Except there is nothing stopping you from using music downloaded from the iTunes store on other devices...you just have to copy and paste it in a conventional sense instead of syncing 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
Except there is nothing stopping you from using music downloaded from the iTunes store on other devices...you just have to copy and paste it in a conventional sense instead of syncing it.
Either you're not reading very well, or I'm not explaining very well. In this case, since I mentioned "voluntary", I suspect it's the former case
Again... NO LICENSE IS NEEDED to add USB itself.
A token license fee is needed if you want to use the USB Forum's trademarked logos. Or if you want to register an id with them. And only if you do the latter, do you promise not to use anyone else's id.
======
Look guys, here's the thing: if Apple isn't suing Palm, then I don't see any reason why people who are NOT Apple executives, should waste any time complaining. Wait for Apple to complain first.
Well, you have to point to some proof. (A USB logo on their box would probably do.)
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.
No a device or person pretending to be another device or person to GAIN ACCESS to a CLOSED system or building is a pretty close definition of illegal in my book.
And the USB cord for the Palm Pre has a USB logo on it.
Yes, and that inconvenience alone would definitely be considered impairment of competition.
I'm sure Microsoft tried similar arguments on the EC... "There is nothing stopping you from using another web browser, you just have to download and install it", but the EC didn't fall for that one so now MS will have to remove IE from Windows in the EU and replace it with a ballot screen. All this because a browser maker with a 1% market share (Opera) went to the EC and complained.
If Palm followed Opera's example, the EC would force Apple to open up iTunes so that it can be synchronized with non-Apple devices, or to open up iPods for synchronization with other software such as WMP.
Whatever changes are made to please the EC tend to crop up worldwide, to an extent. While IE and WMP are still bundled with Windows outside the EU, other structural changes that were made (for example that many previously uninstallable parts of the system can now be removed, such as Windows Search) is a direct result of pressure from the EC and present in all editions of Windows 7 worldwide.
Apple have complied before, when the EC forced them to lower prices for iTunes Store downloads in the UK, and the EC has criticized the closed nature of the iTunes ecosystem before also. This Palm thing could be the smoking gun they need.
So let me get this straight...the EC would somehow FORCE Apple to write in additional code to allow competing devices to sync with their proprietary software? I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening...and it's not like you can't just have a first party software designed by Palm to use the iTunes librarian structure to sync your music....it's still open. If it were a closed system I would totally understand, but it's just a library of folders separated by artist and album...not some arcane file type that no one else can use to their own advantage....and thats were Apple has any impending EC suit in the bag...they are not stopping other companies from accessing the iTunes library.
Exactly!
Apple needs to maintain their reputation. if they start allowing non-apple products to connect with itunes, they are opening all sorts of doors for bugs/viruses to screw their software up.
If something goes wrong with my iTunes library when i'm plugging in my ipod, apple should know how to fix it, because they're making all of the components in that chain.. but if something goes wrong cause i'm trying to sync a pre, they have no clue where to start! was it itunes? was it the pre? they don't even have to offer support to me anymore, because it wasn't their product that f#cked up my library.
Its like, running your own business, trying to maintain happy customers, when some punk comes into your store wearing the same looking uniform as your employees.. what if a customer ask's him a question? what if he's giving out bad information?? as a business owner, you have the right to kick him out of your store for impersonating an employee! you don't need your business reputation to be ruined by some rouge in disguise!
wow.. sorry. /rant
Anuba doesn't seem to understand the difference between "competitive" and "anti-competitive"; Neelie Kroess does. If Apple prevented Palm from writing syncing software, that would be anti-competitive. If Apple denied Palm the information that is necessary to sync music files in an iTunes library to a Palm Pre, that would be anti-competitive. If Apple gives Palm the opportunity to compete by writing better syncing software than iTunes, that is competitive.
There is no reason why any company should help its competitors. What it mustn't do is prevent other companies from competing. Apple doesn't prevent Palm from competing in any way.
They forced Microsoft to redesign Windows and to create special EU editions of it, and they also forced them to introduce a ballot screen for browser installation where competitors like Apple, Mozilla, Google and Opera are represented. If they got Goliath down on his knees, what do you think they would do to David?
Wrong. Far from all content on iTunes Store is DRM-free "+" content, there are still DRM protected songs and they only work with iTunes/iPods. And even if all content was DRM free, there's still the issue that it's dealbreakingly cumbersome to use iTunes Store without having an iPod or iPhone, since you will have to sync outside iTunes. This gives iPods a competitive advantage, and again I have to refer to the Microsoft case... the relatively minor advantage that IE had because it was preinstalled was enough to be considered a problem. This is just me, but I find it a heckuvalot easier to download and install Firefox on Windows than to set up some weird manual sync with my iTunes library outside of iTunes.
