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 Reports Apple to USB Compliance Organization Over iTunes Syncing Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, no. They don't have that right either. The only exception is if the modification is intended to prevent a copy protection mechanism from working (under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act). Even then, certain exceptions are granted by the Library of Congress.
I'm not saying it is prohibited. I'm saying it isn't protected. In other words, they aren't prohibited from making an MP3 player because they have the iTunes store. But any attempts to make the MP3 player exclusive to the software used to access the iTunes store may be prohibited under Anti-trust law. And they are certainly not protected from other companies trying to interface with the software (and possibly the iTunes Store itself.)czachorski said:
iTunes is not part of OS X. Sure it comes installed on Macs, but you can remove iTunes without affecting OS X. Therefore, iTunes is not part of OS X.
I never said it was legit... I simply stated it wasn't a violation.
Ethics comes into play here. Just because one can do something doesn't mean they should.
But the long and short of it is, Palm never hacked iTunes as many here so ignorantly keep suggesting.
Why, oh why, are people still using this stupid argument???
Apple is the No. 1 online music distributor. They don't earn money with it?
Gimme a break. As long as you can't provide any source, that deciphers the cost of running iTMS server farms with 1.049 billion bucks for Q2 of 2009, just do me a favor and don't use this stupid argument.
Just for your interest check this data sheet out!
And don't try to tell me, that half of the billion bucks is made with protective shells and earphones (yes, I know, that accessories are also listed in that group).
Aye papi! This is gunn get uglayyyyy.
Well, how ugly can it really get? I don't think Apple would take drastic measures and run the risk of tarnishing their image. We all know how most people perceive Apple, I don't think they'd want that to go away. I know it's not that simple, just a thought.
Well, how ugly can it really get? I don't think Apple would take drastic measures and run the risk of tarnishing their image. We all know how most people perceive Apple, I don't think they'd want that to go away. I know it's not that simple, just a thought.
Actually they did hack itunes, according to the definition of a hack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_(technology)
We'll soon find out the legality of their hack. I bet this is the reason why many companies haven't adopted this method and also previously why old Palm phones didn't sync with itunes in this manner.
I am not sure what the difference between "not legit" and "violation" is. iTunes hasn't been hacked, yes, but spoofing iTunes to trick iTunes seems unethical to me and Apple has everyright to correct this illegitimate violation
Stop selectivly hearing the argument and maybe you'll hear the rest of it.
Apple earns money from the iTMS.
Apple earns MORE money from the sale of iPods and iPhones.
Apple uses iTunes as a benefit for iPhone and iPod customers.
If you can use iTunes with any other device as well as you can with an iPod or iPhone, Apple has just lost a potential sale. Forget people who won't buy an iPod or iPhone. Why? BECAUSE APPLE WON"T MAKE VERY MUCH MONEY FROM THESE PEOPLE ANYWAY.
Find me a company that caters to the competitions customers and i'll find you a company that is on the brink of or filing for bankruptcy.
Because people love their apple products. It's an identity to them and by extension they feel they have to aggressively protect apple to justify their own choice and purchase. One way to do this is to vigorously attack and belittle competing companies. We've seen it for years with Microsoft (when in fact apple and microsoft work in closer collaboration than if oft admitted) and now we're seeing it with any other company that are perceived to treads on apple's toes. Take for example the posters against Pystar. And now the posters against the Pre. In both situations what's occurring is a boon for consumers. But people feel such an allegiance to apple (which isn't reciprocal) and are challenged by cheaper products that offer the same/similar/superior experience that they see the need to protect apple even at their own detriment. It's amazing.
It's all part of the job's RDF that cultivates an underdog status for apple and gives its product's owners the idea that they're somehow exclusive and special when in fact they've just bought product(s) from a multinational consumer electronics giant.
We never said that they didn't make any money from it. We have said that it isn't a big money maker and you're link cannot show that very accurately since it lumps things together. It's widely known that Apple makes a few cents per track. Of course they sell a huge quantity tracks, but I am betting that other retailers make a lot of revenue off of their music too.
Of course that figure includes lots of things like:
None of which are broken down individually.
