Palm Reports Apple to USB Compliance Organization Over iTunes Syncing Issues

[.Andy]

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.

Or alternatively well played. Palm have made international technology news again and be discussed at length (this 300+ post thread already) on apple rumour sites and technology sites across the web. Better exposure than any advertising they could have hoped for.

 

[SG1-1]

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.

Please take a break and cool off, not everyone is out to personally insult you.
And i understand how you feel.

We are fine here, I just think allot of people are really getting to overwhelmed with this, and it's really is a heated subject.

Thanks for the edit and the followup.


On A Different Note:

This is really getting out of hand.

This topic is like beating a dead horse, the same old arguments over and over.

 

[pdjudd]

What law is broken? I keep asking, but nobody has named a law that is violated here.

I dunno, I am not claiming that Palm broke any laws (I have specifically said that before). By use of the word "law" was not directed toward palm, but rather the comment you made reference to Steve Jobs. My intention was clear - if you are a thief (having stole from someone) you deserve to face the consequences. I am not calling you, Apple, or Palm a thief or in violation of any crimes. That is for a court to decide should that happen.

Only the USB standard agreement, which is not law, and which Apple violated first, causing Palm's violation.

Are you sure about that? Are you a member of the USB consortium charged with making those assertions? Remember, Apple only blocked unauthorized devices, they didn't block just the Pre. It may have been targeted toward the Pre, but thats because Palm is the only one doing this right now. And for the record, Palm did it first, they spoofed Apple's ID for the iPod - A device that they do not own nor control.

 

[Stephen123]

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

That quote is from Pablo Picasso not Steve Jobs.

 

[blipper]

The only argument the Palm supporters know to make.

But it may be a good one.

 

[swagi]

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.

Reading all the answers to my post I still have to say:

You all are just pulling numbers out of your a$$ to prove my point wrong. Fact is, my point was that the whole segment accounts for 1 billion $ quarterly revenue.

As long as you cannot prove a given quarterly cost of one billion stop posting this "iTMS is not to make money but an incentive to buy iPods and iPhones"-BS.

You cannot prove your argument as I can't prove mine. So leave iTMS out of this. And get your facts straight, because iTMS was built TO SELL MUSIC and TO MAKE MONEY. Recheck the iTMS introduction to get the spirit again, in case you were still in Junior High when it was introduced.

/rant

 

[iOrlando]

I can see steve being very annoyed by all of this and probably thinking its funny at the same time.

 

[i.mac]

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

Yes, but windows sucks...

Great reason to buy a mac!

 

[jca666us]

Why does everyone here seem to have a problem with other devices being able to sync with iTunes to move content that WE the CONSUMER have purchased from Apple?

The issue is that Apple already has a mechanism in place for 3rd parties to access non-DRM'ed content stored in itunes.

Palm is arrogant (or stupid) enough to believe they should have unfettered access to itunes via USB by spoofing itunes into believing the Pre is an ipod/iphone.

Totally ludicrous.

Palm needs to get with the program and use XML like everyone else.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

Stupid.

This is like a drug dealer getting ripped off during a drug deal and then calling the cops to report that drugs were stolen from him.

 

[Goona]

Or alternatively well played. Palm have made international technology news again and be discussed at length (this 300+ post thread already) on apple rumour sites and technology sites across the web. Better exposure than any advertising they could have hoped for.

International news, which international news organization is covering this debacle?

 

[ALUOp]

Or alternatively well played. Palm have made international technology news again and be discussed at length (this 300+ post thread already) on apple rumour sites and technology sites across the web. Better exposure than any advertising they could have hoped for.

Exactly, their Pre already got more press coverage than it desires.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Reading all the answers to my post I still have to say:

You all are just pulling numbers out of your a$$ to prove my point wrong. Fact is, my point was that the whole segment accounts for 1 billion $ quarterly revenue.

As long as you cannot prove a given quarterly cost of one billion stop posting this "iTMS is not to make money but an incentive to buy iPods and iPhones"-BS.

You cannot prove your argument as I can't prove mine. So leave iTMS out of this. And get your facts straight, because iTMS was built TO SELL MUSIC and TO MAKE MONEY. Recheck the iTMS introduction to get the spirit again, in case you were still in Junior High when it was introduced.

/rant

The iTMS was never intended to be a money maker. It was intended to sell Apple devices.
The Register, 2003

"Most of the money goes to the music companies," admitted Jobs.

"We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker," he said, candidly.

