Palm Reports Apple to USB Compliance Organization Over iTunes Syncing Issues

[stone315]

Please try and come up with a better argument. iTunes is not a monopoly in any way shape or form. Saying iTunes is a monopoly is like saying XBox live is a monopoly because you can buy stuff off of it and it only runs on XBox.

As far as firefox goes firefox doesn't pay anything to Microsoft. Writing software for windows is free. Purchasing device ID's for usb products is not free.

Firefox could easily block "competing websites" but no one would use firefox.

If iTunes blocking a palm bothers you so much dont use iTunes.

True, I'm coming off the heels of an argument over Google Voice and the App Store, and I've still got the "Apple is currently being an evil monopoly" theme running through my head.

My opposition to Apple's policies in regards to the Pre is mostly philosophical, as I don't believe there is a strong legal justification for my position. I'm just a strong advocate of software being able to do whatever the user wants it to do. Apologies for not making that clearer in my first post.

 

[stone315]

Wouldn't mind at all - I would simply opt not to use Firefox - there are other browsers available. Besides, nothing is preventing Palm from building their own iTunes solution. Palm has no entitlement to Apple's solution, especially now, since they insisted on interfacing iTunes by intentional subterfuge, emulating an iPhone/iPod Touch without an agreement, in addition to effectively infringing upon Apple's multi-touch patented designs and functionality. Dirty competitors need not be considered - RIM certainly seems to have worked out an iTunes agreement.

I see your point, but mine was that iTunes is the current dominant application in it's market. Palm recognizes that, and instead of forcing their customers to use an application they're not familiar with, Palm is trying to allow them to continue to use the software they know and are comfortable with in order to ease the transition into using a Pre. I personally think that is an admirable decision for a company to make, but you are right in stating that they don't have a legal basis to do so. On the other hand, not all of Palm's motivations here are selfless. They recognize that they cannot compete with iTunes (since even Microsoft couldn't), and are trying to adapt. It's a good business decision either way you look at it. Which is why Apple is trying to shut it down, of course. Each company is making a smart decision, I'm just a fan of the open source/free software mentality.

 

[stone315]

For the love of god a monopoly in and of itself is *not*, I repeat, *not* illegal in the US and being a market leader does not equate to being a monopoly.


Lethal

Not according to the Sherman Act. Unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly?

EDIT: It's also mildly irrelevant to the discussion as I've conceded your second point.

 

[DMann]

I see your point, but mine was that iTunes is the current dominant application in it's market. Palm recognizes that, and instead of forcing their customers to use an application they're not familiar with, Palm is trying to allow them to continue to use the software they know and are comfortable with in order to ease the transition into using a Pre. I personally think that is an admirable decision for a company to make, but you are right in stating that they don't have a legal basis to do so. On the other hand, not all of Palm's motivations here are selfless. They recognize that they cannot compete with iTunes (since even Microsoft couldn't), and are trying to adapt. It's a good business decision either way you look at it. Which is why Apple is trying to shut it down, of course. They're both making the smart decision for their company, I'm just a fan of the open source/free software mentality.

For this scenario to have worked, Palm would have payed licensing fees to lawfully connect and sync to iTunes with Apple's approval. Instead, Palm chose not to approach Apple for licensing, and instead, violated USB implementation rules by hacking Apple's vendor ID. This was not a smart decision on Palm's part, to say the least, and on top of that, Palm is crying 'unfair' after having thrown a rock through the storefront window. If this is Jon Rubenstein's idea of running a viable business, it ain't working.

 

[stone315]

For this scenario to have worked, Palm would have payed licensing fees to lawfully connect and sync to iTunes with Apple's approval. Instead, Palm chose not to approach Apple for licensing, and instead, violated USB implementation rules by hacking Apple's vendor ID. This was not a smart decision on Palm's part, to say the least, and on top of that, Palm is crying 'unfair' after having thrown a rock through the storefront window. If this is Jon Rubenstein's idea of running a viable business, it ain't working.

