do you know what a monopoly is? you just gave an example of another piece of software that people can use to sync their pre with...
you killed your point before you even made it.
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
do you know what a monopoly is? you just gave an example of another piece of software that people can use to sync their pre with...
you killed your point before you even made it.
They were pretty much a monopoly in digital music and devices at one stage. Thankfully they are losing market share with the successful launch of Amazon MP3 and a range of new devices. And the record labels have done a great job starting to slice iTunes down in size too, which was always their aim.
The iPod will die a slow painful death. iPhone is replacing it to some extent, but the costly mobile contracts will prevent it from ever getting close to giving them marketshare the old ipod players did.
So it will get harder to argue Apple has a monopoly in this space as time goes on.
And that is what happens to monopolies on the open market.
Look, there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. It's when the company uses its position to force the hand of would-be competitors. As evidenced by the Amazon mp3 store, Zune marketplace, Walmart music, and every other music store that is thriving, Apple is not trying to force out competition.
Going DRM-free was just another step in that direction. If Apple had gone the opposite direction, more DRM, ensuring that you could only use your purchases on an iPod and approved computer, with no way to make a CD and rip it without DRM - then they would be abusing their market power.
I also still fail to see how Apple violated any USB compliance standard. Does this standard mean that no matter what device I plug into my computer with a USB cable, that all software should automatically be compatible with it? Get real people. This is an absolute joke. Whats next? A civil suit by Palm against Apple for closing the loophole with Itunes that they were using as a selling point for the Pre?
That's essentially what they are saying. For example if i plug in my HP printer, iTunes should recognize it. These guys at Palm sound as clueless as Psystar, at least we can forgive them for being a two bit shop but a company like Palm.
From pages 1 - 12
I suspect that it will. And Apple's approach of avoiding lawsuits upfront will help them with the battle of public opinion: Apple can now file a lawsuit that is in response to Palm's provocations ... and thus avoid being called the Bully.
Welcome aboard ... and I agree: its a pretty slimy action on Palm's part to spoof another vendor's hardware product.
I'm sure that someone can find the relevant section of the iTunes ELUA that addresses the use of only 'authorized' hardware devices.
There's several intertwined issues here (and in many other posts)
The first is that because the iTunes server farm isn't free, the question is if the benefit to Apple is "worth it" ... when not making any profit on the hardware (iPod sale). Its not a question of if iTMS is profitable "yes/no", but is a question of the relative level of profitability between identifiable segments, and if it is "fair" for the seller to have to give up their more profitable of the two.
The second is that Palm could have simply bought a license from Apple to synch (and otherwise support) their non-Apple hardware. While Apple is sure to have said "No Thanks" to such offers, all stock-held businesses eventually has a price: Palm simply never made a high enough offer.
To simplify these two basic points, it is up to Apple to decide how much profit they believe is in the best interest of their stockholders for having iTunes support non-Apple hardware...and its up to Palm to have paid for that, if they wanted to avoid legal liabilities.
Not quite: iTunes incurs no dollar charge...but it does have a "cost", which is contained within the terms of its ELUA.
Openness is good, but only when the participants play fair.
Exactly. Palm is exploiting the product/ecosystem without a fair & reasonable recompense.
Its also interesting how people have overlooked this basic element of business when we just so recently heard of Apple's plans to spend $1B for a new server farm in North Carolina...with principle & interest, that's going to add easily ~$60M in new operating expenses per fiscal quarter, every quarter, for the next 5 years...and that represents roughly 15% of the current gross revenues.
True, but that great ecosystem won't be able to continue to exist without a viable business model, and having freeloaders who don't really contribute is a sure way to kill it off.
-hh
I suspect that it will. And Apple's approach of avoiding lawsuits upfront will help them with the battle of public opinion: Apple can now file a lawsuit that is in response to Palm's provocations ... and thus avoid being called the Bully.
Welcome aboard ... and I agree: its a pretty slimy action on Palm's part to spoof another vendor's hardware product.
I'm sure that someone can find the relevant section of the iTunes ELUA that addresses the use of only 'authorized' hardware devices.
