USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute

[hodgeheg]

ROFL! After a long time of lurking, I had to register to point out:
The average IQ anywhere is 100, by definition. Your comment is what's scary.

I was a fan, user and developer with PalmOS for awhile, but the company has always been bad at "playing nice". Lately, they've gotten worse.

And I hear the average IQ at Palm is 100... scary!

Ah, someone got there before me. But, unless Palm is the population from which the IQ has been normalized at 100, the average IQ at Palm will not be 100 (unless purely coincidentally) since they presumably attempt to select for good employees and are a tech company it's likely that the average IQ for Palm employees is above 100. It's the population that matters. It's just not surprising that for a large subpopulation (such as the US) the average would come out at about the normalization for the total population (and I don't know what population they actually use, or what samples they take from it).

That said, whoever at Palm decided on their recent course of actions was having a dumb moment (imo)(unless as some have suggested it is primarily a publicity stunt).

PS sorry for being boring.

 

[MacFly123]

To all the people in the prior forums on this topic that say myself and others are stupid for thinking Apple has no right to do what they are doing and that Palm is being retarded..... SUCK ONE PALM!!!

No, I think the Pre and WebOS are impressive and well designed, but this whole iTunes thing with Palm is just ridiculous. Honestly you complain to an organization by breaking their policies??? Grow up Palm!

 

[dguisinger]

To all the people in the prior forums on this topic that say myself and others are stupid for thinking Apple has no right to do what they are doing and that Palm is being retarded..... SUCK ONE PALM!!!

No, I think the Pre and WebOS are impressive and well designed, but this whole iTunes thing with Palm is just ridiculous. Honestly you complain to an organization by breaking their policies??? Grow up Palm!

rather ballsy if you ask me

 

[*LTD*]

My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it. There are consumers in particular income brackets that are locked out of Apple's demographic. This is one of the defining characteristics of any Premium product. And Apple rules the Premium end. If a consumer has $1000+ in their pocket, chances are a Mac will be at or near the top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment.

Apple deliberately, and this has been stated numerous times by Jobs and Cook et al, does not license their OS out to everyone and their dog, and they deliberately choose to stay out of the low end, and even shun a good portion of the mid-end.

There are between 50-70 million Mac users. The Mac is understood as, and marketed as, a Premium product. Fewer units sold, but at much higher margins. Apple has stated quite clearly that they refuse to operate at the low-end. This means they provide a vastly different (and very attractive and coveted) user experience that people (who are able to) are willing to pay more for. Apple would not cheapen or muddy its brand image by competing on the same level with the likes of Dell, for example. Either you differentiate yourself via some clear, desirable, distinguishing features, or you compete on price like the rest of the pack.

This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.There are substantial implications to Microsoft under these circumstances. Just one of the reasons they are opening these Stores. MS is trying very hard to shed its bargain-bin image. A bit late for that, though.

"Market Share" is very often misunderstood. With a fraction of Microsoft's market share, Apple is not only thriving, but it also is in a position as:

1) The industry innovator
2) The most powerful brand in the industry today
3) Producer of the most coveted notebooks and devices in the industry today
4) The one to follow. Apple does everyone else's R&D for them (apparently.)

So when you discuss "market share", you need to determine exactly which end of the market you're talking about. The lion's share of what part of the market? The Premium end of the market pyramid is near or at the top. It's much more narrow, but the consumer approaches tech (and other products) from an entirely different perspective (often not on price), with difference epxectations that Apple happens to cater to. Ideally, you WANT to rule the Premium end. It's these customers that build your brand, that make it desirable, and that will pay top dollar for what you provide.

 

[Mark Booth]

For the record, I completely agree with you realm, but IQ is *defined* such that 100 is the average for the population (no, I don't know what kind of average). Therefore even if intelligence rose drastically for absolutely everyone and we were all suddenly geniuses, IQ would be renormalised, and the average IQ (I'm not sure whether they're using mean, mode, median etc) would still be 100. I could be wrong, but this is how I understand it!

Yeah, I responded to this later in the thread. The point I was trying to make is half the population has a two-digit IQ.

Mark

 

[NT1440]

My question is you can build a better mouse trap but people do not want to change over from something that works. And for proof we have to look no farther than OSX.

OSX is better than windows. Yet after what 8 years of it being out it still ONLY has 6-7% market share.

OSX is better than windows yet windows controls nearly 90% of the market share.

But asking an apple fan to see this little fact it like asking a blind man to pick out a 1 green apple amount 100's of reds.