I see. I wasn't aware that Apple offered methods for other vendors to connect with iTunes legally and in compliance with Apple's policies. Apologies for not doing my research. With that option available to them, I definitely agree with you that Palm is making a poor decision of questionable legality. I mean, doing it without paying Apple is more profitable, but there are these tiny little things called laws. It's kind of like trying to avoid paying taxes with the argument that it's more profitable for your business to not pay them. Doesn't really hold up well in court.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Not according to the Sherman Act. Unless I'm interpreting it incorrectly?

EDIT: It's also mildly irrelevant to the discussion as I've conceded your second point.

The law makes a distinction between a monopoly that happened 'naturally' in the market place and an illegal monopoly that was created and/or maintained w/illegal, anti-competitive practices. For example, MS having 95% of the OS desktop market years ago did not get them in trouble w/the feds. MS using it's market power to leverage an unfair advantage over it's competition (ex. dictating what software PC makers would factory install on their computers if they wanted to remain in MS's good graces) is what got them in trouble w/the feds.

Lethal

 

[stone315]

The law makes a distinction between a monopoly that happened 'naturally' in the market place and an illegal monopoly that was created and/or maintained w/illegal, anti-competitive practices. For example, MS having 95% of the OS desktop market years ago did not get them in trouble w/the feds. MS using it's market power to leverage an unfair advantage over it's competition (ex. dictating what software PC makers would factory install on their computers if they wanted to remain in MS's good graces) is what got them in trouble w/the feds.

Lethal

I did not realize that. Thanks a lot for the clarification.

 

[gnasher729]

For this scenario to have worked, Palm would have payed licensing fees to lawfully connect and sync to iTunes with Apple's approval. Instead, Palm chose not to approach Apple for licensing, and instead, violated USB implementation rules by hacking Apple's vendor ID. This was not a smart decision on Palm's part, to say the least, and on top of that, Palm is crying 'unfair' after having thrown a rock through the storefront window. If this is Jon Rubenstein's idea of running a viable business, it ain't working.

Palm is absolutely free to let their customers use iTunes to sync to the Palm Pre. Apple is also absolutely free to stop them doing this. The only thing that Palm is _not_ allowed to do by its USB license is create a device that _claims_ to be an iPod when it isn't. Complaining that Apple should not "discriminate" against Palm's vendor ID is childish; Apple doesn't reject these devices because the vendor ID is "Palm", it rejects them because it detected something that it is not an iPod, even though it claimed it is.

I see your point, but mine was that iTunes is the current dominant application in it's market.

What about Windows Media Player? _That_ application is on every single PC shipping with Windows; iTunes is only there if a person downloaded it specifically or got a copy with their iPod. And since many people downloaded iTunes _specifically_ to sync to an iPod or iPhone, someone who avoids Apple products and bought a Pre instead is much less likely to have them.

 

[DMann]

Palm is absolutely free to let their customers use iTunes to sync to the Palm Pre. Apple is also absolutely free to stop them doing this.

Yes, hence Palm's avoidance in approaching Apple to negotiate an agreement, and then purchasing their very own USB license to do so.

The only thing that Palm is _not_ allowed to do by its USB license is create a device that _claims_ to be an iPod when it isn't. Complaining that Apple should not "discriminate" against Palm's vendor ID is childish; Apple doesn't reject these devices because the vendor ID is "Palm", it rejects them because it detected something that it is not an iPod, even though it claimed it is.

Agreed, masquerading as an iPod or iPod Touch to bypass obtaining a USB license is far from ethical, especially since Apple actually paid for the license. Complaining about it only draws more attention to the true source of the entanglement, which does not reflect well for Palm.

