There's no reason to use a third party syncing method if a totally usable method has already been written and is easy to utilize. Palm did this with minimal effort, there is no reason to be so redundant.
that's about stupid. redundancy is going to naturally happen when theres competition don't you think. how many brands of cars are there out there? they all get from point A to B or perform similar functions. what can't Chevy just grab a few Dodge trucks and stick a bowtie on the hood and call it theirs? why waste all that time and money developing a whole other truck to compete against it?
so basically you're saying since Apple's already done it, there's no reason to think that a competitor should have to do a single lick of development to support its own product in order to be competitive. don't forget, Apple doesn't sell iTunes. they sell the devices that iTunes SUPPORTS and adds to the value of the experience of those products.
Palm created the Pre to compete with iPhones/iPods. if they want it to have all the same gee wiz features and experiences as an iPhone does, they need to support that with their own development.
and once again, using the XML method that Apple has provided to developers for giving them access to the content (CONSUMERS own the content and CHOOSE to use iTunes to manage that content) isn't rocket science nor is it restrictive.
You are totally correct, it's the fact that Apple is purposefully DISABLING pre's from syncing is the issue!
that makes no sense. how can i be correct yet you still imply that Apple is somehow doing something wrong by controlling their IP?!?!?!
It's called being a monopoly, and avoiding anti trust allegations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
both are good reads, should bring you up to speed
thanks, but not only have i read those before, but it also doesn't answer the question. providing me a definition of what a monopoly is doesn't make it so. i could accuse you of beating your wife then post a link for the definition of what Domestic Violence is. does that mean you beat your wife? of course not.
i'm not the one accusing Apple of committing a crime, you are. i don't have to provide evidence to support my position you do. not the least of which i couldn't anyway and you know that, which is why you won't answer my question. it's called proving a negative. it's not possible. just like you couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't beat your wife. you say "she has no bruises" and i say "they've healed."
it all comes down to you having the "opinion" that apple is committing a crime. to that, you are totally entitled to feel that way. however to use your opinion as fact and the basis for an argument, just isn't going to fly.
so again, i ask you. what specifically is apple doing that you think is criminal, and show me where it says in the law that it is in fact a crime?
its wonderful that everyone pretends that because no issue with a company has been found, that none exist.
that's such a paranoid life to live is it not? how sad.
but let's all run with this one anyway. i believe you sell crack cocaine to 3 graders at the school down the street from you. i'm going to go around and tell everyone i meet that you do, and i'm going to tell your employer that you do. maybe they'll even feel enough pressure to fire you because it must be true since i believe it so fervently. when you can prove to me that it isn't so, then i'll retract my accusation.
Apple is being investigated by the FCC for the google voice app fiasco, and many telcos are being investigated regarding exclusivity agreements for which apple is pretty famous for in the US. The fact that the licensing agreement of OS X only allows for it to be installed on apple hardware is also a point of contention for which apple has been scrutinized for. Apple looses nothing but time and money by trying to block palm.
This is classic morality vs legality and Apple fails horribly.
good for the FCC. i'm glad theyre actually doing something with all those tax dollars they receive. if they do find something illegal, i'm sure they'll let us all know. in the meantime, i live in the US of A and believe in innocent UNTIL proven guilty. not there's an investigation so youre assumed guilty, or appear to be guilty, or thought to be guilty, or because i said so guilty. except in your case of course. you really must stop selling crack to children
and before you or anyone else tries to throw the "just another apple fanboy" label out there, i go on record as saying that even i never accused MS of illegal activity before they were in fact found guilty of it. did i like what they were doing prior to that, no. but i simply said, they better hope they are right because if they ever get investigated it could mean a whole world of hurt.
if you were approaching apple similarly i'd be responding a whole lot differently, but you aren't now are you?
