Lol agreed it's so bloated and runs my 5+ year old machine to the ground.
I miss the days od cpod? Or whatever it was called
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
Lol agreed it's so bloated and runs my 5+ year old machine to the ground.
I miss the days od cpod? Or whatever it was called
iPhoto
Apple really has no reason to not allow other vendors to use iTunes. They allow other camera vendors to use iPhoto. If Apple sold cameras would you expect them to start blocking other camera vendors from iPhoto? As long as Apple clearly indicates that they will not provide technical support for other products using iTunes, they really shouldn't care.
Apple really has no reason to not allow other vendors to use iTunes. They allow other camera vendors to use iPhoto. If Apple sold cameras would you expect them to start blocking other camera vendors from iPhoto? As long as Apple clearly indicates that they will not provide technical support for other products using iTunes, they really shouldn't care.
These days having a popular product or being a number 1 seller is a monopoly.
LOL at everyone who is mad at Palm about this. Seriously, grow up.
Just let Palm do their thing. You can break the code every other week, and they'll break it the following week. Focus those resources on making the best software and hardware you can instead.
This is actually a plus for Apple... this means Palm Pre users will purchase music from iTunes.
1. Pre users can still purchase music from iTunes. Anyone can. In fact, you can buy music off of iTunes, load it onto another program like WMP, and sync it onto your phone/mp3 player. Simple. The music you buy off of iTunes isn't locked to stay in iTunes.
2. Music sales make up less than 1% of Apple's overall revenue. iTunes is not designed to make Apple profit in music sales, it is designed as a selling point for THEIR products like iPod and iPhones.
wow everyone just calm down.unless you are apple or palm themselves, why is everyone so heated?
You don't have any right to prevent people from using it in ways you don't like.
Nope, they don't. They may say I shouldn't use OS X to run a nuclear facility, and they may claim they aren't liable if something goes wrong, but they can't stop me from running my nuclear facility with OS X.pdjudd said:
I dunno, what they pull down for being stupid is fairly brilliant if you ask me.
I don't think it's the lawyers who are stupid. It's the people they convince to lob around lawsuits. After all, unless the lawyer is working pro bono or for a percentage of the expected award/settlement they get paid regardless.
Sounds pretty damned brilliant to me. It's like if I were paid to write software regardless of whether it worked or not.
There are three things that Palm could have done here:
1) Write a quick file-copy app, even link it into iTunes via scripts or whatever, and use the XML data that is on disc specifically for 3rd party apps to poke around the iTunes library and find out what is there, the metadata, and where on disk the files live.
2) Ask Apple nicely for access to the device plugin SDK for iTunes. I doubt Apple would oblige here, but at one point, it was valid for other companies to get at these APIs.
3) Reverse engineered the device plugin SDK. More of a grey area between 1 & 2, but gets you there in the end, especially if Apple says 'no' on #2.
The fact that Palm thought the best solution was to spoof USB IDs which is prohibited by the USB standards body is kinda absurd when even the Blackberry has iTunes syncing (even if it isn't perfect) via #1.
Well said, I love iTunes but I just want the freedom to not have to use an iPod and try something like the Sony X Series or a Zune HD
.
Dear Palm. iTunes makes an XML file of the music library. I suggest you use it. It's pretty straightforward.
But they do have a right to prevent you from modifying it. That hasn't happened here, and really what is in the wrong is that Palm broke the USB standard body's rules for how they are supposed to have a USB device behave. If they did it differently, Apple could play cat and mouse, but they couldn't simply shut Palm down.
No. It gets called that because someone is unhappy about it due either to jealousy of the success or inability to afford said product.
Er you do know that iTunes is NOT part of OSX - right ?
You have to download it as a separate program - maybe you should check your facts?
They care, because they make a competing product in the market, and they want people to be forced to buy it.
Exactly If Motorola had to pay Apple to get iTunes syncing, why should Palm get it for free?
Apple has created so much value in iTunes, that people want to use it to sync their music to other device. Apple has chosen to benefit from this value they have created via selling hardware, namely iPhones and iPods. Apple has created a legal and valid tie between their iTunes software and their hardware. I don't see where YOUR music that you the CONSUMER has purchased enters into this equation anywhere. You have many outlets to play that music that are not exclusive to iTunes and Apple hardware.
Saying Apple has no rights to tie iTunes and iPods and iPhones for syncing effectively eliminates a very significant and successful business model from the playing field: creating valuable media management software and benefitting from it via the sale of hardware. Fewer lucrative business models will decrease innovation and quality in this space, and consumers should expect a decrease in the quality of future media managers as a result. The position so many are supporting in the name of "consumer rights", will actually make things worse for the consumer, not better, in the long haul. The value you enjoy and desire in iTunes is the result of strong incentives for Apple to create it, as a result of the very business model that you want to prohibit.