 

[chrono1081]

For this scenario to have worked, Palm would have payed licensing fees to lawfully connect and sync to iTunes with Apple's approval. Instead, Palm chose not to approach Apple for licensing, and instead, violated USB implementation rules by hacking Apple's vendor ID. This was not a smart decision on Palm's part, to say the least, and on top of that, Palm is crying 'unfair' after having thrown a rock through the storefront window. If this is Jon Rubenstein's idea of running a viable business, it ain't working.

I really think Palm missed the chance to innovate here. There are a lot of people out there who like palms despite palm sales declining rapidly in recent years. Back when PDA's were more popular we always sold palm OS over pocket PC because thats what people wanted.

If Palm would bring out a series of smartphones similar to blackberry and create a whole application to run around it (like blackberry has blackberry desktop manager or whatever its called) and apple has itunes, palm could have their own software which is compatible with older generations of palms as well as newer.

 

[LethalWolfe]

If Palm would bring out a series of smartphones similar to blackberry and create a whole application to run around it (like blackberry has blackberry desktop manager or whatever its called) and apple has itunes, palm could have their own software which is compatible with older generations of palms as well as newer.

I haven't really followed Palm so this is just my speculation so hopefully I'm not totally uninformed here. Palm has desktop software for management called Palm Desktop but it only works w/PalmOS (not the new WebOS that's going to be in Palm devices from now on). A reason I don't think Palm created a new desktop manager is because the angle they are trying to take is to move beyond being 'tethered' to a machine and for people's contact management to take place 'in the cloud.' Which seems like a solid approach considering all the social networking sites out there, but I don't know if the marketplace is ready for such a shift (or if Palm can hang around long enough until it is). Another reason might just be that Palm didn't have enough time to make one. I really think the Pre got released before Palm would've liked because of their contract w/Sprint for limited exclusivity. Sprint wants to milk Pre exclusivity as much as they can before the phone goes to Verizon in early 2010.

W/the Pre and WebOS Palm is doing something akin to Apple switching from OS 9 to OS 10 while at the same time switching from PPC to Intel based machines. Big, risky move but if Palm can pull it off they'll have a solid, legacy-free foundation to work from and a chance to be relevant again. The sheer amount of change Palm is trying to do in such a short amount of time makes it even more impressive to me that the Pre has widely been reviewed to be a closer competitor to the iPhone than the Android or Blackberry offerings currently available.


Lethal

 

[CQd44]

For people mentioning how WMP is installed on every Windows machine by default, I do believe that's what got Microsoft in trouble in Europe. Along with the inclusion of IE.

Also, while I understand WHY Palm did this (they recognize that a LOT of people use iTunes and would rather use that than their own syncing software) they went about it in the wrong way. I'm surprised they haven't found other ways to trick iTunes, but I wouldn't know of any.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Also, while I understand WHY Palm did this (they recognize that a LOT of people use iTunes and would rather use that than their own syncing software) they went about it in the wrong way. I'm surprised they haven't found other ways to trick iTunes, but I wouldn't know of any.

That's the thing, you don't need to trick iTunes as the info is just sitting there for the taking. This is how non-Apple software allows non-Apple devices to sync to iTunes.


Lethal

 

[diamond.g]

That's the thing, you don't need to trick iTunes as the info is just sitting there for the taking. This is how non-Apple software allows non-Apple devices to sync to iTunes.


Lethal

It seems like Palm was just trying to "look out for the customer" by allowing the customer to not have to install 3rd party software to sync with iTunes. The intent was good, the execution was poor.

 

[kkelley0171]

Palm and Zune

Hey Palm why doesn't your Pre sync with Zune Desktop, why aren't you reporting Microsoft to the USB group.

Oh my gosh - too funny! You are right and I agree with another poster - that Palm feels it won't succeed if they don't have the ability to link with iTunes. I mean seriously - if you can't do it - then go another route.

 

[CQd44]

It seems like Palm was just trying to "look out for the customer" by allowing the customer to not have to install 3rd party software to sync with iTunes. The intent was good, the execution was poor.

