Palm Reports Apple to USB Compliance Organization Over iTunes Syncing Issues

[charlituna]

I might be wrong on this one but I keeps me wondering...
Everybody is complaining at Palm that they should go on and write their own software yet they are paying apple for their OS that was build upon linux...

Anybody could explain?

*Nux is open source. it was made to be used in such ways.

itunes is not open source. and no matter what Apple might be guilty of with their patch, Palm is equally in the wrong for copying another vendors ID codes to make the device work with itunes. something Palm thinks they will be forgiven for.

not unlike Psystar violating DCMA to make OS X work on their machines and then hoping to get out of it by first claiming anti-trust (over ruled), then invalid copyright and patent registrations (over ruled) and this last time by the old "EULAs are illegal" (yet to be decided).

the move Palm should have pulled was to keep their mouths shut and filed a complaint against Apple in the first place. and then when they won, they could do what they wanted

 

[charlituna]

Facts:
1. Apple originally blocked the Palm's Pre device by their USB's VID which is the original mistake from Apple and the reason why Pre reported it to the USB Implementers board.

correction: Apple created an update that required itunes to check that the device in question had the Apple Vendor ID on it in order to use the syncing features of the software.

Palm countered by updating their firmware to send itunes the Apple, not Palm, Vendor ID

 

[charlituna]

But, iTunes WAS NOT written for third party players, AND THUS WILL NOT, CAN NOT OR DOES NOT support every MP3 player NATIVELY (read the last part over and over its very important). iTunes was written to support only the above mentioned devices.

in the interest of accuracy, you are wrong.

itunes 1.0 was in fact not tied to any devices. itunes 2.0 was for the ipod and select licensed devices.

somewhere around 4.0 yes they did drop all non ipods.

so the statement should be 'itunes is no longer written to support every player natively'

 

[smadpr]

correction: Apple created an update that required itunes to check that the device in question had the Apple Vendor ID on it in order to use the syncing features of the software.

Palm countered by updating their firmware to send itunes the Apple, not Palm, Vendor ID

Ok...thanks for pulling me back.... and what is the correction??

 

[smadpr]

And the trolls just keep coming...

I wish people had better things to say rather than just moaning....

 

[GamecockMac]

I wish people had better things to say rather than just moaning....

So you're expecting more from others than you are willing to do yourself. Very noble.

And I'm confused, didn't you say "bye now" a few posts back? Can't live up to your own words?

 

[smadpr]

So you're expecting more from others than you are willing to do yourself. Very noble.

And I'm confused, didn't you say "bye now" a few posts back? Can't live up to your own words?

Good! you know you dont make sense! BTW, read my previous one... I was pulled back!

 

[*LTD*]

I'm not sure what you'd describe yourself as Goona. Just a quick search shows that you've devoted 271 posts mentioning the pre and 237 mentioning palm. It's like a personal vendetta for you. What is it about the palm and pre that gets you so motivated?

Are there any other tech products that you devote so much time to posting against on the internet?

Apparently what gets him so motivated is Palm making news by violating agreements, spoofing IDs, and behaving like they work out of someone's garage. And as for the rest of the time, Palm has been in the tech news a lot lately, and it hasn't all been due to anything positive they've done.

Can't say I blame Goona for addressing the issues. And month to month there's a new "hot topic" to be discussed. This is the natural ebb and flow of the forums.

 

[Hugh]

Why is this still a debate?

Why are people still debating who is right (Apple or Palm). Right now I would say it's Apple. Palm is faking the Pre in making it look like a iPod in iTunes. The last time I checked it's a phone made by Palm, I could be wrong on that one. 🙄

Those that are trying to explain how Palm should have gone about syncing their phone is falling on deaf ears. The people that support Palm, aren't bothering to read them or just ignoring the messages. There is a correct way this can be done, and that is though XML.

Now some people will say: "Why should Palm make up a media player?"

