its pretty obvious that palm is just trying to bait apple into taking action so they can build an anti-trust claim against apple. palm is operating on fumes and they feel an anti-trust case against apple would distract them enough to make inroads. risky and ill advised imho. ask psystar how that's working out for them. It's just like Palm to bring a knife to a gunfight.
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
Hey Palm why doesn't your Pre sync with Zune Desktop, why aren't you reporting Microsoft to the USB group.
ROFL, best post today!
No argument there, but the bottom line is that this move puts Apple into the position of having to support users connecting their Pre to iTunes for synching. I don't think it's fair for one company to force another to support their product. If Apple chooses not to, that's their right, good or bad. Palm really has no business forcing this on Apple, especially given that they're direct competitors in this situation.
Shame on Palm!
It's a shame on Palm that they cannot make their own software to sync song with their Pre. If they're bragging about the Pre which has a sophisticated technology why they cannot make their own software which is easier to develop. What's the next step for Pre sync your applications? Palm has a good synching program back on Pilot's era why not develop it. Update the UI link the the songs to iTunes music folder so it won't create another copy. Then make that program to access their apps once they start selling them. What so hard about that for a company that has all the engineers, programmers and etc. This is a way to go IMO to bring back glory of Palm that creates a real competition to Apple and Microsoft.
It's a shame on Palm that they cannot make their own software to sync song with their Pre. If they're bragging about the Pre which has a sophisticated technology why they cannot make their own software which is easier to develop. What's the next step for Pre sync your applications? Palm has a good synching program back on Pilot's era why not develop it. Update the UI link the the songs to iTunes music folder so it won't create another copy. Then make that program to access their apps once they start selling them. What so hard about that for a company that has all the engineers, programmers and etc. This is a way to go IMO to bring back glory of Palm that creates a real competition to Apple and Microsoft.
I don't think the USB Compliance Organization is going to do anything. It's going to just continue being a back-and-forth technical battle, rather than a legal one. The question is, once Palm has spoofed everything possible for iTunes to identify a Pre as an Apple iPod, is there anything more Apple can do to block the Pre?
I personally don't care one way or the other. I'm happy for Pre owners if they can still use iTunes if they want, OTOH there is clearly no guaranteee that iTunes compatibility will always be there. This is basically about 2 big companies fighting over money, let the best company or whatever win (it's not going to kill Apple either way.)
The other issue this raises, however, is will other companies be able to do the same thing as Palm? I assume there was some reverse-engineering going on regarding how iTunes works, maybe that was only possible with Rubenstein and ex-Apple hires.
It would be interesting if say the newest Sony Walkman player (Sony players generally can play AAC) had the same iTunes compatibility. If only Palm does this, then I don't think it's a huge deal for Apple (the biggest side effect is the marketing battle between Pre and iPhone), but if a bunch of other devices could do the same thing then it would be a much bigger deal for Apple. Especially now that iTMS sells unprotected songs.
I personally don't care one way or the other. I'm happy for Pre owners if they can still use iTunes if they want, OTOH there is clearly no guaranteee that iTunes compatibility will always be there. This is basically about 2 big companies fighting over money, let the best company or whatever win (it's not going to kill Apple either way.)
The other issue this raises, however, is will other companies be able to do the same thing as Palm? I assume there was some reverse-engineering going on regarding how iTunes works, maybe that was only possible with Rubenstein and ex-Apple hires.
It would be interesting if say the newest Sony Walkman player (Sony players generally can play AAC) had the same iTunes compatibility. If only Palm does this, then I don't think it's a huge deal for Apple (the biggest side effect is the marketing battle between Pre and iPhone), but if a bunch of other devices could do the same thing then it would be a much bigger deal for Apple. Especially now that iTMS sells unprotected songs.
BZZZZZTTTT!!!! WRONG!
iTunes existed YEARS before the iPod did, and used to sync with many MP3 players. It was only after Apple released the iPod that Apple quietly phased out support for 3rd-party players.
That doesn't change your arguement, but your facts were wrong.
