USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute

[Stratus Fear]

Palm IS hurting someone :-

1. Apple are not being paid to support the Palm Pre so if for some reason iTunes changes and the Pre no longer works because it is not officially support the Palm Pre owners are hurt.

2. Apple gets bad press because Palm decide to put them in a position by breaking the way the USB codes work. Apple did not start this fiasco, Palm did by pretending that the Pre was an iPod.

The "no one gets hurt" excuse is often used when the law is broken, it still does not make it alright to do it.

Exactly. It's actually Palm hurting their own customers here by not stepping up to the plate and providing their own solution to support the Pre. This could have easily been solved by, at the least, making a syncing conduit between the iTunes music library and the Pre, instead of "cheating," for lack of better words.

 

[nkawtg72]

Exactly. It's actually Palm hurting their own customers here by not stepping up to the plate and providing their own solution to support the Pre. This could have easily been solved by, at the least, making a syncing conduit between the iTunes music library and the Pre, instead of "cheating," for lack of better words.

we know that, but i think there may be a lot of Pre owners beginning to second guess their purchase. instead of admitting that they may have bought a Pre out of spite for Apple and the iPhone, they rather defend Palm (and their purchase) and somehow make this out to be Apple's fault that now, all of sudden they don't have anyway to sync all that content they keep in iTunes (which they happen to prefer) to their superior Pre device.


edit:
it's funny. folks complain that Apple is telling them what they can and can't do with their iPhone/iPod Touch, so they go to Palm for a Pre. well Palm tells them they have to use Apple software to get the bloody thing to work, and when that fails it's somehow Apple's fault, even though Palm is the one who told them what to do!!!

 

[Stratus Fear]

we know that, but i think there may be a lot of Pre owners beginning to second guess their purchase. instead of admitting that they may have bought a Pre out of spite for Apple and the iPhone, they rather defend Palm (and their purchase) and somehow make this out to be Apple's fault that now, all of sudden they don't have anyway to sync all that content they keep in iTunes (which they happen to prefer) to their superior Pre device.

Yeah, I just meant to re-emphasize it. But I agree with your assessment. It's really funny though that if Palm had done the right thing, people could STILL use iTunes and sync the library to the Pre. All that would really be different is the device doesn't show in iTunes and you open an external app. It otherwise makes no difference!

Edit: Well I guess they still can, since they have mountable drive access to use. It'd still be easier if Palm had made their own sync app though.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Yay, another ****** company bites the dust.


/*Starts playing Queen*/

 

[b0ned0me]

The iPod ONLY works with iTunes we the consumer get not choice in the matter if we want to use another piece of software.

Eh? Wot? Last time I looked there was all sorts of third-party iPod stuff like Anapod, Winamp iPod plugin, ephpod, Media Monkey etc. Nowadays most of the third-party effort seems to be around connecting with iTunes rather than replacing it, but that's probably because most customers are OK with iTunes rather than because it's impossible to do. All you need is some good coding skills and 30-40 hours a week free and you could write, release and support RodimusPod to help your fellow consumers.

Or are you complaining that no-one is providing software that does exactly what iTunes does (or more) for the same price? Perhaps it's because that would mean developing a pretty complex piece of software that's to give away free unless you can cross-subsidise it off squillions of pieces of hardware it's helping to sell?

 

[cjmillsnun]

I wonder how much Apple paid the USF-IF.....

My guess is nothing except their normal licence fees for the use of USB Technology. Palm clearly broke the rules as regards usb VIDs

 

[gnasher729]

While "legally" technically correct, it's disappointing that the USB-IF didn't take this opportunity to scold Apple for not behaving in the spirit of why the USB spec was created in the first place.

This may just be the first round where USB device makers lock out their devices to $$$$ from the highest bidder. Big hint to Microsoft, if they ever want to knock Apple out of the computer industry.

This post is completely ignorant of the realities. Apple isn't locking out any USB devices that say "I am a Palm Pre device, and I am made by Palm". They lock out devices that say "I am an iPod, and I am made by Apple" when in fact they are not iPods and not made by Apple. Apple shouldn't have to do this (that is what the USB Compliance Organization just said; Palm isn't allowed to make products whose USB chip claims it is made by Apple), but it is absolute common sense that you don't let anything connect to your computer that is not in compliance with USB regulations.

 

[MacBram]

There is no battle...

People keep saying CDMA is a dieing techology yet they tend to forget that 3G used by GSM carriers tech is a CDMA based techology.....
The real battle is over which CDMA tech is better. Since it is more CDMA techology that split.

I don't care what the letters are and what letters might be related to what other bunch of letters at some point in history...