They don't need to, they just need to make a front end to access the XML file. It's as easy as that. Other venders are doing it, why can Palm. After all they have all those Apple employees. If they can make the Pre look like an iPod with an Apple ID, would think they could come up with a front end and avoid this altogether. 😕


Hugh

 

[GamecockMac]

Good! you know you dont make sense! BTW, read my previous one... I was pulled back!

You said "bye now" and then claim you were "pulled back"? Um, by what? Do you have a psychic link with this forum? Who isn't making sense now? Fact is, you LIED. You never left in the first place after you got spanked by numerous posts a page or so back, you just decided to slink away and lurk for a bit.

Now I'm finished feeding this troll who hasn't added anything of intelligence in a single one of their posts. I hope the rest of you will ignore the troll as well and perhaps it truly will just go away.

 

[alawatsakima]

Except the platform it's designed for.

Like I care how it works on Windows. That's Apple's problem, and it looks like it's working out just fine. Let someone come up with a better solution if it's unsatisfactory. All have failed thus far.

Amarok has more features, a better interface, supports more devices, and is more stable and usable than iTunes. Everyone I have ever shown Amarok to not only preferred it over iTunes, but preferred it by enough of a margin to justify switching to Linux. If people would open their minds to alternitive OS's just a little, I could easily see Amarok dominating the music management catagory.

Furthermore, once they finish porting it to MacOS and Windows, it may have it's chance anyway.

Although, Apple purposely blocking them won't help the cause any...

 

[alawatsakima]

But you're not locked into iTunes. Does Apple encrypt the library so you can't find the files? No. In fact, you can make a playlist in iTunes for your Pre (or whatever other player you want), and drag and drop the files right into the device (assuming it supports drag and drop).

It is true that you can access your library on your computer with any software... But try choosing a different piece of software to sync with your iphone; Apple DOES encrypt that library.

 

[Etnies419]

It is true that you can access your library on your computer with any software... But try choosing a different piece of software to sync with your iphone; Apple DOES encrypt that library.

Not the XML file. The file that it puts out for the sole purpose of other programs reading the library.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

in the interest of accuracy, you are wrong.

itunes 1.0 was in fact not tied to any devices. itunes 2.0 was for the ipod and select licensed devices.

somewhere around 4.0 yes they did drop all non ipods.

so the statement should be 'itunes is no longer written to support every player natively'

What?

iTunes 1.0 Could not sync to any devices; it didn't have syncing capability.

iTunes 2.0 was introduced with the first iPod.

None of the versions, from 2.0 - 4.0 or whatever were designed to sync with ALL MP3 players natively. The only players that were supported were:

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/S3

So the statement is, as I put it, iTunes was never designed to sync EVERY MP3 player out there. It was only designed to sync the iPod, iTunes, and the devices listed above.

 

[alawatsakima]

Originally Posted by D4F View Post
I might be wrong on this one but I keeps me wondering...
Everybody is complaining at Palm that they should go on and write their own software yet they are paying apple for their OS that was build upon linux...

Anybody could explain?

OS X isn't built on Linux, it is built on a family of open-source standards and is now certified UNIX 03.

Apple uses this as a base to add their OWN customization and features.

Palm is taking a product Apple made to help sell hardware and is purposely misleading the computer to think the Pre is an iPod. They do this to avoid doing any real work themselves and that is weak sauce.

They are completely different.

Furthermore, OS X is built using BSD, NOT linux. BSD and Linux are both Unix like, but otherwise not at all similar.

 

[alawatsakima]

Sorry man. You want iTunes syncing, you get an iPod/iPhone. If you don't then get something else. How hard is it to understand this. Amazon, Napster and all those other lame online music stores would love your business.

I'm going to bitch to my local Cadillac Dealer for not having a number of mercedes-exclusive features on my ride, and if Mercedes refuses to "share" and Cadillac says they can't do it for cost reasons i'm going to yell "MONOPOLY" and "ANTI-TRUST" and "CONSUMER CHOICE" and..hrm..what else..."FREEDOM"..."LITIGATION"..."CHANGE" and probably another "MONOPOLY".

I've never met such a whiney bunch of self-entitled "I want it now!" people in my life.

