Palm Reports Apple to USB Compliance Organization Over iTunes Syncing Issues

[chaosconan]

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Apple should be reporting Palm to USB Compliance Organization for false USB identity. Am I not right?

 

[alawatsakima]

iTunes is the bane of my existence...

I am totally against Palm on their approach. The only reason I have ever used iTunes is because I had no choice with my iPhone. In fact, iTunes is the REASON I never bought an iPod, opting for inferior products from Creative Labs for many years; At least they let me sync with any media player I chose, from their proprietary software to windows media player to Amarok on linux.

Meanwhile, Apple is constantly trying to BLOCK my freedom of choice, and thereby requiring me to run operating systems I don't like, and software I don't care for. Granted, it did lead me to purchasing a mac... But I bought it on ebay, as I'm never going to buy a $1,000 piece of computer hardware just to sync with a phone. Even the $245 I spent on my iBook was a little extreme, considering the purpose.

I therefore wonder why Pre users are so attached to iTunes... Sure, having the choice of using iTunes is nice, for the people who care, but I would personally like MORE choice. If Palm's filing leads to Apple being required to allow more choice for the iPhone, I will be greatfull to them... Sadly, there's currently no evidence of that being the goal, or even a possibility.

 

[mac*jedi*g]

All of this could easily be resolved if...

Palm, Inc. would just open their own music/movie/tv site. Call it:

iPalm (am using sh*t from Apple)

 

[Bubba Satori]

Good. How long has Cupertino been the capital of North Korea ?

 

[r.j.s]

I am totally against Palm on their approach. The only reason I have ever used iTunes is because I had no choice with my iPhone. In fact, iTunes is the REASON I never bought an iPod, opting for inferior products from Creative Labs for many years; At least they let me sync with any media player I chose, from their proprietary software to windows media player to Amarok on linux.

Meanwhile, Apple is constantly trying to BLOCK my freedom of choice, and thereby requiring me to run operating systems I don't like, and software I don't care for. Granted, it did lead me to purchasing a mac... But I bought it on ebay, as I'm never going to buy a $1,000 piece of computer hardware just to sync with a phone. Even the $245 I spent on my iBook was a little extreme, considering the purpose.

I therefore wonder why Pre users are so attached to iTunes... Sure, having the choice of using iTunes is nice, for the people who care, but I would personally like MORE choice. If Palm's filing leads to Apple being required to allow more choice for the iPhone, I will be greatfull to them... Sadly, there's currently no evidence of that being the goal, or even a possibility.

So, you bought a Mac just to sync your iPhone? iTunes does run on Windows, you know.

 

[czachorski]

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.)

I think you are talking yourself in circles. The tie being challenged by palm is between iTunes, the content manager and syncing software and the iPod mp3 player. The music store has nothing to do with it. There are many ways to access music bought from the iTunes music store, and get it onto non-iPod devices. I don't think that it is even possible for Apple to block this if they wanted to.

They are protected, and will continue to be protected from companies trying to interface their hardware with Apple's software - it's Apple's software - they are free to benefit from it how they choose, in this case by using it's value to drive iPod sales.

The flaw to your position can be illustrated so simply by using an example of a media player/syncing software that chooses to license the use of its software to hardware vendors, rather than tying it to its own hardware. By your logic, companies that don't pay the license fees would be free to hack into the media manager anyways, since its "not protected", according to your warped/ circular logic.

 

[*LTD*]

Palm is a publicly traded company, and they're hacking someone else's software.

Very professional.

 

[iLeoMarc]

Damn I want to sync my iPhone 3gs on HotSync. Damn you Palm!!

 

[AbSoluTc]

I am totally against Palm on their approach. The only reason I have ever used iTunes is because I had no choice with my iPhone. In fact, iTunes is the REASON I never bought an iPod, opting for inferior products from Creative Labs for many years; At least they let me sync with any media player I chose, from their proprietary software to windows media player to Amarok on linux.

Meanwhile, Apple is constantly trying to BLOCK my freedom of choice, and thereby requiring me to run operating systems I don't like, and software I don't care for. Granted, it did lead me to purchasing a mac... But I bought it on ebay, as I'm never going to buy a $1,000 piece of computer hardware just to sync with a phone. Even the $245 I spent on my iBook was a little extreme, considering the purpose.

I therefore wonder why Pre users are so attached to iTunes... Sure, having the choice of using iTunes is nice, for the people who care, but I would personally like MORE choice. If Palm's filing leads to Apple being required to allow more choice for the iPhone, I will be greatfull to them... Sadly, there's currently no evidence of that being the goal, or even a possibility.