I understand what you're saying but in the end as a consumer I don't care how it's done just as long as it does what I want. I saving up to by a Mac since my last one died back in '06 and had to get an HP because of low funds. I want to buy a Mac and use iTunes but there are some very good quality PMP from competitors.
Not sure that you can do the "monopoly" or "anti-trust" run-around with iTunes. I mean, Apple allows any music player software onto their OS. And you can uninstall iTunes without breaking the OS. Not sure why people keep claiming Monopoly-foul on Apple.
I wouldn't imagine Palm to be pulling a stupid move. I feel they definitely have an Ace up their sleeve.
I wouldn't imagine Palm to be pulling a stupid move. I feel they definitely have an Ace up their sleeve.
Ask Microsoft. I'm sure they can give you first hand information on just exactly what a government can force you to support.
Considering Palm hasn't used any of Apples software, your comment is pointgless.
The Vendor ID is not Apples IP. It's usage is granted to them by the USB CO.
Apple is guilty of using the USB protocol as a method of restricting device access to iTunes. This is in violation of the USB CO terms of use.
Palm is guilty of improper use of a Vendor ID. This is in violation of the USB CO terms of use.
Palm's original solution did not violate the Vendor ID usage as they simply used a generic device ID and called it ipod and while it may be a nice trick, it's not a violation of USB standards. It was Apple's update to iTunes that made the Vendor ID a requirement.
This forced Palm to go the Vendor ID route to re-enable iTunes access.
But how are they being anti-competitive? Donimance is perfectly fine as long as you play fair. You have to remember, there were other legal stores around when Apple started selling music. Remember Napster and Rhapsody. Sure they were poor competitors, but that only demonstrates that apple succeeded by doing the legitimate thing - build a better mousetrap. Apple beat out the competition by building a better system. Not because they corned the market.
But having a competitive weapon is mostly about market power. Remember the studios hated the idea of removing DRM. I remember reading stories from execs who lambasted Apple for their arrogance about these models. They only warned up to it when they wanted to prop up Amazon. The only reason that we have DRM free music on iTunes was that the record labels had power over the one thing Apple wanted and had control over - pricing. Of course the early agreements that they had in place allowed Apple to set the pricing.
The RIAA could care less where you buy their music. They make a killing either way. Their paranoia about loosing their control was the prime basis for their actions. Remember, Appe started to the iTMS to compete against piracy.
Hey people, we can argue about anything forever. Let's turn this into a MacRumor
Like I already said earlier, I think Rubinstein wants Apple to buy Palm, and Palm is doing all these publicity stunts to annoy Apple to encourage them to just buy Palm to shut them up.
Here's another kicker:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/24/sprints-dan-hesse-says-android-coming-to-sprint-this-year-is-g/
Sprint is getting Android. Palm is definitely in trouble. They couldn't release GSM based WebOS phones worldwide fast enough, yet their exclusive carrier in the US is going to carry Android phones too. Hmm.
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.
Like I already said earlier, I think Rubinstein wants Apple to buy Palm, and Palm is doing all these publicity stunts to annoy Apple to encourage them to just buy Palm to shut them up.
Here's another kicker:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/24/sprints-dan-hesse-says-android-coming-to-sprint-this-year-is-g/
Sprint is getting Android. Palm is definitely in trouble. They couldn't release GSM based WebOS phones worldwide fast enough, yet their exclusive carrier in the US is going to carry Android phones too. Hmm.
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.
Ask Microsoft. I'm sure they can give you first hand information on just exactly what a government can force you to support.
Considering Palm hasn't used any of Apples software, your comment is pointgless.
The Vendor ID is not Apples IP. It's usage is granted to them by the USB CO.
Apple is guilty of using the USB protocol as a method of restricting device access to iTunes. This is in violation of the USB CO terms of use.
Palm is guilty of improper use of a Vendor ID. This is in violation of the USB CO terms of use.
Palm's original solution did not violate the Vendor ID usage as they simply used a generic device ID and called it ipod and while it may be a nice trick, it's not a violation of USB standards. It was Apple's update to iTunes that made the Vendor ID a requirement.
This forced Palm to go the Vendor ID route to re-enable iTunes access.
So what Palm did orignally was perfectly legit, geeeee I wonder why so many other companies haven't thought of doing that instead of developing their own software to sync with itunes.
On windows yes, it is separate. Not the case on OSX - of course OSX and iTunes are Apple products so it can be expected.
There's a difference between ways you don't like and use not originally intended. I didn't write my transcoding software to be used to remove DRM from protected WMV files but with a little tinkering of the code that could easily be done. That's violation of intellectual property unless allowed for in the software license. Which it is not.
Well, that actually depends. If you use licensed software running on Mac OS X to run your nuclear facility then you're perfectly in the right. However, if you go in and modify Apple's proprietary code to accomplish your needs then step into similar issues as above, just minus the added concern of piracy: violation of the owner's intellectual property rights.