What does this have to do with any of this? Palm used another companies ID number, which breaks the rules they themselves agreed to. Its that simple.

 

[Target362]

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

 

[hodgeheg]

Yeah, I responded to this later in the thread. The point I was trying to make is half the population has a two-digit IQ.

Mark

Ah, sorry - missed your response

 

[satcomer]

You are wrong, it really happened.

I am corrected. Thank you.

 

[Mark Booth]

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

As a stockholder, I COMPLETELY disagree! Apple should do everything it can to sell as many iPhones and iPods possible. It should fight any situation where a competitor is trying to use Apple's software in a way that potentially reduces or impacts Apple's sales of iPhones and iPods.

Opening up iTunes will NOT increase Apple's sales. It will only benefit competitors.

And you're DREAMING if you don't think Apple would get hit with tons of product support headaches if they DID open up iTunes to competitor's devices. Just listen to any Windows tech show and hear all of the idiots that continue to click on that link in an E-mail that promptly installs malware on their PC. Those idiots would be calling Apple right & left!

Mark

 

[mccoma]

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

iTunes is open. It requires a developer to parse an XML file and write their own sync. Many have done it without a problem.

The second part of your statement never works. The customer is going to go schedule a meeting with an Apple Genius and be told that Apple doesn't support the device, and the customer will be mad a think its Apple's fault. Support costs for even non-supported items does add up.

Palm went against the letter of a contract they signed to get their ID from USB-IF. That is the simple fact. They also refused to spend money / developer time creating their own sync (or buying one from someone).

They want publicity, to irritate Apple, and IMHO time to develop their own solution now that resources are freed up. They have already cost Apple time and money that would of otherwise not have been spent (and maybe support time at Apple retail).

 

[docholid]

Again, why should Apple be asked to support products they don't produce? Mere consumer convenience is not a good argument for "barriers to entry." Palm has had every opportunity to make their own software for the Pre, to make it as easy and convenient to use ANY music library, and they passed on that. It's their fault their customers are being hurt by this, not anybody else's.

This isn't even in the same league as the Netscape debacle, even where Microsoft didn't outright prevent installation of the software. Microsoft was refusing some licensing terms to certain manufacturers if they included anything other than Internet Explorer. Apple is doing nothing of the sort here. Netscape at the time REQUIRED Windows. The Pre does not require iTunes. Apple's software does not and has never promised to work directly with the Palm Pre as OSes promise to generally work with a lot of different software. These two situations are not parallel to each other. Apple has supplied OPEN methods for other manufacturers to tie into an iTunes database. Instead of going that route as they should, Palm has decided it's better to put the onus of support on Apple. That's uncalled for. Since when are companies not expected to support their own products? Somebody, please answer this question.

Apple doesn't have to support any non-Apple devices (Palm supports the sync, and clearly makes updates to accommodate changes to iTunes), but as I said, iTunes would be a better product if more devices could sync natively. Apple actually does more work to tighten their authentication with Apple products than they would to just let others that have reverse-engineered the sync process keep doing it (which is to say, the latter takes no work at all). Their rationale for hardware-lock is transparent, and possibly runs afoul of anti-trust regulations.

Much of the argument here has been predicated on the idea that Apple is just free to do whatever it wants with the interoperability of all of its products. This is true to an extent, but when they use their position in one market segment to leverage themselves in another, that's unfair competition.

The point of the MS-Netscape comparison wasn't that the two situations were comparable in all respects. The idea, however, that twisting vendors' arms to leverage their market position is materially different from using technical means to do so is bordering on silly. You say that Netscape "required" Windows (where it clearly did not), but isn't it just as true that the iTunes Store requires iTunes? The fact is that some 70% of digital music sales are attributed to the iTunes Store. Apple uses this fact to leverage their media players partially by forcing an inferior (more complex to set up, for instance) experience on iTunes users that don't use their hardware.

 

[Target362]

As a stockholder, I COMPLETELY disagree! Apple should do everything it can to sell as many iPhones and iPods possible. It should fight any situation where a competitor is trying to use Apple's software in a way that potentially reduces or impacts Apple's sales of iPhones and iPods.

Opening up iTunes will NOT increase Apple's sales. It will only benefit competitors.

And you're DREAMING if you don't think Apple would get hit with tons of product support headaches if they DID open up iTunes to competitor's devices. Just listen to any Windows tech show and hear all of the idiots that continue to click on that link in an E-mail that promptly installs malware on their PC. Those idiots would be calling Apple right & left!