Akin to the EU forcing Microsoft to ask the user which browser they would use upon install, despite Windows being their own "proprietary" software. Once a leading force in an industry starts to hinder competition, law officials are going to take notice.This is bogus.
Palm can't be arsed to write their own media sync software and then get uppity when Apple won't let them make use of their proprietary software for free?
Yeah, this is really going to end well for Palm, I'm sure.
Except copyright law says they do have the right to say who can copy and create derivative works. It is hard to enforce the random crack floating around, and hasn't really been tested in court... but modifying software may or may not be considered creating a derivative work.
There is a reason why the GPL explicitly calls out what you are required to do in order to publish changes to source code protected under the GPL.
Name the law.
schalkse said:
Yes, but using the USB vendorID to choose NOT to operate is not allowed by the spec.
You're winning the debate already! Keep going Apple fan!marksman said:
Oh, I am losing this debate quick! I better run before the Analogy Police get here!marksman said:
Palm has not copied iTunes, and they haven't created a derivative work. They did not modify iTunes at all.krevnik said:
No, it started when Apple put a restriction in iTunes to not operate with a device unless it matched Apple's Vendor ID.Stephen123 said:
Cool. So, if Palm wins, I can sue Microsoft for not allowing their XBox to play and PS2/3 games. After all, those are 3rd party items that I own and want to be able to use with an XBox. Why should I have to buy the same content (GTA#) for both and pay twice? Slippery slope indeed, because everyone loses if Palm wins a suit like this.
@ Amdahl
You clearly have little understanding of Monopoly, Antitrust or IP Law, so let me explain it for you.
Monopoly
This is defined as having 100% market share - the exclusive product or service, with no competition. Sometimes the figure of 70% is used to define a monopoly and as iTunes and iPods tend to hover around that figure (at least in the US) so could be considered a monpoloy. But there is plenty of competition in both areas and even so, a monopoly is not illegal - it can become illegal if the monopoly is abused via antitrust behavior.
Antitrust
This is where a company abuses its monopoly by collaborating with other companies (thus forming a "trust") in order to diminish competition. The best example i can think of is IE vs Netscape. In this case, MS used its monopoly of the OS market to force PC hardware vendors to NOT include netscape on new PCs under the threat of losing their license to put Windows on said PCs. That is an abuse of the monopoly and is why MS were found guilty. Apple has only worked with itself and as such there is no case for antitrust.
IP
IP is comprised of 3 main elements: patents, copyright and trademarks, all of which Apple have on iTunes tech, code and even the name(s) and logo(s). By using the method they have, Palm have certainly broken copyright laws, could have trademark issues and possible have stepped on Apple patents. Thus Apple may have a case for a lawsuit, which would be very interesting considering ex Apple employees on Palm's staff. If Apple could prove they worked on iTunes and iPod, and are now working on the Pre and its spoofed sync, then the case is over - I mean what court would see that as not a violation of employment and IP laws. Of course Apple may not even bother and just break the link again - I mean how many times will it take for Palm's customers to be so fed up they just sell their Pre and buy an iPhone?
You clearly have little understanding of Monopoly, Antitrust or IP Law, so let me explain it for you.
Monopoly
This is defined as having 100% market share - the exclusive product or service, with no competition. Sometimes the figure of 70% is used to define a monopoly and as iTunes and iPods tend to hover around that figure (at least in the US) so could be considered a monpoloy. But there is plenty of competition in both areas and even so, a monopoly is not illegal - it can become illegal if the monopoly is abused via antitrust behavior.
Antitrust
This is where a company abuses its monopoly by collaborating with other companies (thus forming a "trust") in order to diminish competition. The best example i can think of is IE vs Netscape. In this case, MS used its monopoly of the OS market to force PC hardware vendors to NOT include netscape on new PCs under the threat of losing their license to put Windows on said PCs. That is an abuse of the monopoly and is why MS were found guilty. Apple has only worked with itself and as such there is no case for antitrust.