I agree with this completely.

This brings to mind a certain saying...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[Treq]

I haven't really followed Palm so this is just my speculation so hopefully I'm not totally uninformed here. Palm has desktop software for management called Palm Desktop but it only works w/PalmOS (not the new WebOS that's going to be in Palm devices from now on). A reason I don't think Palm created a new desktop manager is because the angle they are trying to take is to move beyond being 'tethered' to a machine and for people's contact management to take place 'in the cloud.' Which seems like a solid approach considering all the social networking sites out there, but I don't know if the marketplace is ready for such a shift (or if Palm can hang around long enough until it is). Another reason might just be that Palm didn't have enough time to make one. I really think the Pre got released before Palm would've liked because of their contract w/Sprint for limited exclusivity. Sprint wants to milk Pre exclusivity as much as they can before the phone goes to Verizon in early 2010.

W/the Pre and WebOS Palm is doing something akin to Apple switching from OS 9 to OS 10 while at the same time switching from PPC to Intel based machines. Big, risky move but if Palm can pull it off they'll have a solid, legacy-free foundation to work from and a chance to be relevant again. The sheer amount of change Palm is trying to do in such a short amount of time makes it even more impressive to me that the Pre has widely been reviewed to be a closer competitor to the iPhone than the Android or Blackberry offerings currently available.


Lethal

Any good programer could have banged an app out in a day. Give it a couple weeks for testing and tweaking. Done. Sure it would have a few bugs but they would have fixed it with an update, which they were going to do anyway when apple disabled their hack. It is just plain stupid for Palm to advertise a feature that relies on a competitor to support it. Especially stupid when you consider that, not only didn't they have that competitor's permission, but they antagonized them on top of it. Wow! Dumb. Palm is being seriously mismanaged.

 

[*LTD*]

iTunes is not a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly. Nor has there been any abusive practices going on with respect to Apple's iTunes business.

There have already been rulings about this in the US. The issue has already been brought up in the Psystar case too, and struck down by Judge Alsup.

So you can all drop the Apple-monopoly nonsense. If you want some sort of a further, formal trial on the matter, write a letter to your local political rep or whatever. Otherwise, please leave it out of the debate because it'll get you nowhere.

Wishing Apple/iTunes were a monopoly or some sort of abusive, anti-competitive entity doesn't make it so.

 

[DMann]

Wishing Apple/iTunes were a monopoly or some sort of abusive, anti-competitive entity doesn't make it so.

You've summed the whole thing up quite well!

 

[slashjunior]

Palm are wrong on this one. Like others have pointed out, Apple when they first acquired with iTunes started with nothing. They have since put millions of dollars into developing iTunes into what it is today. People argue it is a monopoly but at the end of the day most people decided to buy iPods and use iTunes even though at the time players like Winamp and alternatives like Windows Media Player and foobar2000 existed. Apple has built up an eco system and cleverly integrated other stuff like the App Store and the iPhone making the iTunes platform reasonably future-proof.

I can understand why Palm would piggyback iTunes, it has a huge user base already there. If it wants to do that then it should go make a deal with Apple for the privilege and maybe give Apple some $ towards development of iTunes.

If Palm can't do that then they will have to go and do their own software which Apple cannot and should not block from OS X. Competition is good and I know Palm are a struggling company, but they shouldn't be able to jump on Apple's success free of charge. Phone companies just have to accept that development doesn't just stop at the phone itself but the whole eco system surrounding it. Luckily for Apple they had a huge asset with iTunes and was able to build the App Store and linking the iPhone with iTunes very quickly. No one has that full eco-system yet.

 

[kdarling]

A note to those talking about Palm "violating their USB license"...

There is no license required to make a USB compatible device. There are tons of USB gizmos and boards out there with nobody looking over their shoulder. I can make one, anyone can.