Mark

no I'm not dreaming, I'm just saying apple needs to stop being so demaning over its products.

and the same thing can happen on macs.

 

[Veri]

hub topology plug-n-play self powered serial bus was rather unique. USB required less brains on the device side as it was host driven which brought lower costs.

At this high level, to use the most familiar contemporary example, you're describing 10BaseT Ethernet. The crippling is to designate exactly one computer as "host". The remaining are "devices" which always set destination MAC to host's. You can minimise device logic by restricting to one host controller which can initiate transfers, but any number of buses have done this before.

What specifically is clever about the detail of the USB protocol? It seems to do what I'd expect: packet communication with rudimentary handshaking and error-detection, enumeration of interfaces per device, setting up of pipes, various transfer modes, higher layers (eg of scsi-like mass storage)... of course the detail is specific to USB, but what's new?

It also has a unique electrical signaling system.

This is where I'm ignorant, as my EE knowledge is abysmal. What's clever here?

It also had a specific connector which is covered in patents.

Reminds me of HP-IL connectors from '80s HP calculators. (edit: just hunted, not quite as i recall!)

vendors don't want all the other advantages of a working Plug-n-Play spec that others don't trample on for monetary gain

But, afaict, the Palm Pre plugged in and played with iTunes fine by identifying as a Palm vendor with Apple interface classes (acceptable). Then Apple modified iTunes so you could no longer plug in and play with the Pre using iTunes (trample for monetary gain).

 

[MorphingDragon]

Answers in bold.

Haa, little bit pregnant.

 

[twilson]

Are you saying it is not intended to use interface classes to identify the interface?

I'm say that interoperability is referring to how USB devices communicate their capabilities to USB Host hardware and operating systems.

Most people here seem to think it means that all USB devices should interoperate with 100% functionality with proprietary software.

Clearly this isn't the way it was intended to work, it just seems people read that way to try and serve "an agenda" or to "stick it to some company" when it suits their needs.

There is a wealth of information exposed via USB devices, thanks to the interoperability that USB provides. Without being able to use the device, you can garner tons of data still.

The phrase "as they please" must be taken in context; it should not mean that using a 255 class means we can ignore the letter and spirit of the rest of the USB standard

Why does everyone talk about this intangible "spirit" of the standard?

A standard has a specification, end of story. Some parts of the spec are mandatory (such as only using your own Vendor ID) and others are optional (such as you do not have to expose your device as Mass Storage if you don't want to).

"As they please" can easily mean "to provide a communication channel between proprietary software and hardware using a proprietary protocol".

Just because something is a standard does not mean that everything using that standard is an open free-for-all, where do people get that idea from?

or ignore general conventions of standards. To wit: you are still announcing a particular subclass and protocol to which your device conforms. Here remains where it is defined, not in the vendor ID.

Still, a vendor is not required to support every device in their proprietary software just because it reports their Vendor ID.

(A possible concern: surely if it is vendor specific, only the vendor ID can differentiate between otherwise identical subclass/protocol assignments by a different vendor? this is a technical flaw in field lengths, which are not sufficiently long that the globally unique identifiers can be assigned without central authority. As pre-broken versions of iTunes illustrated, using a vendor specific base class does not create a mass of conflicts.)

Apple weren't using the Vendor ID previously in pre-broken iTunes, they were using the product strings, which can take upto 255 (at least 128) characters I believe, more than enough to prevent a conflict.

All so, just so you know the Vendor ID supports upto 65,535 vendors, and each vendor can have 65,535 products as both the Vendor ID and the Product ID make up a unique device identifier, so I think there are enough to go round. Effectively this supports around 4.3 BILLION devices.

But there are also tons of string containers that can be used to identify devices uniquely too. There definitely isn't any issue there.

 

[jzuena]

And that completely defets the purpose. All play list are lost. That is what really matters.

One thing that has always annoyed me about Apple is they do not play nice with others. It is their way or the highway. The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software. WMP recognize iTunes as a MP3 player and offers to sync up with it but of course the iPod rejects it. I know people who love WMP over iTunes and WMP has some features that are just better than what is in iTunes. But the iPod will not play nice with it.

iTunes only places nice with the iPod.

Many ways I hope that apple aditude comes back to bit them in the ass on how they treat others and refusing to play nice. The Apple standard = the consumer loses because we get fewer choices.