IP
IP is comprised of 3 main elements: patents, copyright and trademarks, all of which Apple have on iTunes tech, code and even the name(s) and logo(s). By using the method they have, Palm have certainly broken copyright laws, could have trademark issues and possible have stepped on Apple patents. Thus Apple may have a case for a lawsuit, which would be very interesting considering ex Apple employees on Palm's staff. If Apple could prove they worked on iTunes and iPod, and are now working on the Pre and its spoofed sync, then the case is over - I mean what court would see that as not a violation of employment and IP laws. Of course Apple may not even bother and just break the link again - I mean how many times will it take for Palm's customers to be so fed up they just sell their Pre and buy an iPhone?
You just contradicted yourself. Are they Blocking Palm, or are they only allowing Apple?
The former is against the rules, the latter is not.
Failure. The Xbox and PS2/PS3 are built on entirely different architectures and components, and whether or not one is compatible with the other depends on more than Microsoft "letting you" to. The only thing stopping a Pre from syncing to iTunes is a vendor ID.
Besides, Microsoft was already sued for including IE on their "own" Operating System. So, this doesn't bode well for Apple, considering their leading spot in this industry. They are effectively leveraging the popularity of iTunes (and the billions of DRM songs they sold) to increase the sales of the iPod. It can also be said the other way around, since essentially an iPod requires iTunes for most of it's features to function. That's called hindering competition, according to the EU and their past lawsuits against Microsoft.
So let me get this straight.
Palm violates the USB terms.
Then they complain to the USB organization because Apple isn't letting them get away with violating those terms.
Wow. Palm is looking pretty pathetic these days. I guess if they had the talent to write a syncing app they wouldn't be so desperate.
Palm violates the USB terms.
Then they complain to the USB organization because Apple isn't letting them get away with violating those terms.
Wow. Palm is looking pretty pathetic these days. I guess if they had the talent to write a syncing app they wouldn't be so desperate.
Actually, he is only a little wrong. You are like 99% wrong.
iTunes 1.0 was released and at the time couldn't sync to any devices. Of course its core application SoundJam wasn't really designed to sync anything.
The iPod classic was introduced with iTunes version 2.0. Since then, only itunes and a select handful of devices were able to sync natively with itunes, namely the following :
Code:
Digital Players Manufacturer Connection
iPod Apple FireWire / USB
Nomad II Creative Labs USB
Nomad II MG Creative Labs USB
Nomad II c Creative Labs USB
Nomad Jukebox Creative Labs USB
Nomad Jukebox 20GB Creative Labs USB
Nomad Jukebox C Creative Labs USB
Novad MuVo Creative Labs USB
Rio One SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio 500 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio 600 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio 800 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio 900 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio S10 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio S11 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio S30S SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio S35S SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio S50 SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio Chiba SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio Fuse SONICBlue/S3 USB
Rio Cali SONICBlue/S3 USB
psa]play 60 Nike USB
psa]play 120 Nike USB
SoundSpace 2 Nakamichi USB
CD MP3 Players Manufacturer
RioVolt SP250 SONICBlue/S3
RioVolt SP100 SONICBlue/S3
RioVolt SP90 SONICBlue/S3So iTunes was only iPod less for like a little over a year, then 2.0 came out and with it the iPod.
I think you should. It's a pain in the butt not to be able to use more current ipods as a USB storage.
Wow.. I didn't realize how many lawyers there were on this board.
If Apple had any legal legs, they would have went after Palm from the start.
Fact is, they don't.
The USB CO rules have very small teeth. The best they could do is revoke the license from both Apple and Palm to use the USB standard in their products.
All I read here are a lot of people making sweeping assumptions about IP law and using ridiculously poor analogies to back up their arguments.
If Apple had any legal legs, they would have went after Palm from the start.
Fact is, they don't.
The USB CO rules have very small teeth. The best they could do is revoke the license from both Apple and Palm to use the USB standard in their products.
All I read here are a lot of people making sweeping assumptions about IP law and using ridiculously poor analogies to back up their arguments.