I am not sure what the difference between "not legit" and "violation" is. iTunes hasn't been hacked, yes, but spoofing iTunes to trick iTunes seems unethical to me and Apple has everyright to correct this illegitimate violation
There is nothing wrong with spoofing. Compaq 'spoofed' an entire IBM PC in order to run DOS. WINE spoofs an entire copy of Microsoft Windows so that Windows apps can run. Palm changes one little USB ID in order to work with iTunes, and Apple fans think there should be charges filed.
Reality does not apply!Well put..Andy said:
You don't need legal qualifications to know Apple is under no obligation legal or otherwise to allow Palm to use their software.
Publicity Stunt
Clearly Palm is doing this to drum up publicity and maybe get a few more folks to hear about their product.
Clearly Palm is doing this to drum up publicity and maybe get a few more folks to hear about their product.
There is nothing wrong with spoofing. Compaq 'spoofed' an entire IBM PC in order to run DOS. WINE spoofs an entire copy of Microsoft Windows so that Windows apps can run. Palm changes one little USB ID in order to work with iTunes, and Apple fans think there should be charges filed.
But I thought that this "spoofing" was the contradiction to Palm reporting Apple to the USB Forum (or whatever it is).
Quote:
In that case isn't that saying the Spoofing is not allowed? Your examples with Wine and DOS is regarded as emulating isn't it? Are spoofing and emulating meant to be the same thing then? I think they are different things.
"I guess they don't mind wading into the gray area of spoofing another company's USB Vendor ID."
IANL, but isn't Palm the one breaking their signed form agreement stating:
"Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited."
by it's using (spoofing) Apple's VendorID?
I mean, while I 100% agree that Apple should allow other competing devices access to sync with iTunes, I'd think there would be HUGE issues if another USB hardware vendor followed Palm's lead and reported Marx Software Security because they tie their USB security keys to their software (the whole point of the product).
IANL, but isn't Palm the one breaking their signed form agreement stating:
"Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited."
by it's using (spoofing) Apple's VendorID?
I mean, while I 100% agree that Apple should allow other competing devices access to sync with iTunes, I'd think there would be HUGE issues if another USB hardware vendor followed Palm's lead and reported Marx Software Security because they tie their USB security keys to their software (the whole point of the product).
You proved my own point.
$1/2B profit is NOTHING for a company making on average $5B a year. They made $1B in just Q3 2009. And their music sales would only take up about 70% of that half a billion anyway; so I'd say $300M.
And iTunes only has 56% of the market share. So people need to stop calling it a monopoly.
Ethics is what makes the determination.I am not sure what the difference between "not legit" and "violation" is. iTunes hasn't been hacked, yes, but spoofing iTunes to trick iTunes seems unethical to me and Apple has everyright to correct this illegitimate violation
As for Apple and protecting their "rights", the method they chose was not exactly legit either.
As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
Does Palm realize what they claim is a violation means every piece of software that accesses any USB device has to allow any USB device connected to a computer to be able to access it?
How does that make any sense?
What do you mean you Canon Desktop Printer software won't work with my HP printer?
What do you mean your Photo Editing and Management software won't allow my USB flashlight to connect to it?
Clearly this is a desperate attempt by Palm to get attention, believing any publicity is good publicity. Pre sales must have not been enough and they are feeling like they are at the end of the road and things are about done. Nothing else would explain this ludicrous path they have headed down.
How does that make any sense?
What do you mean you Canon Desktop Printer software won't work with my HP printer?
What do you mean your Photo Editing and Management software won't allow my USB flashlight to connect to it?
Clearly this is a desperate attempt by Palm to get attention, believing any publicity is good publicity. Pre sales must have not been enough and they are feeling like they are at the end of the road and things are about done. Nothing else would explain this ludicrous path they have headed down.
Yeah, cause they're marketing dept. is doing nothing but creeping people out with their Ads.
Ethics is what makes the determination.
As for Apple and protecting their "rights", the method they chose was not exactly legit either.
As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
It's Apple's product, not sure how they could be doing something "not legit" to their own product. That doesn't make sense.
If Apple wants to take their ball and go home, then who's to stop them?
You do realize that's Revenue and NOT Profit, right? You can't use that to substantiate any claim that Apple rakes in dough from the music sales. That total is before they turn around and give the various labels their cut.
Your argument is invalid.