You don't seem to understand the European Commission's definition of anti-competitive conduct, so again we must go back to what's happening with Windows 7. Microsoft is not preventing anyone from developing a browser that runs on Windows, nor is it preventing users from downloading and installing that browser on Windows, and they also allow users to make it the system's default browser. OK? But since this was not nearly enough to satisfy the EC and the plaintiffs (Opera and Mozilla), Microsoft had to A) remove IE from the Windows installation, and B) introduce a ballot screen where all browsers are equal, that is, they each get a logo and a 20-word text description, and then it's up to the user to pick one. Get it? Any roadblock is considered anti-competitive by these EC guys, and preventing Palm from syncing the Pre with iTunes is precisely that kind of roadblock. This is the EC, you have to understand where they're coming from in order to understand why they would have a case here. They're almighty and they're crazy. They have rules for the curvature of cucumbers. They recently decided to ban regular lightbulbs (only low energy lightbulbs will be allowed).
The Microsoft case was entirely different...the fact that IE was preinstalled gave them the competitive advantage over Opera...and Microsoft didn't have to change one line of code....in fact they didn't even have to add that ballot box...but they did just so you could get a browser, otherwise you'd have no way of getting one at all. And guess which one is the first and default choice on that ballot box? IE.
And you would call Palm Software syncing your Palm device to be "wierd software" accessing your iTunes Library? If you're so worried about Palm software then you probably shouldn't be using a Palm device. The fact still remains that all of the music in the iTunes store is now DRM free and can be used on any device that supports the file type...in fact I would be screaming foul to Palm for NOT including adequate software to sync my music to my device...whether it gathers the information via the file structure of Artist, Album as included in the iTunes library structure or wether it just searches for all media files on your system like WMP and leaves them in their original spots...it still stands to reason that Palm should have made it's OWN syncing software...not relied on a competing company to support its advertised sync capability by using a pretty sneaky backdoor way into a third party app.
not a huge deal. palm pre users who know whats up wouldn't even be using the garbage that is itunes anyway.
lol @ a media manager app that can't even monitor a directory without automator nonsense.
lol @ a media manager app that can't even monitor a directory without automator nonsense.
What do you mean "not change one line of code"? In order to make it so that you could uninstall Windows Search, WMP, IE, Fax & Scan, Media Center and so forth, they had to sandbox them and that's not the way Vista was built. They decided to do this after the EC had forced them to take out both IE and WMP from Vista a few years ago. As for the ballot box, they've been advised to randomize the order of appearance, so don't draw any conclusions from the mockup screenshot that's been floating around. In that screenshot the browsers are arranged in order of market share which is about as counterproductive as it gets. Opera is even petitioning to have the logos removed, I don't think that's gonna fly but we'll see.
This isn't about what I think, I don't give a rat's ass about Palm or synching third party devices with iTunes since I have an iPhone. I'm also not a big fan of the EC. I'm just trying to convey their line of reasoning based on previous cases I've read about. Their main complaint regarding iTunes was DRM, but they also said (in 2007) that even if Apple were to remove DRM, "it doesn't address the underlying problem of lack of interoperability", and I can only assume they mean the lack of interoperability between iTunes Store/iTunes and third party products.
Vista was built with IE and WMP sandboxed...hence you can uninstall them...you could also do this in XP, just in a different way, so all they had to change was removing install scripts to not include IE or WMP not add any code...sans Ballot box of course which is really inconsequential in terms of code.
As far as lack of inter-operatability goes...how about the EC sue Apple for not supporting more hardware in their computer line? Because suing them for not writing code to have third party devices sync with iTunes is just as ridiculous.
No. IE7 was an integral part of Vista and couldn't be removed, only updated to IE8, and you couldn't uninstall IE8 in Windows 7 until build 7048.
Yeah, very different way, since it didn't really uninstall at all, it was just hidden but still on the system.
part of the rules are that you are not allowed to spoof another company's ID, which Palm did. They set up the Pre to report Apple's vendor ID and thus sync with itunes.
if Palm simply ignored applying for an ID for the Pre then hopefully the USB-IF will laugh them out of the room over this whole thing, as they should
Not in the US or the EU.
That is exactly the point you are missing. Preinstalling IE did not get Microsoft in trouble. Removing it is part of the remedy for the anti-competitive actions.
Microsoft paid hardware vendors to not install or promote competing web browsers and made it technically difficult to use competing web browsers.