So, you bought a Mac just to sync your iPhone? iTunes does run on Windows, you know.

I guess due to all your blathering, you failed to read any information before you bought your iPhone right, since they say it syncs with iTunes from the GET GO. Yeah, they pulled a fast one on ya there!

All this coming from someone that bought a computer just to sync their phone? Umm, ok. Please - BUY A PALM PRE instead. Might be easier for you to use, cheaper too.

 

[Amdahl]

@ Amdahl

You clearly have little understanding of Monopoly, Antitrust or IP Law, so let me explain it for you.

Thanks, I love learning what I don't know.

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?

Copyright, eh? Are you saying Apple holds a copyright to their Vendor ID, which is a number? You are aware that numbers can't be copyrighted? What Trademark have they violated? Are they selling their product as 'Apple' or 'iPod?' Patents? Well, now you might have something there, but until one company makes a claim, we just have to let that one lie. I think you can expect that Palm was very careful in hiring Rubenstein and the development of Pre to make sure they didn't trip any patent or trade secret laws.

I love learning what I don't know.

You just contradicted yourself. Are they Blocking Palm, or are they only allowing Apple?

The former is against the rules, the latter is not.

I didn't contradict myself. They are both NOT allowed.

But the hypocrisy of violating the USB spec and then reporting their competitor for doing the same is pretty hilarious in my book.

It would be hypocrisy if Apple filed the complaint. Palm filed it, against Apple, for using USB spec vendor IDs to prevent operability. Palm's workaround(using Apple's ID) came afterward. Apple's initial violation resulted in Palm's violation to restore operability. This sort of thing is exactly what the USB Consortium wants to prevent because it harms the USB spec.

 

[SG1-1]

In the previous topic (iTunes 8.2.1 reportedly breaks Palm Pre Syncing), I wrote this message on July 15, which in part said:



Here's what Wikipedia says about the DMCA:


There is no doubt that everyone's iTunes library contains copyrighted works. And by spoofing Apple's USB identifier, Palm has just circumvented one type of access control to those copyrighted works. It doesn't matter that the owner of the iTunes library and Palm Pre is entitled to use the copyrighted work as they see fit. It still doesn't give Palm the right to circumvent the access control.

I believe my prediction has come true. Palm is about to get slapped with a lawsuit for violating the DMCA. And I believe they will lose such a lawsuit!

If I owned a Palm Pre, I wouldn't count on the long-term continued viability of syncing with iTunes.

Mark

Great post Mark!!

Agreed

 

[ZebraineZ]

There are alot of non-apple products that can use iTunes, why doesn't Palm just make a deal with with Apple and negotiate on this? They are idiots thats why. They decide its better to exploit that iPod ID thing and pretend its made by apple or it is authorized by apple and sync it. There are a billion other things to sync music with and they are just stealing from iTunes and then REPORTING Apple for NOT letting them use it? wtf? Apple doesn't need to let you use it and after the tricks they pulled I am pretty sure apple won't even want to work it out to get it to legally work with iTunes. If they wanted they could have tried to make a deal like everyone else out there, not try to snake around and get it the easy way.

 

[djdole]

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Apple should be reporting Palm to USB Compliance Organization for false USB identity. Am I not right?

I think that's the general consensus.

 

[rish]

Talking a Crock of.....

First and foremost for those talking about choice and freedom. Download another music store and by whatever device you like. You talk about freedom, here's a little tale from the not so distant past. Napster launched their music store in the UK first. It was non Mac compatible. There was never a version released for the Mac. If you wanted Napster badly you would have had to by a PC. iTunes launches in the UK in its most basic form. No iPod around at the time. Napster and any other potential competitor had still an opportunity to see Apple off. They didn't. Fast forward here we are, and all these wasted chances and what have you got a bunch of whining ****s complaining about being locked in, or losing out altogether.

Second, Palm is in the wrong here. Pretending to be an iPod to access iTunes. If they want to do that pay up. If the shoe was on the other foot Apple would be expected to. And if anyone thinks Palm made good products think again. They churned out crap prior to the Pre and they can't even get that experience right with out being under handed. Another history lesson. Prior to Jobs coming back to Apple, the company was about to shut it's doors. No other company out there gave Apple a leg up. No other company at all. So you tell me why the hell should Apple! You want Pre customers to enjoy the same level of tight integration the iPhone/iPod enjoys, pay a nice big fat licensing fee, because I tell you what MS would expect it and so would every other competitor.