When we talk about a USB license, we mean two things:

1) Being able to use the USB Implementor's Forum trademarked USB logos.
2) Applying for a USB IF sanctioned id.

These are voluntary things.

If Palm never applied for a USB IF license or id, then they haven't violated anything.

 

[revbarabbas]

That still doesn't make it a hack. It may not be "legit", but its not a hack.

And what would you define as a hack then?

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? I don't really consider what Palm has done here to be hacking. iTunes was created by Apple to be a content manager/sales portal of digital content. Maybe I'm missing something here but I would think Apple would greatly benefit from selling content for use on other devices. It's unreasonable to expect everyone in the world to use an Apple device so they might as well make money off them with content.

Truth be told, I doubt Apple has an issue with it as well, I think the underlying issue is that the Palm Pre has been developed by former Apple people. So this is probably just a case of grown-ups acting like children with the consumers getting screwed while they feud. For the record, I'm not a Palm user, I own the iPhone 3G plus 3 iPods and many Mac machines.

I think the main issue is that Apple is using iTunes to sync with the iPod/iPhone exclusively because that is their business model...interoperability with their own hardware only...i.e. OS X not working on other PCs. They have no reason to make iTunes sync with other devices since other devices show up as a USB drive and you can just copy the files from your iTunes library without anything stopping you. I have a Sony Walkman MP3 player that operates in much this fashion.

A note to those talking about Palm "violating their USB license"...

If Palm never applied for a USB IF license or id, then they haven't violated anything.

Only they did hence they have.

No, they are not perfectly within their rights. That degree of control over a market is known as a monopoly, the existence of which is prohibited under current U.S. legislation. Palm believes they have the right to interact with iTunes because their users have the right to interact with iTunes. They recognize the fact that iTunes is the predominant application for dealing with music and other media, and rather than trying to force their customers to deal with the learning curve of a switch to an application that offers less features, they are trying to create a good user experience.

Most (if not all) software that you use is:
1) Not written by you
2) Not licensed by you (unless you're using an open source application, in which case licensing does not apply)
3) Compatible with your device because the designer didn't purposefully block your device just because it wasn't created by the designer.

Apple offers the iTunes software free of charge for all users without restrictions based on what computer they use. They should allow the same syncing abilities regardless of which mp3 player the consumer is using.




Wouldn't you get mad if Firefox wouldn't let you view the websites of Microsoft, Apple, and Google because they offer a competing product?

1) Ok most software is not written by the end user.

2) ALL software is licensed the open source standard GPL is a General Public License

3) The Palm Pre is lying about what device it is to gain access to a closed system...this is pretty much the definition of illegal and they have no right to do it.

Antitrust law is:
Prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.(There are some pretty good competitors with iTunes...i.e. Rhapsody, Napster...)

Banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others. (Apple prices are just the same as the competitors)

Supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing. (Apple created the market of online music purchases...and while they are the primary competitor, you don't see them buying Rhapsody do you?)

So explain to me how iTunes is a monopoly once again?

And how does "Firefox blocking Google" which isn't true have anything to do with not supporting a competeing device? Suppose Google didn't allow you to use any other browser except Chrome....eh?

 

[Anuba]

iTunes is not a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly. Nor has there been any abusive practices going on with respect to Apple's iTunes business.

They don't have to be a bona fide monopoly everywhere, you know. Palm would have no problem dragging Apple to court in the EU, and they also would have no problem winning the case.

"Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". The lowest yet market share of a firm considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%".

iTunes Store is the world's largest online music store with a market share of, what, 70-80%? And the iPod's market share is around 75%? So... iTunes Store is locked to iTunes, iTunes is locked to iPods/iPhones and vice versa. That right there is frickin' DEFCON 1 as far as dominant position and impairment of competition goes, and I'm surprised the EC hasn't slapped Apple with a billion dollar fine and Nuremberg Trials II already, seeing as they raised concerns about the closed iTunes ecosystem in 2007. Then again they move very slowly...