Apple is a chicken. They are afraid that there stuff can not stand up on its own so it forces it will by using things from other areas.

Personally I view the actions apple been taken against the Pre as admitting it is scared and a chicken . It see the Pre as a threat so it wants to break it.

If the iPod isn't working with WMP, shouldn't Microsoft be fixing that issue? After all, standards mean that they should play with other vendor's hardware, right? And once they get the fix, they should port it to the Zune sync app just to be thorough. After all, they shouldn't expect people who like their software better to buy a Zune, they should help Apple push more iPods.

But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

I really don't understand the "yaay Apple won" sentiment on here. Everyone loses, except maybe Apple shareholders.

Wow, Apple can make 99 cents on a song after losing $200+ on an iPhone sale. I'm willing to give you 99 cents right now in exchange for $200. Are you willing to make that exchange? Can you see why Apple might not want to either?

Really? Really? The consumer sees Apple software working one day and not working the next; and that's all I see, also. The only people talking of Apple in a positive light over this matter are those who already have a affinity for Apple and go in for the full Apple hardware range. They wouldn't have bought Palm in the first place. Everyone else just sees Apple being its usual control freakish self.

Isn't it at least slightly more intellectually honest to admit this is just about Apple wanting more money before you get to enjoy its "experience"?

I tend to think that interoperability has advanced computing... and interoperability is achieved with the careful implementation of many carefully written standards. You take away any single standard, and it's not such a hassle, but why shouldn't everyone else have that same privilege to hoard, then?

Really, just writing their own synchronisation tool would not be difficult at all. There are already open source frameworks for synchronising with iPods. But look at all the press they are getting! And look at the bad taste Apple leaves in the mouths of everyone not already passionate for Apple! All this is before we even get to the principle of interoperability.

I'm willing to bet that anyone who hasn't tried to sync a Pre to iTunes not only couldn't care less about this, but probably hasn't even heard about this issue at all.

Apple should have itunes open up and alow 3rd party devices to use it, but make it clear that to get support they need to contact the manufacturer unless its a problem with iTunes itself

And these people would show up at Apple and demand Apple prove it isn't their software before going to the hardware vendor. Then they would still say Apple's product is crap because they claimed "it just works" and something didn't.

Apple doesn't have to support any non-Apple devices (Palm supports the sync, and clearly makes updates to accommodate changes to iTunes), but as I said, iTunes would be a better product if more devices could sync natively. Apple actually does more work to tighten their authentication with Apple products than they would to just let others that have reverse-engineered the sync process keep doing it (which is to say, the latter takes no work at all). Their rationale for hardware-lock is transparent, and possibly runs afoul of anti-trust regulations.

Please read the entire thread and the 5-10 others on this topic to see why making iTunes work only with Apple iPods is not against any anti-trust regulations. Hint, search on "iTunes isn't a market, it is a product".

 

[MorphingDragon]

Hmm, anyone think people should do the jobs they are paid to do? Like iTunes developers working on iTunes and OS X developers working on OS X? Oh wait, you couldn't whine then could you...

That said, has anyone else noticed a lot of extra beach balls in Snow Leopard? I tend to get them in Safari but it causes the entire system to lock for a few minutes.

Nope, but my sister doesnt use safari.

 

[dguisinger]

At this high level, to use the most familiar contemporary example, you're describing 10BaseT Ethernet. The crippling is to designate exactly one computer as "host". The remaining are "devices" which always set destination MAC to host's. You can minimise device logic by restricting to one host controller which can initiate transfers, but any number of buses have done this before.

What specifically is clever about the detail of the USB protocol? It seems to do what I'd expect: packet communication with rudimentary handshaking and error-detection, enumeration of interfaces per device, setting up of pipes, various transfer modes, higher layers (eg of scsi-like mass storage)... of course the detail is specific to USB, but what's new?


This is where I'm ignorant, as my EE knowledge is abysmal. What's clever here?
)

Actually, Ethernet isn't a hub-based topology; its a repeater based topology. Messages are broadcasted and no particular end point is in charge. Switches fulfill more of that end goal, but weren't part of the original spec - but that would be off topic.

The point is, patents allow for patenting additions or new uses for previous inventions, even if a concept has been used, if its used in a new way or modified for a particular use, that is patentable.

The transceivers have a specific electrical design; you cannot run a USB bus with standard micro-controller or FPGA pins which generally are quite versatile and can be used in many applications; you actually need to at a minimum get a USB PHY.

