Who says Apple doesn't make money from selling Music/Movies? They are in a position of nearly dictating terms to the RIAA/MPAA. Their main competitor on music is Amazon.com, who charges the same price and DOESNT make MP3 players. There IS money in distribution.
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
Who says Apple doesn't make money from selling Music/Movies? They are in a position of nearly dictating terms to the RIAA/MPAA. Their main competitor on music is Amazon.com, who charges the same price and DOESNT make MP3 players. There IS money in distribution.
So let me get this, Apple has no right in determining which devices can sync with their own software?
So let me get this, Apple has no right in determining which devices can sync with their own software?
That's right. You're catching on quick!
Lots of people here need a refresher on what a MONOPOLY is before they start throwing around words that are too big for them - obvious by their posts.
monopoly
One entry found.
Main Entry:
mo·nop·o·ly Listen to the pronunciation of monopoly
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mo·nop·o·lies
Etymology:
Latin monopolium, from Greek monopōlion, from mon- + pōlein to sell
Date:
1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
In short, a MONOPOLY is exclusive control over a specific thing and there are no other options to the consumer.
Example - Apple is the ONLY supplier of portable music players and charge an exorbitant amount of money because of that. You as a consumer have no choice but to buy that product if you want it. That is a MONOPOLY.
Example - Comcast is the ONLY supplier of high speed internet and tv in your area and they charge high rates. You have no choice but to pick them if you want high speed internet or cable television.
Example - Your power company. You can only get power from that company and there are no other options. That company dominates and knows it. It charges excessive amounts of money, yet you don't have a choice.
When it comes to music, computers, portable music players and the like - YOU HAVE A CHOICE. There are NO monopolies. Apple creates products that people like and love. Hence they are always going to be singled out. There are TONS of other manufacturers that make music players. Too many to list. Each one has software of it's own, uses software on the computer already or you buy new software.
Apple does not need to, nor does it have to give access to it's iTunes software to ANY device unless it sees fit. Apple supports, makes, updates, maintains and everything else that goes along with it - no one else. Just Apple and their time and money which developed it.
So those of you who are throwing around big words like monopoly and anti-trust, you need a heavy dose of reality. Get a grip. If you don't like what Apple is doing - you have a CHOICE not to purchase their items. Go to one of the 100 other companies and use their stuff instead.
monopoly
One entry found.
Main Entry:
mo·nop·o·ly Listen to the pronunciation of monopoly
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mo·nop·o·lies
Etymology:
Latin monopolium, from Greek monopōlion, from mon- + pōlein to sell
Date:
1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
In short, a MONOPOLY is exclusive control over a specific thing and there are no other options to the consumer.
Example - Apple is the ONLY supplier of portable music players and charge an exorbitant amount of money because of that. You as a consumer have no choice but to buy that product if you want it. That is a MONOPOLY.
Example - Comcast is the ONLY supplier of high speed internet and tv in your area and they charge high rates. You have no choice but to pick them if you want high speed internet or cable television.
Example - Your power company. You can only get power from that company and there are no other options. That company dominates and knows it. It charges excessive amounts of money, yet you don't have a choice.
When it comes to music, computers, portable music players and the like - YOU HAVE A CHOICE. There are NO monopolies. Apple creates products that people like and love. Hence they are always going to be singled out. There are TONS of other manufacturers that make music players. Too many to list. Each one has software of it's own, uses software on the computer already or you buy new software.
Apple does not need to, nor does it have to give access to it's iTunes software to ANY device unless it sees fit. Apple supports, makes, updates, maintains and everything else that goes along with it - no one else. Just Apple and their time and money which developed it.
So those of you who are throwing around big words like monopoly and anti-trust, you need a heavy dose of reality. Get a grip. If you don't like what Apple is doing - you have a CHOICE not to purchase their items. Go to one of the 100 other companies and use their stuff instead.
Yes where has Apple stated that itunes is for syncing devices besides the ones they make?
Apple is trying to enforce a 'right' that no one except Apple can sync to Apple's own software. They have every such right.
I fixed it for you...
I fully understand what your saying, but with competition won't it make Apple produce even better hardware to kill the knockoffs? Competition leads to better research, development and products which everyone needs unless you want bloated crap that Microsoft produces.