 

[kdarling]

Only they did hence they have.

Well, you have to point to some proof. (A USB logo on their box would probably do.)

3) The Palm Pre is lying about what device it is to gain access to a closed system...this is pretty much the definition of illegal and they have no right to do it.

I'm not sure that a device pretending to be another device is the "definition of illegal". It's certainly not the first picture that would be used in a dictionary.

Is it a good idea in this case? No way. Unless Rubenstein knows something we don't, or he and Jobs have a side bet going on for fun.

As for spoofing, don't forget that Jobs used to make Blue Boxes to spoof the phone company. Now THAT was illegal (he even admits it in that video) and clearly cost the phone company some lost income. But he used to think it was cool to fake out other company's equipment. How ironic.

 

[gnasher729]

A note to those talking about Palm "violating their USB license"...

There is no license required to make a USB compatible device. There are tons of USB gizmos and boards out there with nobody looking over their shoulder. I can make one, anyone can.

When we talk about a USB license, we mean two things:

1) Being able to use the USB Implementor's Forum trademarked USB logos.
2) Applying for a USB IF sanctioned id.

These are voluntary things.

If Palm never applied for a USB IF license or id, then they haven't violated anything.

Not having a USB license would be commercial suicide. Can you imagine you intend to buy a Palm Pre, you ask the salesman if it has USB, and what is he going to say? If it doesn't have a license, anyone claiming that it has USB is inviting trouble for themselves. And, of course, Apple would then be completely in their rights to prevent the Palm Pre from connecting to a Mac or iTunes in any way. Apple would be in their rights to tell you that plugging such a device in your Mac would void your warranty.

As for spoofing, don't forget that Jobs used to make Blue Boxes to spoof the phone company. Now THAT was illegal (he even says so in that video) and clearly cost the phone company some lost income. But he used to think it was cool to fake out other company's equipment. How ironice.

I think Steve Jobs has stopped doing this, just as he should have, and Apple is trying to stop Palm, just as they should. If the phone companies lost money they could have sued Steve Jobs. I don't think they have. And I don't think Palm is run by 20 year old kids. So what is your point?

They don't have to be a bona fide monopoly everywhere, you know. Palm would have no problem dragging Apple to court in the EU, and they also would have no problem winning the case.

"Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". The lowest yet market share of a firm considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%".

iTunes Store is the world's largest online music store with a market share of, what, 70-80%? And the iPod's market share is around 75%? So... iTunes Store is locked to iTunes, iTunes is locked to iPods/iPhones and vice versa. That right there is frickin' DEFCON 1 as far as dominant position and impairment of competition goes, and I'm surprised the EC hasn't slapped Apple with a billion dollar fine and Nuremberg Trials II already, seeing as they raised concerns about the closed iTunes ecosystem in 2007. Then again they move very slowly...

Don't be ridiculous. "Online music" is not a relevant market. "Music stores" is a market, and Apple has about 20% in the USA, less in Europe. On top of that, once you have downloaded music from Apple's music store, it is compatible with any music player (as long as the maker is willing for the license in the same way as Apple has paid its license fee), so Apple's music store has nothing to do with this.

Neelie Kroess has made it very clear that she knows the difference between "competitive" and "anti-competitive". No company has any rights to benefit from the hard work of another company. There is no obstacle for anyone to write an application that can sync AAC and MP3 music, including music in an iTunes library, with a Palm Pre. Even the information that is needed to read the playlists in an iTunes library is freely available, here is the code for a Macintosh:

NSDictionary* theLibrary = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithContentsOfFile: [@"~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music Library.xml" stringByExpandingTildeInPath]];
NSArray* thePlayLists = [theLibrary objectForKey: @"Playlists"];
NSDictionary* theTracks = [theLibrary objectForKey: @"Tracks"];

So do you think Apple should pay a billion dollar fine because Palm is too stupid to write these three lines of code?