True, but in this case, there is no amount of money that could purchase me the freedoms of those Mercedes exclusive features...

 

[*LTD*]

Amarok has more features, a better interface, supports more devices, and is more stable and usable than iTunes. Everyone I have ever shown Amarok to not only preferred it over iTunes, but preferred it by enough of a margin to justify switching to Linux. If people would open their minds to alternitive OS's just a little, I could easily see Amarok dominating the music management catagory.

Furthermore, once they finish porting it to MacOS and Windows, it may have it's chance anyway.

Although, Apple purposely blocking them won't help the cause any...

I'm all for it. Why not? I used to use AmaroK back around 2005 or so when I used Linux for a while. I was impressed with it. I haven't used it lately but Im sure it has come a long way. Let the devs write a native OS X version and have at it. But it has to be good, and it has to offer all the services iTunes currently offers, including the Music Store, App store, and everything else.

We need to remember that Apple will keep pushing its own software. At this point, I don't see enough demand among the general user base for anything other than iTunes. We're not seeing a Firefox vs. IE situation here. Apple might be "locking out" competitors (they have a right to), but at the same time we're not really up in arms over it because iTunes seems to provide a good experience for the most part, and at this point it's the one-stop-shop for everything, which is the real trend here: all your media, shopping, syncing services rolled into one app. That's the real advantage and that's the name of the game now. It's what the average user is looking for: one simple conduit for a variety of services with a usable interface.

 

[Treq]

True, but in this case, there is no amount of money that could purchase me the freedoms of those Mercedes exclusive features...

Except buying a Mercedes (iPod/iPhone)...

 

[dbo789]

I'm not a mactard, nor a blind, mindless, apple fanboy. However, I agree with Apple on this one. Apple made the software, and for that reason, they should have any and all rights to decide what devices connect with that software, for any reason they like. It may not make sense to the normal consumer, but it is Apple's right. Its the same policy as them making the App Store, and having rights over what apps are published on it.

Secondly, I disagree with Palm trying to pander what they're doing off as "we think this is the way it should be." They are obviously, as has been stated before, breaking the rules of the USB consortium. However, the fact that they disagree with those rules doesn't give them the right to break them. I can't drive drunk one night just because I disagree with the law saying I'm not allowed to drive my car intoxicated. If Palm really had an issue, they should have filed a complaint before trying to crack Apples code, or God forbid, maybe PAY apple for the right to sync with their software. All this is is one company trying to ride of the success of another for free. Honestly, I've lost all respect for Palm as a company.

I hope the USB consortium revokes Palms license and makes them have to sync their devices by firewire only or something. Sweet, sweet, revenge.

 

[GamecockMac]

I'm all for it. Why not? I used to use AmaroK back around 2005 or so when I used Linux for a while. I was impressed with it. I haven't used it lately but Im sure it has come a long way. Let the devs write a native OS X version and have at it. But it has to be good, and it has to offer all the services iTunes currently offers, including the Music Store, App store, and everything else.

We need to remember that Apple will keep pushing its own software. At this point, I don't see enough demand among the general user base for anything other than iTunes. We're not seeing a Firefox vs. IE situation here. Apple might be "locking out" competitors (they have a right to), but at the same time we're not really up in arms over it because iTunes seems to provide a good experience for the most part, and at this point it's the one-stop-shop for everything, which is the real trend here: all your media, shopping, syncing services rolled into one app. That's the real advantage and that's the name of the game now. It's what the average user is looking for: one simple conduit for a variety of services with a usable interface.

That's well said except for one point...Apple never has to grant third-party software seeking to replace iTunes access to the Music, Movie or App Stores. Those are paid for by Apple, hosted on Apple server farms, and subject to licensing agreements between Apple and the various music labels, movie studios and app developers.

So it's fine for software developers to offer alternatives to iTunes as music/media organization and jukebox software, but people shouldn't expect to get all the other features that are provided by iTunes (just because they "want" them or feel entitled to them).

 

[alawatsakima]

Sorry; you fail on a technical level. I'll go slow.

iTunes is not blocking the pre. Why?