Actually, you're wrong. Microsoft could get away with it. The trouble would pop up if they refused to let people use non-Zune players with Windows boxes at all. It would just fall to the manufacturer of the player to ensure the interoperability and management of their device in Windows rather than expecting Microsoft to do their work for them and provide the synchronization mechanism.
You're speaking of consumer expectation not legal obligation. They do not equal the same thing.
Microsoft makes their software so that it's as universally hardware compatible as they can make it. However, that's what they do. They sell a component of a full computer system: the OS and other software. Apple, on the other hand, develops the OS, software, and interoperable hardware for either/both. As such, there should be no expectation for Apple to provide the same kind of universal support that Microsoft does.
It's obvious a few posters here don't understand what's going on.
Palm is saying 'Apple is abusing the USB official rules by stopping usb devices communicating with usb devices based on a special code, and that is why we are doing this workaround - we are pointing out how badly Apple is behaving'.
The special code is how your OS knows what kind of device you just plugged into your usb port. Try it out, plug in a multicard reader, or a keyboard or mouse.
I can see both sides of the argument, and since I don't own Palm items I kind of don't care. But I would like compatibility, since no company ever is guaranteed to be around long enough to provide a reliable service.
Palm is saying 'Apple is abusing the USB official rules by stopping usb devices communicating with usb devices based on a special code, and that is why we are doing this workaround - we are pointing out how badly Apple is behaving'.
The special code is how your OS knows what kind of device you just plugged into your usb port. Try it out, plug in a multicard reader, or a keyboard or mouse.
I can see both sides of the argument, and since I don't own Palm items I kind of don't care. But I would like compatibility, since no company ever is guaranteed to be around long enough to provide a reliable service.
Who cares!
I am an Apple fan but I welcome the competition. I am glad palm came back with a good product. All it means is better and cheaper products for us.
Let it sync and move on.
So let me get this, Apple has no right in determining which devices can sync with their own software?
I am an Apple fan but I welcome the competition. I am glad palm came back with a good product. All it means is better and cheaper products for us.
Let it sync and move on.
Bzzt. If this were the case, we wouldn't see the exorbitant media pricing (i.e. a downloadable movie or album that costs more than via physical media, ludicrous pricing for season passes for TV shows, etc.), the silly restrictions on rentals, the delay between DVD release and iTunes availability...
I am an Apple fan but I welcome the competition. I am glad palm came back with a good product. All it means is better and cheaper products for us.
So Palm came with something to compete with Itunes?
Based on Palm's actions, it appears that the company believes that Apple's refusal to allow open access to iTunes via USB is a severe enough violation of the relatively open nature of the USB standards that it is willing to violate standards itself in order to work around Apple's restrictions.
But Palm started it. Palm violated the agreement first by identifying it's products with Apple's vendor I.D. Apple then responded by blocking Palm's device. Palm started it. If Palm had thought from the beginning that Apple was in violation by not allowing non-ipod devices to sync to iTunes (and understandable complaint), then they should have filed a complaint at that time. Instead, Palm decided to falsify their vendor I.D.s and present their devices as "Apple ipods." This is not only a violation of the USB standards but also could potentially violate Apple's copyrighted property rights. I can understand other mp3 player vendors complaining to the government that iTunes should be open to other music players (the same way that Microsoft was required by the government to allow other web browsers to operate on Windows). It's a fair complaint and should be decided in court after it has been thoroughly debated. In the meantime, I will be surprised of Apple does not file a rights infringement lawsuit against Palm for using Apple vendor I.D.s to identify themselves.
Because Apple didn't make it. And this issue was already decided in the Accolade v. Sega case. They made their games say 'Copyright Sega' in order to pass validation on Sega game machines. Court said A-Okay.
This is the best post I've read all day. It's all about corning the market...Apple has not done so.
As it has been said before, So? These were based on pre-existing agreements between companies that were utilizing features in iTunes that is nowhere near the functionality that Apple offers today. Who cares what worked before and how. Apple owns iTunes and it can integrate whatever it wants. You notice that the list of devices are no longer being manufactured and that article is merely informational right? Prior features of iTunes is not relevant to what iTunes is today.
Please show me how Apple can make money off of this without incurring support costs and the loss of their hardware sales. What is going to replace that. Just so you know, it's never going to offer everything that the iPods or iPhones can offer. The support you want is expensive, show me where Apple is going to make money here.