So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories. When the conversation turned to rivals such as eTunes and Napster, Jobs said: "They don't make iPods, so they don't have a related business where they do [make money]".

cnet, 2003

"The iPod makes money. The iTunes Music Store doesn't," Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller told CNET News.com in an interview Thursday after the launch of the Windows version of the store.
Schiller said the music store is close to profitability but is still losing money. Apple doesn't see the business as having much long-term profit potential

Of course the iTMS turned out to be a bigger success than even Jobs expected so it is turning a profit according to analysts.
AppleInsider.com, 2007

Based on per-song cost estimates, the ubiquitous iTunes service generates an operating profit of at least 10 percent, and possibly as much as 15 percent, according to PacificCrest's Andy Hargreaves. The analyst on Monday released a detailed report on the subject, in which he informed Apple investors that the economics of iTunes could soon serve as a boon for the company's bottom line.

That still doesn't change the fact though that the iTMS was designed to be a loss leader to sell iPods.


Lethal

 

[Amdahl]

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?

Why did Palm spoof the ID in the first place? Answer: Because iTunes would only talk to devices with a certain vendor ID. Blocking communication based on vendor ID is also a violation of the USB standard.

The purpose of USB is to be open, and compatible. Any use of the USB spec contrary to that is against the spec. As I've said before, the correct approach is to use special commands in the communication channel with the device to determine if the device seems legitimate, or some kind of encryption key passed through the communication channel. But not USB ID codes.

Are you sure about that? Are you a member of the USB consortium charged with making those assertions? Remember, Apple only blocked unauthorized devices, they didn't block just the Pre. It may have been targeted toward the Pre, but thats because Palm is the only one doing this right now. And for the record, Palm did it first, they spoofed Apple's ID for the iPod - A device that they do not own nor control.

Blocking devices(or allowing certain devices) based on ID is against the spec, same as spoofing IDs. IDs can't be trusted if everyone is running around spoofing everyone else to maintain compatibility. That's the reason for both rules in the USB spec; if everyone follows the first, no one has a reason to violate the 2nd.

That quote is from Pablo Picasso not Steve Jobs.

Like the quote says... great artists....

 

[DELLsFan]

This is like a drug dealer getting ripped off during a drug deal and then calling the cops to report that drugs were stolen from him.

+1

Pretty much, that explains it.

 

[bruinsrme]

Palm has some very senior executives that came from apple.
I am sure they have a little more insight at the underlieing goal they are pushing for. Perhaps when these people were at apple they despised the way apple limited the usage of the USB connection and now they are trying to force them to open it in a round about way.

 

[czachorski]

Why did Palm spoof the ID in the first place? Answer: Because iTunes would only talk to devices with a certain vendor ID. Blocking communication based on vendor ID is also a violation of the USB standard.

The purpose of USB is to be open, and compatible. Any use of the USB spec contrary to that is against the spec. As I've said before, the correct approach is to use special commands in the communication channel with the device to determine if the device seems legitimate, or some kind of encryption key passed through the communication channel. But not USB ID codes.

Blocking devices(or allowing certain devices) based on ID is against the spec, same as spoofing IDs. IDs can't be trusted if everyone is running around spoofing everyone else to maintain compatibility. That's the reason for both rules in the USB spec; if everyone follows the first, no one has a reason to violate the 2nd.

Like the quote says... great artists....

So Apple could just make this go away by doing what so many phone's do - use their own proprietary cable to connect iPods/iPhones to to iTunes.

 

[slapppy]

Palm has become

Palm has become an embarrasment for the technology community. Palm Pre users should be embarrased for supporting Palms backhanded approach to accessing Itunes illegallly.

 

[GamecockMac]

I'm an e-lawyer, blah, blah, blah...ad infinitum

How one person can be so consistently wrong about a subject, post after post, page after page, is amazing to see. Truly mindboggling.

A financial analyst had an actual intelligent take on this whole debacle today:

"While we acknowledge this is a short-term fix, frankly, we would have preferred Palm respond in a more professional and mature fashion," he wrote in a research note. "We do not believe hacking third-party software to work with one's hardware is a viable long-term business model, especially for a publicly traded company."