But, afaict, the Palm Pre plugged in and played with iTunes fine by identifying as a Palm vendor with Apple interface classes (acceptable). Then Apple modified iTunes so you could no longer plug in and play with the Pre using iTunes (trample for monetary gain).

no, that is not acceptable. acceptable would be creating software that recognizes and uses apple's iPod hardware. That is the direction the USB specs call for. A device may not impersonate another device. Those are the rules maintained by the spec and the implementers forum, end of story. Its identity theft.

 

[stillill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillill
But wouldn't Apple make money from selling tunes if they allow other devices access to the iTunes music library?

Wow, Apple can make 99 cents on a song after losing $200+ on an iPhone sale. I'm willing to give you 99 cents right now in exchange for $200. Are you willing to make that exchange? Can you see why Apple might not want to either?

They're not losing a $200 sale. No one's going to buy an iPhone just so they can get easy iTunes syncing.

But the people already happy with Palm/Blackberrys/whatever - they're locking them out of easy syncing. Apple is leaving money on the table - way more than 99c (you know anyone who ever only bought one song?). Wow indeed.

I understand the business need to protect their hardware, this just seems shortsighted in general, but par for the course for them I suppose. In this instance I agree Palm seem to have gone about this really really badly too.

Now that I found and fixed the font conflict I was having, Snow Leopard is purring along perfectly for me!

That's cool I guess. Try using the Remote with anything (e.g. Plex) and see iTunes take over

 

[Mark Booth]

That's cool I guess. Try using the Remote with anything (e.g. Plex) and see iTunes take over

The folks at Plex are aware of the bug and have provided a workaround at their site (see their blog). Apple is aware of the bug and there should be a fix forthcoming.

But, yes, this is one of the reasons my Mac Mini (we have four Macs in the house) is still at Leopard. My Mac Mini is used exclusively as a home theater PC and I need remote control for my theater presentations (though, in most cases, I use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse anyway).

Mark

 

[KnightWRX]

But the people already happy with Palm/Blackberrys/whatever - they're locking them out of easy syncing.

No, they are not. People with Blackberrys/whatever are already using syncing solutions based on the proper methods of syncing, which is using the XML file through a vendor provided software.

Only Palm users are getting shafted, and it's not by Apple, it's by Palm themselves. Palm just needs to quit trying to hack their way into iTunes and just write a syncing software that uses the XML file already.

 

[stillill]

No, they are not. People with Blackberrys/whatever are already using syncing solutions based on the proper methods of syncing, which is using the XML file through a vendor provided software.

Only Palm users are getting shafted, and it's not by Apple, it's by Palm themselves. Palm just needs to quit trying to hack their way into iTunes and just write a syncing software that uses the XML file already.

Ok, locking them out of one-step (i.e. easy) syncing then - one where they don't have to install another piece of software to get to their itunes library. I'm thinking, maybe make it easy for the consumers who buy their music from you? Just a thought.

Thanks Mark. I've seen the Plex blog, but am not so comfortable messing with system files (or killing Front Row), will wait for Apple to do some bug testing/fixing. Or maybe they'll launch a TV-viewing platform in Front Row and only allow the Remote to control that...

 

[KnightWRX]

Ok, locking them out of one-step (i.e. easy) syncing then - one where they don't have to install another piece of software to get to their itunes library. I'm thinking, maybe make it easy for the consumers who buy their music from you? Just a thought.

It is easy, your music is sitting there in iTunes. Oh you mean Apple should be responsible for other vendor's devices ? No. That's your vendor's job.

And who's to say that your vendor's sync solution uses more steps ? Mediasync is as simple as : 1- plug in device 2- hit sync. This is no different than if it was done from within iTunes.

Again, I see no reason that Apple should be responsible for your vendor's device because you seem to want to use it with iTunes. Heck, I want to use my USB humping dog with Palm Desktop, but it's not quite working. Maybe I should give Palm a call about it...

 

[heisetax]

Because of how poorly iTues works with my iPods I have stopped doing any syncing using iTunes. When I find something that will work with my Macs & my iPods I'll do some syncing again. Maybe when Palm writes their own syncing software I can get it to work with my all Apple hardware for some real syncing.

I'm looking for a replacement program for putting songs on my iPod. Generally the system would erase my iPod & I'd have to start all over again. Also iTunes can never find the location of my music. iTunes is dead for me. Why did Palm waster their time with such useless software. Apple has been copying MS so much anymore the lack of working software must be part of the deal.