Guess what. That cannot ever be guaranteed. There is no way that Apple's business is going to jive with another companies needs. Heck, that doesn't even happen on Windows. Apple already includes the frameworks for other people to use. It is not Apple's business to waste their time trying to jive their products to ensure they work with everyone else' devices
.
Well that's just not going to be happening. There is always something that is going to be proprietary. Apple is closed source. Their business model is closed vertical integration.
Apple has already depreciated iSync and supplanted it with Sync Services. Thats already being used by a bunch of clients. RIM is probably using it fr their client.
1) Yes, they should insist on Palm not Spoof
2) They already have an API called SyncServices. That and the Library XML. Its the dame thing that iTunes uses and its going to be the best that Apple can offer anyway. Its never going to have feature parity with iTunes even if there was direct integration.
3) You should be paying attention to Apple development. iSync was depreciated back in Tiger in favor of SyncServices.
Remember, Even if the Pre was integrated into iTunes, it would be limited in features in comparison to the iPod family. You need your own application becasue of the inherent differences that devices offer.
They've ripped off Apple and stolen Apple employees to where they truly think this is an Apple product and that it should be syncing with iTunes. Has Palm gone delusional or something? I'm really disappointed with Rubinstein, who would have ever thought 5 years ago that we would be seeing him doing this today.
Hmm, after thinking about it, let's turn this into a MacRumor.
I have to think Rubinstein is not this stupid. He probably knows things don't bode well for Palm (limited first launch with CDMA Sprint, not shipping GSM versions worldwide fast enough, add on to that the flurry of Android based phones on the horizon). I think Rubinstein wants Apple to buy Palm. He probably showed Apple "Hey, here's a cool way to do multi-tasking, and to expand on Apple's original idea of "web apps," so do you want to buy us?", and Apple said "hmm, maybe next time." Palm is getting desperate, and now they're playing this "Apple, we're going to annoy you every single day until you buy us."
I mean think about it. Apple is unlikely to come up with a CDMA based phones from scratch. However, there were rumors that Verizon is getting an "Apple phone" although it may not be an "iPhone." Guess what, next year the Pre won't be Sprint exclusive any longer. It would be easier for Apple to "release" a CDMA phone based on an existing product than re-engineering the iPhone. For all we know, it could be just Rubinstein bickering with Tim Cook/Jobs about the price of Palm behind closed doors, and all these publicity stunts are done to annoy Apple and quickly buy Palm before its value erodes.
So yeah, how's that for a MacRumor huh?
I have to think Rubinstein is not this stupid. He probably knows things don't bode well for Palm (limited first launch with CDMA Sprint, not shipping GSM versions worldwide fast enough, add on to that the flurry of Android based phones on the horizon). I think Rubinstein wants Apple to buy Palm. He probably showed Apple "Hey, here's a cool way to do multi-tasking, and to expand on Apple's original idea of "web apps," so do you want to buy us?", and Apple said "hmm, maybe next time." Palm is getting desperate, and now they're playing this "Apple, we're going to annoy you every single day until you buy us."
I mean think about it. Apple is unlikely to come up with a CDMA based phones from scratch. However, there were rumors that Verizon is getting an "Apple phone" although it may not be an "iPhone." Guess what, next year the Pre won't be Sprint exclusive any longer. It would be easier for Apple to "release" a CDMA phone based on an existing product than re-engineering the iPhone. For all we know, it could be just Rubinstein bickering with Tim Cook/Jobs about the price of Palm behind closed doors, and all these publicity stunts are done to annoy Apple and quickly buy Palm before its value erodes.
So yeah, how's that for a MacRumor huh?
All you noobs comparing Windows Media player syncing to itunes can get out of here.
iTunes ≠ WMP. Why? Because WMP was designed to sync a number of devices. iTunes was designed to sync Apple's media devices and the few licensed devices that we've seen. You cannot force a software dev to support other devices in any way. You say "but palm solution did work, and apple broke it", but it wasn't a solution. It was a backdoor masquerading underhanded bootleg look alike tactic that fooled the program into thinking it was an iPod, clearly because the icon that comes up in iTunes is AN IPOD. Thank your lucky stars iTunes isn't use a proprietary database. If it did, I wouldn't use it, and I know alot of you wouldn't either, but the fact that it doesn't mean that there is no reason that any user is forced to use itunes. It isn't the only syncing program available, which makes the entire argument moot. Palm WANTS to use it, but that don't make it right, does it.