Sure, this gets Palm in the tech/financial news for a bit, but it certainly doesn't do anything for their overall public image or their balance sheet (Pre sales are reported to be dropping every week). Not sure the risks outweigh the rewards here. It's amazing that every other company that produces a device that accesses iTunes managed to accomplish the feat in an above-board manner provided by Apple, but somehow Palm could not (or would not). Doesn't speak very highly of the braintrust running things there. As a Pre owner I'm not sure I'd appreciate the company who made my phone playing chicken with another corporation, and having to wonder from day to day if my device is going to work the way it was advertised.

 

[Goona]

Why did Palm spoof the ID in the first place? Answer: Because iTunes would only talk to devices with a certain vendor ID. Blocking communication based on vendor ID is also a violation of the USB standard.

The purpose of USB is to be open, and compatible. Any use of the USB spec contrary to that is against the spec. As I've said before, the correct approach is to use special commands in the communication channel with the device to determine if the device seems legitimate, or some kind of encryption key passed through the communication channel. But not USB ID codes.

Blocking devices(or allowing certain devices) based on ID is against the spec, same as spoofing IDs. IDs can't be trusted if everyone is running around spoofing everyone else to maintain compatibility. That's the reason for both rules in the USB spec; if everyone follows the first, no one has a reason to violate the 2nd.


Like the quote says... great artists....

This is bull. So if I buy an HP Printer with HP software, should I expect a Cannon printer to work with the HP software and is HP wrong in not allowing the id of the Cannon not to work with their software.

 

[mddharma]

Now, I don't want to get off to a rant here... but

monopoly |məˈnäpəlē|
noun ( pl. -lies)
1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service : his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.
• [usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something : men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
• a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
• a commodity or service controlled in this way : electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.

As I know their are other suppliers of music (and some at cheaper prices), and other software programs that will catalog and sync your music I don't see how people are saying itunes is a monopoly. It is just a better system. Apple can't be called a monopoly because of this. Success doesn't equal monopoly.

Frankly, I think Palm is a has been and are short changing the people who buy their phone. They should come up with their own system and let the best system win.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[twoodcc]

wow. i don't think palm has a leg to stand on here

 

[PharmD]

Wow, how juvenile of Palm.

 

[legalos808]

so if palm gets their way...

when can I expect to be able to sync my iPhone with the Palm Desktop software? When can my Epson All In One Printer use the HP Control center to scan/copy/fax(or vice/verse)? When will Sony's Media Player or Windows Media player be able to access my iPhone? or Palm's Pre? or Nokia's Phones? or ...

 

[MacAerfen]

I am honestly amazed that Palm is so stupid. They are not even remotely right in their argument even if they were not currently doing something illegal. Apple is in no way blocking USB devices from working properly. Apple has fully implemented the USB standards that allow their OS to recognize USB devices correctly. If you connected your PRE to a Mac and it failed to recognize that device then yes that would be a violation.

As it stands you can connect your Pre to the Mac and use the Pre Software to sync it without Apple getting in the way. The fact that Palm didn't bother to make Pre Software is another story all together. It is not just Palm either. If you plug a Zune into your Mac you could use MS software to sync it. Again Microsoft decided not to make software for the Zune for Mac is their choice. Apple is not blocking anything other than use of one of their products to manage a device. That is well within their right to do so. Just like any other company that develops software. If RIM does not want the Pre accessing it's software they can legitimately use the USB IDs to block that.

All the USB interoperability does is make sure that when you plug a USB device into the computer it A) Identifies the device correctly. B) Does not interfere with that device. iTunes is not interfering with the use of the Pre in any way. Palm can easily create software to sync their device, they just don't want to spend the money and effort doing so.

This is a huge mistake on Palm to try and pull this as it is going to backfire on them.

Palms argument is not valid at all. iTunes does not have to be available to manage their device. There is nothing on the Apple system preventing this device from working with its own software and the customers media. On the Other hand Palm is 100% breaking a very clear rule in that spoofing another companies ID is clearly not allowed in any circumstance.

I really wonder what the people at Palm were smoking when they thought that trying to file a complain like this was a good idea.

Apple seemed pretty content to just leave it at breaking it with updates but something tells me that trying to get Apple in hot water with the USB regulatory group is going to make them take a much different approach on this. In all honesty what Palm has done at this point is pure theft. Apple paid for that USB ID and another company stole it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this doesn't lead to a recall of devices since Apple can not force people to install an update that removes their name from those devices. For those that do not understand USB IDs are as much like company logo's. If Ford decided to ship a batch of vehicles with Ferarri's logos on them so they could enter a car show where they are not allowed it would be no different. Ferrari paid for the copyright of that logo just like Apple paid for the USB ID.