90% of the online music bought in the US is bought from iTunes. Since MS's 90% share of PC OS's was considered to be a monopoly, there is a very plausible argument that Apple has a monopoly in the sale of online music.
Monopolies, as we all know, are not illegal. What is illegal, though, is using your monopoly in one area to enhance the sales of other products. Also known as "bundling". MS was found to have committed an antitrust violation by not allowing IE to be removed from windows. This helped IE gain market share at the expense of other non MS browsers.
If Apple consistently changes iTunes so that it will not sync with non-Apple music players, there is a very good argument to be made that Apple is unlawfully "bundling" by using its monopoly in online music sales to increase the market share of its other products.
Legally, this is a very sound argument. But it isn't perfect; here are some counter-arguments, roughly in the IMO order of merit:
1. 90% of online sales doesn't make iTunes a monopoly because only 60% or so of people who buy online music use iTunes. iTunes has 90% of sales not because it is a monopoly, but because iTunes users just buy more music than other users. It is, after all, mathematically possible for iTunes to account for 90% of online sales even if only 20% of online purchasers used iTunes. [Note - I believe I am correct about the 60% figure].
2. Notwithstanding its 90% share of online music sales, the iTunes monopoly is not really anti-competitive because there are low barriers to entry and because users are not locked into using iTunes the way they are locked into using an OS. Pre users still have access to all of their iTunes music. [I think this should be a better argument than it is IRL...]
3. Apple is not stopping people from using iTunes; all Apple is doing is stopping people from syncing their devices in a particular way through iTunes. [This seems like a common-sense argument, but since MS's similar argument (we aren't stopping people from using Netscape, we are just giving them IE for free) was shot down, this one is likely weak.
4. Other - I haven't really worked through this yet; it may well be a decent argument. Technically, iTunes doesn't have a 90% market share of online music sales; the ITMS has a 90% share. While iTunes is the only method of accessing the ITMS, this method is equally available to Pre users, in exactly the same manner. All the Pre users lack is the ability to use iTunes program to get the purchased music to their Pre...but there are many programs for that.
5. iTunes integration is inherent to using iPods/iPhones, and it doesn't make sense to treat it as something different. [History is against this argument, although there is otherwise much to be said for it - IMO the reason that iPods became the dominant MP3 players was not because the device was so much better than the competition (it was slightly better than the best, IMO), or because iTunes was better than competing programs (it was also slightly better than the best, too), but because iTunes+iPod were, together, spectacularly better than the competition - and since you use them together, that's the best way to think of them. But, again, arguing that IE was a part of Windows didn't work for MS, and iTunes early free-standing history hurts it too].
I don't want the first part of this post to be lost at the end of the counterarguments, though - iTunes looks a lot like a monopoly, and Apple is clearly using iTunes to increase the sales of its other devices. Which suggests that breaking iTunes compatibility with the Pre may violate anti-trust law.
Monopolies, as we all know, are not illegal. What is illegal, though, is using your monopoly in one area to enhance the sales of other products. Also known as "bundling". MS was found to have committed an antitrust violation by not allowing IE to be removed from windows. This helped IE gain market share at the expense of other non MS browsers.
If Apple consistently changes iTunes so that it will not sync with non-Apple music players, there is a very good argument to be made that Apple is unlawfully "bundling" by using its monopoly in online music sales to increase the market share of its other products.
Legally, this is a very sound argument. But it isn't perfect; here are some counter-arguments, roughly in the IMO order of merit:
1. 90% of online sales doesn't make iTunes a monopoly because only 60% or so of people who buy online music use iTunes. iTunes has 90% of sales not because it is a monopoly, but because iTunes users just buy more music than other users. It is, after all, mathematically possible for iTunes to account for 90% of online sales even if only 20% of online purchasers used iTunes. [Note - I believe I am correct about the 60% figure].
2. Notwithstanding its 90% share of online music sales, the iTunes monopoly is not really anti-competitive because there are low barriers to entry and because users are not locked into using iTunes the way they are locked into using an OS. Pre users still have access to all of their iTunes music. [I think this should be a better argument than it is IRL...]
