going to get these customers money anyway.

THEY CAN SYNC LIKE EVERY OTHER DEVICE DOES. THEY WRITE THIER OWN SOFTWARE. Microsoft has threatened to stop making Office for Mac and they still drag their feet. They also charge a lot more for it than on the PC even though they put in less features. But they make money from Office. To stop networking from working they would have to disable network standards in place since Dos breaking legacy connections for millions.
Microsoft makes money from software. Apple makes money from hardware. The software they write to make the hardware work better. Its like saying a Ford should be able to use bluetooth to connect to a Honda and have all of the features of the Honda.

There are Microsoft Technologies that they no longer support on the Mac. IE is one, Apple built their own, thank God. Another is Media Player. They stopped supporting it in 2003. 6 years ago!

As for Exchange, Apple pays to use the license.

 

[charlituna]

The customers who have bought a Pre already knew they didn't want an iPhone, so Apple is just punishing them for buying someone else's product. They weren't going to get these customers money anyway.

here's the flaw in your statement. or rather flaws

1. prove to me that Apple wrote it in the hardware that if the vendor code is Palm, itunes won't do squat. as supposed to putting in their own vendor code (which is totally in the rules) to make sure itunes recognizes all versions of ipods regardless of the device number

2. Palm broke the USB-IF rule about spoofing another vendors code. and bragged about it

3. this is the biggie. the itunes library is in XML allowing any company that wants to create software that can read it and copy the details to their own device. blackberry did it, and very well according to some of my friends. palm was just too lazy and wants to use Apple's work which isn't very gentlemanly, especially since they didn't ask first.

as for the Mac for Office comment. it's called iwork.

 

[$ahil]

if apple disables it again, they are bunch of idiots. why disable it brings potential customers for iTunes? And ppl will buy DRM free music?

 

[charlituna]

if apple disables it again, they are bunch of idiots. why disable it brings potential customers for iTunes? And ppl will buy DRM free music?

1. apple isn't collecting tons of money from itunes. they make like 3-5 cents on each song. and not much more than that on full albums, movies, tv shows etc.

2. it is possible that this issue is like trademarks, if you don't try to protect yourself you will lose the right later

3. even without #2, it's the principle of the matter. if they don't say something they might as well be giving consent to anyone that wants to try the same thing.

 

[windywoo]

THEY CAN SYNC LIKE EVERY OTHER DEVICE DOES. THEY WRITE THIER OWN SOFTWARE.

There are Microsoft Technologies that they no longer support on the Mac. IE is one, Apple built their own, thank God. Another is Media Player. They stopped supporting it in 2003. 6 years ago!

Read the whole thread before posting ignorance that has been answered elsewhere.

 

[MrSEC]

1. apple isn't collecting tons of money from itunes. they make like 3-5 cents on each song.

Link?

 

[ChazUK]

1. apple isn't collecting tons of money from itunes. they make like 3-5 cents on each song. and not much more than that on full albums, movies, tv shows etc.

By that logic, they still MAKE money so it doesn't matter.

Apple should lure pre owners over to the iPhone with a positive iTunes experience then give Palm the finger as they poach customers from them.