Palm , for the love of god show some class. Please show some class. The CEO looks like an ass trying to say another company is in the wrong when they are doing most of the wrongdoing themselves. No one will be hurt except Palm customers. Apple customers will enjoy the current 8.2.1 release until Apple's next scheduled iTunes update which will again break syncing, and next time to the highest degree possible (probably using serial number checksums like I said earlier), while your customers will inadvertently update to the next version of iTunes and be confused why their palm-branded hardware AGAIN isn't working, which will require you to issue a fix. Your customers bought the phone on the pretext that they would be able to "have seamless access to your music, photos and videos" and will not trouble themselves with idiotic version updates and live in constant fear that the next update will nuke their devices. Your customers will be disheartened to know that some time in the very near future the only way to use their device as it was sold to them is to maintain legacy products on their computers, something that most individuals will not do. You can try to spin this as a negative for your competitor, and for now it seems like its working, but the industry will soon come wise to your games and look upon you without a shred of dignity, and your credibility amongst the masses will be shot, as you've shown many times that you are not in the business of doing things by the book. I hope your customers signed a waver stating they are willing to be along for the ride for the next two years.
The jig is up. It was cute for a while, but the only one that is affected in this is your customers. Give it up now and go to Apple with your tail between your legs and maybe you can save yourself from the imminent backlash from your customers who use iTunes syncing day in and day out. Publicly apologize for this tomfoolery and make things right, or at the very least create a program that interfaces with the itunes xml that offers your own customers a "seamless experience" to their content. Its the only way to not inconvenience your customers any more than they already are.
iTunes ≠ WMP. Why? Because WMP was designed to sync a number of devices. iTunes was designed to sync Apple's media devices and the few licensed devices that we've seen. You cannot force a software dev to support other devices in any way. You say "but palm solution did work, and apple broke it", but it wasn't a solution. It was a backdoor masquerading underhanded bootleg look alike tactic that fooled the program into thinking it was an iPod, clearly because the icon that comes up in iTunes is AN IPOD. Thank your lucky stars iTunes isn't use a proprietary database. If it did, I wouldn't use it, and I know alot of you wouldn't either, but the fact that it doesn't mean that there is no reason that any user is forced to use itunes. It isn't the only syncing program available, which makes the entire argument moot. Palm WANTS to use it, but that don't make it right, does it.
Palm , for the love of god show some class. Please show some class. The CEO looks like an ass trying to say another company is in the wrong when they are doing most of the wrongdoing themselves. No one will be hurt except Palm customers. Apple customers will enjoy the current 8.2.1 release until Apple's next scheduled iTunes update which will again break syncing, and next time to the highest degree possible (probably using serial number checksums like I said earlier), while your customers will inadvertently update to the next version of iTunes and be confused why their palm-branded hardware AGAIN isn't working, which will require you to issue a fix. Your customers bought the phone on the pretext that they would be able to "have seamless access to your music, photos and videos" and will not trouble themselves with idiotic version updates and live in constant fear that the next update will nuke their devices. Your customers will be disheartened to know that some time in the very near future the only way to use their device as it was sold to them is to maintain legacy products on their computers, something that most individuals will not do. You can try to spin this as a negative for your competitor, and for now it seems like its working, but the industry will soon come wise to your games and look upon you without a shred of dignity, and your credibility amongst the masses will be shot, as you've shown many times that you are not in the business of doing things by the book. I hope your customers signed a waver stating they are willing to be along for the ride for the next two years.
The jig is up. It was cute for a while, but the only one that is affected in this is your customers. Give it up now and go to Apple with your tail between your legs and maybe you can save yourself from the imminent backlash from your customers who use iTunes syncing day in and day out. Publicly apologize for this tomfoolery and make things right, or at the very least create a program that interfaces with the itunes xml that offers your own customers a "seamless experience" to their content. Its the only way to not inconvenience your customers any more than they already are.
In digital music sales, the compete not only against online music stores but also against CDs. They do not have a dominant market share in the overall music market.
Also, in the situation at hand, Apple is not preventing access to purchased music.