3. Apple is not stopping people from using iTunes; all Apple is doing is stopping people from syncing their devices in a particular way through iTunes. [This seems like a common-sense argument, but since MS's similar argument (we aren't stopping people from using Netscape, we are just giving them IE for free) was shot down, this one is likely weak.
4. Other - I haven't really worked through this yet; it may well be a decent argument. Technically, iTunes doesn't have a 90% market share of online music sales; the ITMS has a 90% share. While iTunes is the only method of accessing the ITMS, this method is equally available to Pre users, in exactly the same manner. All the Pre users lack is the ability to use iTunes program to get the purchased music to their Pre...but there are many programs for that.
5. iTunes integration is inherent to using iPods/iPhones, and it doesn't make sense to treat it as something different. [History is against this argument, although there is otherwise much to be said for it - IMO the reason that iPods became the dominant MP3 players was not because the device was so much better than the competition (it was slightly better than the best, IMO), or because iTunes was better than competing programs (it was also slightly better than the best, too), but because iTunes+iPod were, together, spectacularly better than the competition - and since you use them together, that's the best way to think of them. But, again, arguing that IE was a part of Windows didn't work for MS, and iTunes early free-standing history hurts it too].
I don't want the first part of this post to be lost at the end of the counterarguments, though - iTunes looks a lot like a monopoly, and Apple is clearly using iTunes to increase the sales of its other devices. Which suggests that breaking iTunes compatibility with the Pre may violate anti-trust law.
D'oh! My memory doesn't remember it that way, but a quick wiki has placed my foot in my mouth. You are correct. Apple introduced syncing along side the iPod.
=)
If MS engaged in Apple's behavior, a hell of an antitrust case would be unleashed against the company. It will be interesting when the relevant authorities are starting to look into Apple's many dubious practices, especially now that they are a big player in both music and cell phones. I assume the fanboys will take the smirk of their faces once they realize Apple is engaging in far more anticompetitive behavior than most other companies, including Microsoft.
That whole argument is tangential. If you read my other posts, I don't claim Palm did. My claim is that modification of software does fall under copyright protection.
What this pissing match is over is if Apple can restrict what devices they interoperate with by restricting the vendor IDs their drivers/software will talk to. I'd agree with another poster that iTunes can be allowed to operate only with certain drivers, which only support certain vendor IDs. I see drivers and software all the time which have such restrictions.
The only difference here is that the customer wants those restrictions lifted. Apple doesn't /have/ to oblige, but it would be nice to see Apple play nice here. That said, I don't agree with the tack Palm took with getting iTunes support, because there are other ways that don't involve entirely on piggybacking on Apple's drivers and assume you have legal ground to prevent them from breaking compatibility with you (pro-tip: you don't, you just have to play the cat and mouse game).
As stated in a previous post, Palm has 3 different ways they can go about syncing with an iTunes library without violating part of the USB rules set out by the board (whose ability to respond to these violations is set out in contracts that both Palm and Apple signed), and put themselves on slightly better ground in this pissing match while also making it harder for Apple to break them. But the hypocrisy of violating the USB spec and then reporting their competitor for doing the same is pretty hilarious in my book.
Don't like it? Don't use it!
Umm...if you don't want to limit where and when you can use the content that YOU OWN then DON"T BUY AN IPOD and DON"T USE ITUNES. But, if you actually like how iTunes (a.k.a. software that APPLE DEVELOPED, MARKETED, AND OWNS) handles your content, then you gotta play by their rules. All this shows is that iTunes is and will continue to be the best way to manage digital content and that Palm is just trying to hitch a free ride.
Umm...if you don't want to limit where and when you can use the content that YOU OWN then DON"T BUY AN IPOD and DON"T USE ITUNES. But, if you actually like how iTunes (a.k.a. software that APPLE DEVELOPED, MARKETED, AND OWNS) handles your content, then you gotta play by their rules. All this shows is that iTunes is and will continue to be the best way to manage digital content and that Palm is just trying to hitch a free ride.