See the example at the bottom:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm
Except that Apple is not doing anything to hinder competition other than making a better product.
That complaint was about equal pricing throughout the EU. Not anti-competitive behavior.
Could Apple simply license the code to sync with iTunes to other phone and music player manufacturers ?
If iTunes is the de-facto standard to manage digital music then Apple could open its syncing interface to selected manufacturers that will pay Apple to have the "iTunes ready" logo on their products.
If iTunes is the de-facto standard to manage digital music then Apple could open its syncing interface to selected manufacturers that will pay Apple to have the "iTunes ready" logo on their products.
Microsoft abused their monopoly. Apple is neither abusive nor a monopoly in the markets applicable to this issue with Palm.
Only video, audiobooks, and applications still have DRM on iTunes.
Step 1: Install Palm syncing software.
Step 2: Sync.
How is that "dealbreakingly cumbersome"?
I think this statement sums everything up! Having a competitive advantage is not anti-competitive. It is competing better.
Again, the fact that IE was preinstalled was not a problem. It was Microsoft's interference with its competition.
The browser ballot proposed for Windows 7 is a result of the market power that Microsoft has achieved in the browser market as a result of their past abuse of their Windows OS monopoly. The EU is trying to reverse their ill-begotten gains.
iTunes is obviously _not_ the standard for Palm Pre users, because it refuses to work with the Palm Pre. So there is a niche for anyone who wants to write a syncing application for the Palm Pre, Apple will not stand in your way at all.
However, I think there are more installations of Windows Media Player than of iTunes. After all, Windows Media Player comes pre-installed on more than 90 percent of all computers.
And Apple could do many things, but they will do what they feel is best for Apple. Syncing songs over USB isn't that difficult. There isn't any need for someone to license anything from Apple. The easiest way is to design your music player so that it appears as a "Mass Storage" USB device; then all you need is write a program that copies the right files to the device and deletes unwanted files.
But all that is not what Palm wanted. They wanted to be able to sync their Pres by taking advantage of Apple's work, instead of investing time and money to create a syncing application themselves. And in a capitalist system, it is absolutely fine for Palm to try this, and it is absolutely fine for Apple to prevent it.
If Palm continues this way, Apple will always find a method to break the sync.
I think that Palm should ask Apple a license to sync with iTunes and Apple should sell it to them.
I think Palm has unfortunately burned it's bridges on this one though...I don't see Apple opening iTunes to any other device anytime soon. Had Palm just made the Pre act as a Mass Storage Device like MOST other MP3 players we would have never had this debacle. I don't know how the Pre works but can it even get music on it without using iTunes?
This I guess proves that Palm not only has their own vendor ID but is also using Apple's vendor ID to spoof iTunes. The case is pretty clear now. Palm is breaking the law, plain and simple, to get what they want.
It proves nothing. Are you an engineer? Have you programmed USB devices?
I don't need anyone's permission to put in a "Vendor Id" of my choice. Heck, I put anything I wish in there, including "Palm" or "Apple". There's no "law" forcing me to not use those. Only customer pressure and necessary drivers.
You are still confusing trademark licensing, and voluntary cooperation, with some weird non-engineer idea of electronic "law".
If you want to prove that Palm violated a licensing agreement with a special interest group, then show me that they applied for their own id. I'm not saying they didn't, but I've seen no evidence of it.
Palm registered their Vendor ID with USB...they entered into a contract that states that they cannot use another vendors ID...they did use another vendors ID (Apple's)...they broke the contract i.e. they broke the law. Seems pretty clear cut in my book. And if they didn't register their own vendor ID as you keep implying then what is line 4 of that image all about? And no I'm not an engineer I'm a programmer, so I would say I know a little about USB. And to include a USB chipset in your device you have to register with the USB-IF or they WILL sue you for patent infringement.
What you're still not getting, is we DO NOT HAVE TO ASK that voluntary group for an id.
For the nth time, it's V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y. Heck, you yourself can use "Palm" or "Apple" if you wish.
Ever used a GUID in your programming? Is it legally required that you make it unique? Of course not. But it's usually a good idea. And if you joined a "GUID Club", you might even pay for a GUID of your own. But it wouldn't bind anyone else outside that group.
Same thing here. You can put any name you want there... unless you did sign an agreement with the USB IF group, and then you're not supposed to use other voluntarily registered ids, or else get thrown out of the group.
It's kind of like all those companies that you can pay to name your own star
For that matter, YOU could start your own USB group, and sell ids and logos, as long as the logos don't look like the other group's.
The real discussion should only be over how lazy Palm is, to piggyback. And how short-sighted, knowing that Apple will keep changing iTunes.