What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with my post.
In any case, before you write it a third time, iSync is calendar/address/to-do sync, not music.
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.
USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In any case, before you write it a third time, iSync is calendar/address/to-do sync, not music.
I've been lied to by MR members!
Anyway, yes there is something that apple lets developers use (not itunes), as many others have
Probably nothing? This was a no-brainer decision. Palm already violated their terms of being in the USF-IF with spoofing a VID, and software doesn't necessarily have to offer interoperability to all hardware; USB is about the other way around. Man...
I'm sorry, you speak of which you do not know.
Yes, VMWare and Parallels present the OS with a virtual machine with common hardware vendor IDs and device IDs. They don't need licenses for this, because:
1) They aren't selling hardware, which is where the IDs normally reside
2) Because they aren't building hardware, there isn't actually a USB or PCI bus, its all virtual, there is no license to sign, which means they don't have to be compliant with anything.
On the other hand, Palm signed a license to obtain their own ID. The whole reason for the IDs is that a device can be properly identified. Maybe you grew up using computers post-2000, but it use to be a royal pain in the ass when there was no official way to identify devices. Vendor and Device IDs came about with the movement to make plug-n-play in the early 90s.
If we let anyone walk over each others device and vendor IDs, that would be the dangerous precedent. You would no longer have the guarantee that a device is what it says it is, that drivers would work with hardware, and we would once again have Plug-and-Pray
With Apple's dominant position in iPods (approaching genericized trademark territory) and music sales, Palm would be better served by pursuing anti-competitive interdictions with the EU primarily and DOJ secondarily than by bothering with an industry-funded standards consortium. There is nothing novel or interesting about iTunes as software, except that it is the front end to the most popular extant music distribution system for the most popular devices.
While Apple and Palm are trying to protect each's interests, open standards and interoperability are always better for the consumer than vendor lock-in. In the long run, the consumer ultimately is the loser in this feud. Between the entertainment cartels, the hardware/software vendors and their lobbies, its amazing that file conversion and transfer between a single person's devices isn't a capital offense.
While Apple and Palm are trying to protect each's interests, open standards and interoperability are always better for the consumer than vendor lock-in. In the long run, the consumer ultimately is the loser in this feud. Between the entertainment cartels, the hardware/software vendors and their lobbies, its amazing that file conversion and transfer between a single person's devices isn't a capital offense.
RIM has long had Blackberries syncing with iTunes via Apple's more official method (the XML database) for supporting 3rd-party access to your music library.
Palm can do the same. Instead they cut corners and made their customers be the guinea pigs in a (technologically clever) experiment they knew from the start was likely to fail.
All of which is fairly harmless in the end especially if you're not a Palm user. But it's a very weird choice for them to have made.
Then just ask Palm to do what RIM did, and enjoy syncing your iTunes library to your Palm hardware
It avoided Palm having to write any companion software of their own, but that's what they need to do. Then that software CAN talk to your iTunes library (see also Blackberry) and you can enjoy both iTunes and your Palm Pre together.
I'm sure Palm will do that, but it's weird that they've spent so long and so much effort/money to avoid it.
Exactly. BB's can sync with iTunes. The Missing Sync does this as well, and with many devices (and it works, I've set it up for a few people).
Palm needs to stop using their customers in their experiments.
What a load of nonsense. Interoperability has never been about piggy backing on someone else's effort. It's about documentation being available in order for you to make a compatible device. In this case, Apple offers a framework for people that want to Sync the contents of the iTunes library to other vendors for their devices. This is all documented.
What Palm did here was abuse Apple's efforts on iTunes so they wouldn't have to spend time implementing their own solution.
There is no anti-competitive measures. There is no abuse of inexisting monopoly positions.
Palm supporters sure have an entitlement complex.
I had no idea that the USB-IF even existed until this battle started.
I just read up about USB-IF on wikipedia:
"It was formed in 1995 by the group of companies that developed USB. Notable members include Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, NEC, Microsoft, Intel, and Agere Systems."
Maybe that has something to do with why Apple won. Just a thought, I could be wrong.
I just read up about USB-IF on wikipedia:
"It was formed in 1995 by the group of companies that developed USB. Notable members include Apple Computer, Hewlett-Packard, NEC, Microsoft, Intel, and Agere Systems."
Maybe that has something to do with why Apple won. Just a thought, I could be wrong.
Palm did that, remember? The initial release of the Pre identified itself as such, and THEN Apple explicitly blocked the device from syncing. THEN Palm introduced the USB spoof.
Palm played by the rules, and Apple abused their position by locking out their device. Then Palm used a questionable workaround by identifying itself as an Apple device - but Apple forced that by otherwise locking them out.
People have such short memories.
shenanigans
Palm was wrong from the start. Messing with the contract signed with a standards group is eight ways of stupid. The sad part is that I think they did it just to buy themselves time to create their own syncing solution (like RIM or Missing Sync) and to generate some buzz.