I want Palm to kiss Apples butt! They were ahead of the game and like the mobile phone industry, like the PC manufacturers they got lazy and churned out crap. Palm should not get a leg up full stop. Palm make your own, or is the issue you don't want to put in all those man hours for a product that really won't make it!

Worst of all I cannot stand a bunch whiners complaining about the Mac integration. You don't like it then get out and purchase something else. No one physically tells you to go and by Apple branded products.


I recall when Palm desktop manager used to crash all the time on my Mac, then there was the Hotsync and that was no different. Palm response to me, Palms software works better on Windows. IMO thats the day you died. Bunch whiners wanted access to iTunes.

Apple shut them all out. Nasty jealous whiners.

 

[Amdahl]

I The music store has nothing to do with it.

The Music store has EVERYTHING to do with it. Do you think Palm would care about syncing to some random software, if it that software wasn't the exclusive gateway to the top music retailer in the United States?

They are protected, and will continue to be protected from companies trying to interface their hardware with Apple's software - it's Apple's software - they are free to benefit from it how they choose, in this case by using it's value to drive iPod sales.

There is no law that provides the protection you describe.

The flaw to your position can be illustrated so simply by using an example of a media player/syncing software that chooses to license the use of its software to hardware vendors, rather than tying it to its own hardware. By your logic, companies that don't pay the license fees would be free to hack into the media manager anyways, since its "not protected", according to your warped/ circular logic.

If Palm was distributing iTunes with the Pre, you would be right. And by my logic, you are exactly right: Companies ARE free to try to interface to other software without paying fees. They just can't distribute it with their product.

Palm is a publicly traded company, and they're hacking someone else's software.

Very professional.

The entire PC industry is based on exactly this. As someone else quoted Steve Jobs earlier, Good artists copy, great artists steal.

There is no doubt that everyone's iTunes library contains copyrighted works. And by spoofing Apple's USB identifier, Palm has just circumvented one type of access control to those copyrighted works. It doesn't matter that the owner of the iTunes library and Palm Pre is entitled to use the copyrighted work as they see fit. It still doesn't give Palm the right to circumvent the access control.

No, if Palm could play the AAC protected music, they might be violating the DMCA. If they just receive the data, but can't play it, they are not breaking DMCA. If they play non-protected songs (iTunes Plus, or MP3) they are not breaking DMCA.

 

[pdjudd]

The Music store has EVERYTHING to do with it. Do you think Palm would care about syncing to some random software, if it that software wasn't the exclusive gateway to the top music retailer in the United States?

As far as music goes, purchasing is the only thing that you need iTunes for. Once downloaded, the files there can be played back on any software product that can play AAC files.

Inconvenient for others, yes. But nobody promised nor guaranteed convenience. Thats why you don't have to get your music from Apple. You can if you want to, but its a choice that you have to engage and seek out knowing the limits if there are any.

 

[alawatsakima]

So, you bought a Mac just to sync your iPhone? iTunes does run on Windows, you know.

But it's support of Outlook and Windows Address book is dismal. On the one hand, Microsoft coulda built a better address book... But on the other, Apple could support Buisness Contact Manager. The day I started using custom fields (To identify carriers or websites or "Mom's home" or "Dad's home" [I'm still young enough to have friend's who live with their divorced parents. "Home" doesn't get the job done], etc.), I had to have an address book that can handle that stuff. My linux machines do it, and my Windows Machine could do it under BCM, but to get Apple to play nice, I needed a mac.

At the end of the day, Apple still stiffled my freedom of choice... And left me with the choice of "Have a mac, and my custom fields, or have a PC, and lose them."

In a perfect world, my iPhone, it's music, it's callendar, and it's address book, along with everything in them, would be syncable with any app that supports the protocol. Good luck getting Apple to release the protocol, and if the Free Software kats figure it out on their own, just count down the days till Apple blocks it.

Apple has a well rounded complete system; It is that complete system that makes their products sell. However, if I don't choose that system, I should be able to choose an alternative.

 

[pdjudd]

As someone else quoted Steve Jobs earlier, Good artists copy, great artists steal.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you can break laws - especially ones that involve stuff that you make. You can be a great artist, but that doesn't mean that you can avoid facing the music. This little thing has nothing to do with artistry anyway.