Because iTunes ONLY supports iPods/iPhone/Select Licensed Devices.

You are arguing as if iTunes supports EVERY MP3 player out there and if this was the case, specifically blocking the Pre would have a basis for anti-trust activities.

But, iTunes WAS NOT written for third party players, AND THUS WILL NOT, CAN NOT OR DOES NOT support every MP3 player NATIVELY (read the last part over and over its very important). iTunes was written to support only the above mentioned devices.

The pre pretends to be an iPod and appears to iTunes as an iPod. Users will end up believe that this is an APPLE APPROVED iTunes supported devices, of which it is not!

If the pre destroyed the iTunes library, pre customers would call up Apple and ask what the heck is going on!

There are inherent security risks that come with the Pre interfacing with iTunes on a device-supported level that would not be present if they had just gone the proper way and went XML style.

Clearly you cannot understand this, but Apple sure does.

I agree with you... But it's not THAT they blocked it that is pissing off Palm in this case (Although they would probably be pissed either way...). What they are complaining about is HOW they blocked it. USB rules say you cannot explicitly block another USB Vender ID. (We will see if this argument stands up in practice, but that is the argument here.)

With that said, Apple could still block all devices not apple by checking for the device serial number, or presumably any number of other things. Just keep in mind this is an argument for the benefit of USB compliance, not Apple's actually blockage.

 

[alawatsakima]

What?

iTunes 1.0 Could not sync to any devices; it didn't have syncing capability.

iTunes 2.0 was introduced with the first iPod.

None of the versions, from 2.0 - 4.0 or whatever were designed to sync with ALL MP3 players natively. The only players that were supported were:

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/S3

So the statement is, as I put it, iTunes was never designed to sync EVERY MP3 player out there. It was only designed to sync the iPod, iTunes, and the devices listed above.

And that is fair and true... As long as Apple doesn't BLOCK others souly based on their VIDs.

Let me try this on for size: Apple can support, or not, any player they want. But if they don't want to support one, they don't have the privilege, under the agreements they signed with the USB consortium, to simply block everything else based on USB VIDs. THEREFORE, if Palm wants to choose to support the transfer protocols, Apple has to find SOME OTHER way to block it. That is the debate here, not weather or not Apple CAN block the Pre.

 

[LagunaSol]

THEREFORE, if Palm wants to choose to support the transfer protocols,

By spoofing an Apple device ID?

 

[alawatsakima]

I'm all for it. Why not? I used to use AmaroK back around 2005 or so when I used Linux for a while. I was impressed with it. I haven't used it lately but Im sure it has come a long way. Let the devs write a native OS X version and have at it. But it has to be good, and it has to offer all the services iTunes currently offers, including the Music Store, App store, and everything else.

We need to remember that Apple will keep pushing its own software. At this point, I don't see enough demand among the general user base for anything other than iTunes. We're not seeing a Firefox vs. IE situation here. Apple might be "locking out" competitors (they have a right to), but at the same time we're not really up in arms over it because iTunes seems to provide a good experience for the most part, and at this point it's the one-stop-shop for everything, which is the real trend here: all your media, shopping, syncing services rolled into one app. That's the real advantage and that's the name of the game now. It's what the average user is looking for: one simple conduit for a variety of services with a usable interface.

Well played, and I agree. While Amarok does plug it's self into 2 different music stores, they are not, even combined, worth comparing to the iTunes music store in terms of variety of music. If they added Amazon, they might get closer, but that's a ways off. Therefore, your right that the iTMS is better.

And until Amarok is stable on the mac, and has a better music store, no one will be crying to Apple loud enough for them to hear.

That does not, however, make it right for Apple to block us. I only hope that Amarok one day DOES get a bit of a foothold so the users can have a loud enough voice to get Apple to stop taking our freedoms away.

 

[nerdygirl85]

I really gotta know...

Not the XML file. The file that it puts out for the sole purpose of other programs reading the library.

Ive been reading through this whole message thread... and then this?! WTF are you talking about... I HAVE TO KNOW. 😕

Or are you just trolling? since it seems like there are a few on here...