They don't really have the resources to do everything they want to do at once, and they have a lot of Apple engineers who are know how the iPods syncing works. With their Web OS / Palm pre launch schedule, they probably didn't have the time to write their own sync much less their own media software. So, why not add iTunes syncing and generate some noise.
They know Apple will respond and they probably have quit a few former Apple engineers that are not happy that the iPhone is based off OS X instead of something new, so why not poke Apple. All this makes them look like the plunky rebel, while they can get the product out and then devote resources to a proper sync. Then they can announce evil Apple made them write a separate program.
It is a cynical take, but I am starting to think it is not far from the truth.
Palm was wrong from the start. Messing with the contract signed with a standards group is eight ways of stupid. The sad part is that I think they did it just to buy themselves time to create their own syncing solution (like RIM or Missing Sync) and to generate some buzz.
They don't really have the resources to do everything they want to do at once, and they have a lot of Apple engineers who are know how the iPods syncing works. With their Web OS / Palm pre launch schedule, they probably didn't have the time to write their own sync much less their own media software. So, why not add iTunes syncing and generate some noise.
They know Apple will respond and they probably have quit a few former Apple engineers that are not happy that the iPhone is based off OS X instead of something new, so why not poke Apple. All this makes them look like the plunky rebel, while they can get the product out and then devote resources to a proper sync. Then they can announce evil Apple made them write a separate program.
It is a cynical take, but I am starting to think it is not far from the truth.
or not. the standard is about hardware recognition. the Palm still shows up as an attached device. and you can still drag files on and off it and so on.
what Palm should have done was question the standard and whether recognization by applications and not just the OS is required. and they should have done it BEFORE totally violating a rule themselves.
Facepalm?
You walked into that one.Anyway, I can't figure out why people think they and Palm are entitled to use iTunes as they like with an unsupported device, or why Apple is obligated to support it.
I want to use Logitech's SetPoint software with my Microsoft mouse and they should have to support it. Clearly. Or, Logitech should have to support other remotes with their Harmony remote software. Do people get how freakin' stupid that is?
Maybe Microsoft should be required to let it all its Zune software work with the iPod. Yeah, that's right. That makes a lot of sense.
You're right, in the sense that they initially pretended the Pre was an "iPod made by Palm," rather than an "iPod made by Apple." But Palm ALWAYS made the Pre pretend to be an iPod, and it was never accurate to spoof another brand's hardware. That was just a clever short-term hack, and one that they KNEW would almost certainly fail, and yet they subjected their users to it anyway. Apple then plugged a hole (not closed a feature) in their iPod-checking (checking the USB info more thoroughly than before) which surprised nobody.
What Palm SHOULD have done, from the start, is what RIM does with Blackberries: access the iTunes XML database.
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/media/mediasync.jsp
RIM has been advertising and offering iTunes MediaSync for ages, and you haven't seen Apple try to stop them. (And they're arguably a lot more of a real iPhone competitor than Palm.)
People have such short memories
No Apple didn't.
They have 9 versions of the classic, 3 shuffles, 5 nanos etc to ensure support. if someone forgets to put a device ID on the list, that ipod won't sync right. easy way around that. if it is a USB storage device with an Apple Vendor ID, recognize it.
thus they did it to ensure their software recognizes their hardware.
that is the story they would tell and you can't prove otherwise
and regardless, the standard was not and has never been about ensuring that the competitions hardware syncs with your software when you don't want it to. so Apple didn't do anything wrong.
HOWEVER, Palm sure did. And they got slapped over it. And if they aren't careful, their "and we will do it again" comments will get them denied further IDs which could cripple them.
Also to everyone saying "and music sales", drop that. with the lack of DRM there's nothing to stop you from putting itunes store tracks on any music player you want. making it a nonissue
I said nothing about the specifics of Palm's approach, just about their lack of strategy after the fact. Their sin may have been not following the Apple sanctioned approach, but they did no harm to Apple and likely violated no Apple IP in the process.
At the same time, the pettiness that Apple has repeatedly shown with the iPhone jailbreaking community, many of the App store rejections (from Netshare through Google Voice), and now the Pre just show that they rightly hold their shareholders interest above that of the consumer.
In the end, I have an almost exclusively Apple collection of gadgets because they do play nicely together (no Pre here). That said, I am not blind to the way that they stick it to their customers and mess with the competition. If you're a shareholder, it's great. If you're a customer, it's a mixed bag. Think about it critically, and stop drinking the Apple cool-aid.
After all that drivel, this part made me laugh. I take it you support shady business practices?
After all that drivel, this part made me laugh. I take it you support shady business practices?
LOL. It's a cash rich company because it usually protects shareholders' best interests by usually giving the customer what (s)he wants. Nothing shady there, but nothing saintly either. Sticking it to Palm in this case is arguably closer to shady than saintly.