There's several intertwined issues here (and in many other posts)
The first is that because the iTunes server farm isn't free, the question is if the benefit to Apple is "worth it" ... when not making any profit on the hardware (iPod sale). Its not a question of if iTMS is profitable "yes/no", but is a question of the relative level of profitability between identifiable segments, and if it is "fair" for the seller to have to give up their more profitable of the two.
The second is that Palm could have simply bought a license from Apple to synch (and otherwise support) their non-Apple hardware. While Apple is sure to have said "No Thanks" to such offers, all stock-held businesses eventually has a price: Palm simply never made a high enough offer.
To simplify these two basic points, it is up to Apple to decide how much profit they believe is in the best interest of their stockholders for having iTunes support non-Apple hardware...and its up to Palm to have paid for that, if they wanted to avoid legal liabilities.
iTunes is free...
Not quite: iTunes incurs no dollar charge...but it does have a "cost", which is contained within the terms of its ELUA.
Openness is good, but only when the participants play fair.
Exactly. Palm is exploiting the product/ecosystem without a fair & reasonable recompense.
Its also interesting how people have overlooked this basic element of business when we just so recently heard of Apple's plans to spend $1B for a new server farm in North Carolina...with principle & interest, that's going to add easily ~$60M in new operating expenses per fiscal quarter, every quarter, for the next 5 years...and that represents roughly 15% of the current gross revenues.
True, but that great ecosystem won't be able to continue to exist without a viable business model, and having freeloaders who don't really contribute is a sure way to kill it off.
-hh
I'm a newbie and wanted to post a couple thoughts
Have enjoyed everyone's opinion. . . .
If Palm is allowed to connect, and supposedly others would join in any loophole not closed by Apple, would Apple be sued at a later date if the loophole got closed? Even unsupported expliots could be a problem later on.
My take is that very soon, all iPods/iTouches/iPhones are going to get a firmware update. Follow that with a new version of iTunes and Wham-O, all Palm syncing will cease. The engineering team of new-Palm/old-Apple is dealing with legacy knowledge of iTunes/iPod ecosystems. Change that and the usefulness of the integration is lost.
Have enjoyed everyone's opinion. . . .
If Palm is allowed to connect, and supposedly others would join in any loophole not closed by Apple, would Apple be sued at a later date if the loophole got closed? Even unsupported expliots could be a problem later on.
My take is that very soon, all iPods/iTouches/iPhones are going to get a firmware update. Follow that with a new version of iTunes and Wham-O, all Palm syncing will cease. The engineering team of new-Palm/old-Apple is dealing with legacy knowledge of iTunes/iPod ecosystems. Change that and the usefulness of the integration is lost.
Defending army? Microsuckz? Hardware norms held by Apple?
You got some serious issues my friend.
Market Share
Which is a shame if this is the position as this provides a better stance for the labels in negotiating pricing which would undoubtedly head upwards. Greater Apple market share would work in favour of the consumer and not the labels. So as I consumer I would be concerned about "thankfully losing market share"!
Which is a shame if this is the position as this provides a better stance for the labels in negotiating pricing which would undoubtedly head upwards. Greater Apple market share would work in favour of the consumer and not the labels. So as I consumer I would be concerned about "thankfully losing market share"!
Apples and oranges. Nobody is saying iTunes should be built to support any device connected to your computer. What they're saying is that the Pre WORKS with an UNMODIFIED copy of iTunes, so Apple shouldn't be blocking access.
They still falsely identify the pre as an apple device, can no one see the immorality in lying like that to get this feature they could do so many other ways?
Of course they should. And palm is kinda stupid for relying on a competitor's software for sync support. Especially if they are going to antagonize them and go around their backs. That is not good business.
Yeah I'd like to know too, nothing has seemed to evidence that syncing with the Pre would damage the iTunes library.
They have reverse engineered private and undocumented APIs to perform a sync. Who says they got it 100% correct? Apple may make a legitimate, small change that causes the Pre to send data to the wrong place in the iTunes database.
By verifying that a device is an iPod, developers can make certain assumptions about the device. Verified devices have a higher level of trust within an application. That is why Apple provides separate, public, documented APIs that third parties can access to facilitate a sync.
Such an elegant explanation.
And since I haven't posted it in a while:
Caption: Palm is wrong.
Courtesy DVD Jon