 

[ECJ]

I really don't understand the hate towards Apple on this issue. They created, developed, marketed and pay the upkeep the server farms for iTunes. Oh, don't forget about the record companies. After all that, they look bad for defending their intellectual property?

So, using that same agreement, I should sneak my Crap Turd Pie (now with 50% more dingleberrys) onto Wal-Marts store shelves, because they won't carry my Crap Turd Pie (now made with Splenda). Wal-mart is the market leader in retail. They build, maintain and market their stores.

lol.

 

[SG1-1]

TQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth, Apple Super Fan Defenders Club President
There is no doubt that everyone's iTunes library contains copyrighted works. And by spoofing Apple's USB identifier, Palm has just circumvented one type of access control to those copyrighted works. It doesn't matter that the owner of the iTunes library and Palm Pre is entitled to use the copyrighted work as they see fit. It still doesn't give Palm the right to circumvent the access control.
No, if Palm could play the AAC protected music, they might be violating the DMCA. If they just receive the data, but can't play it, they are not breaking DMCA. If they play non-protected songs (iTunes Plus, or MP3) they are not breaking DMCA..

If the only way you can protect your conjured up diluted responses, is to insult posters then have at it.

But you have proven one thing, and only one thing, Your arguments fail when you can only assault and not prove.

Get a education young person, and learn that attacking with insults is no substitute for an adult conversation if you are trying to prove a point.

Others see you for what you are,

Enjoy

Added: Nice to see you edited out the insult, but never the less... it was still posted.

 

[alawatsakima]

I guess due to all your blathering, you failed to read any information before you bought your iPhone right, since they say it syncs with iTunes from the GET GO. Yeah, they pulled a fast one on ya there!

All this coming from someone that bought a computer just to sync their phone? Umm, ok. Please - BUY A PALM PRE instead. Might be easier for you to use, cheaper too.

I bought an iPhone because it is a superior product. I was willing to use iTunes to get that product. We all make sacrafices... I was willing to make the iTunes sacrafice, however, show me where it says "We don't support Microsoft's custom field sollution, we only support THAT feature on Mac," keeping in mind that mobileme didn't come out untill later, and keeping in mind that BCM has supported custom fields for many years. So please don't lecture me on how I didn't do my research... I had done it, and was willing to get a better phone, along with the worse software. Then I found out that I had made more sacrafices than I bargained for, and required the mac. All for a better phone experience.

However, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I wouldn't have to make any of those sacrafices. In an ideal world, Apple would release the specs on their transfer protocols and their storage types, and they would let the Free Software community (Or any other software community) have their way with the spec. (Note, I say spec, not code. Apple owns their code, and rightfully so. Let them keep it. But the spec should be available to promote competition.) If Apple took that approach, my linux machines and my PCs would all live in Perfect Harmony™

 

[Amdahl]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you can break laws - especially ones that involve stuff that you make. You can be a great artist, but that doesn't mean that you can avoid facing the music. This little thing has nothing to do with artistry anyway.

What law is broken? I keep asking, but nobody has named a law that is violated here. Only the USB standard agreement, which is not law, and which Apple violated first, causing Palm's violation.

If the only way you can protect your conjured up diluted responses, is to insult posters then have at it.

But you have proven one thing, and only one thing, Your arguments fail when you can only assault and not prove.

Get a education young person, and learn that attacking with insults is no substitute for an adult conversation if you are trying to prove a point.

Others see you for what you are,

Enjoy

Added: Nice to see you edited out the insult, but never the less... it was still posted.

I've earned the right to throw a few insults at this point in the thread, based on those I've been tossed.

The reason I edited out the insult was that I had confused Mark Whoever, with that other guy who was insulting me.

 

[Maclver]

So, you bought a Mac just to sync your iPhone? iTunes does run on Windows, you know.

Hey hey hey... don't tell him that... like your avatar btw!

 

[jive turkey]

Wow, only a few days and Palm has ALREADY taken it too far. What a blown opportunity for them to capitalize on this whole situation. What a bunch of idiots.

 

[jive turkey]

What law is broken? I keep asking, but nobody has named a law that is violated here. Only the USB standard agreement, which is not law, and which Apple violated first, causing Palm's violation.

I've only read the first page, so if I'm wrong please correct me, but the sounds of things are that PALM violated it first, not Apple. Palm was spoofing Vendor ID's to pretend to be an iPod, and Apple reacted by stopping it. Now Palm is doing it again. I'm not sure what Apple supposedly violated first, here. What news did I miss?