The point is, a certain tech or protocol has been accepted as the standard over most of the world: whatever bunch(es) of letters uses SIM cards. I can take a phone that uses SIM cards, fly to any other country, pop my card out and pop in a local pay-as-you-go card (or whatever). I can move to another country or travel, and know I can mix and match and swap cards as much as I like (assuming the phone is unlocked -- which is more likely the "real battle"). The only issue is that the phone needs to support the two or three or maybe four different radio frequencies that are commonly set aside for telephony around the world.

If you have a service or phone that doesn't use SIM cards, then you have already lost. A phone without a SIM card is like using a music player that doesn't play MP3s. Go get a real phone.

 

[Hugh]

Pre

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.

No, this is not correct. Palm spoofed the vender ID to start with, the Pre was to look like a iPod to iTunes. So no Palm didn't play by the rules.

Hugh

 

[MorphingDragon]

WHY are people still arguing this. If they spoofed the ID, they spoofed the ID. What more is there?

 

[edmundo]

Maybe that has something to do with why Apple won.

It doesn't. Apple is a notable company, Apple is a member of the USB-IF, thus Apple is a notable member of the USB-IF. Nothing more. Anyone who actually looked at the USB-IF guidelines knew it was going to end up this way.

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.

No. Palm started by spoofing an iPod's device id. When Apple filtered on the VID, they started spoofing the VID as well.

Palm played by the rules

Nope.

Apple abused their position by locking out their device.

Nope, nothing in the USB-IF guidelines say your software should work with any USB device. That doesn't make any sense. Apple used to lock iTunes for a specific (and limited, pre-iPod players, the ROKR and iPods) number of supported devices, then Palm decided they were going to **** around by pretending a "media mode" Pre was an iPod.

Nothing in Palm's strategy was correct.

By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player. Do you really want to take that position?

Of course it would. And in fact that's exactly what they do with their Zune Software. Last time I checked, you can only sync a Zune with Zune Soft.

 

[twilson]

I'm sympathetic to Apple to keep iTunes closed, but blocking someone from emulating vendor IDs really sets a dangerous precedent.

I think breaking fundamental rules of engagement between software and USB hardware is an even worse way to go as it will destroy the "Universal" aspect when you have to cater for a billion and one different "what-if" scenarios.

PCI devices also use Vendor IDs (in fact this is where they started). Applications like VMware and Parallels *have* to emulate Vendor IDs for PCI devices they emulate (like north/south bridges). Many other applications and devices work by emulating existing devices for backward compatibility.

Blocking this kind of emulation seems to me a very dubious action. Good for Apple perhaps but very bad for users.

While I'm not denying the usefulness of VM products, the amount of hacking around that the VM software makers have to do make these things work correctly is astounding and points at a reason why VID spoofing shouldn't really happen too much.

 

[mags631]

To be fair, it's not about the contracts and the letter of the law, it's about what's right in the eye of the consumer.

Yikes. No thank you, I'll stick with contracts and the law over the arbitrary, fleeting and heterogeneous opinions of the consumer.

 

[Goona]

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases, and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition. Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices, and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes. There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this. Palm made it work, and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts. Totally unacceptable.

Who made itunes any standard for syncing songs with a phone. Last time I checked Apple is not blocking you from using other software@!

 

[Goona]

Here's what Steve has to say about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

By your logic, it would be just fine for Microsoft to deliberately prevent another company from syncing with Windows Media Player. Do you really want to take that position?

I just want to know how Palm got to be the cool company with the hacker mentality, while Apple and our community turned into a bunch of asshats that go out of our way to chide them for it.

Our community has become become the antithesis of what it once was.

Why don't you go ask Microsoft why they don't allow my iphone or a Palm Pre to sync with their Zune Software which syncs with Zunes?

 

[Veri]

What a surprise: the standards body of a poor standard making poor decisions about the nature of standards.

The purpose of a standard is to ease interoperability. Apple's actions are against the spirit and letter of "standard". If Palm want to respond to this gaggle, I suggest one paragraph on the technical flaws of USB (focusing on all the things 1394 got right, before Apple abandoned that), another paragraph about how long it's taken to decide what a standard USB power supply is (incorporating some footnotes commenting on the extent to which the MacBook Air and iPods respect rules on power), with a final paragraph promising an explicit "non-compliance to uphold the spirit of standards" option on the handset, so the user can be clear whether he is operating in "pretend the handset has a USB forum logo" mode or not.

 

[*LTD*]

Answers in bold.

The problem with the logic that "its Apple's software they can do whatever they want with it" argument is that iTunes has become a de facto standard for internet music purchases and management.

So . . .

Palm: "Your software is so popular, that we now have rights to it!"

So what's the popularity level it has to achieve? 10 million users? 30 million? Is there a "Like-meter" that measures enjoyment of the software and then adjusts IP rights accordingly?

If Microsoft said you can ONLY use internet explorer, and purposely blocked all other internet browsers from running on the platform, using the aforementioned logic, it would be fine because it's Microsoft's software.

Apple doesn't block Songbird or most other iTunes knockoffs that work with OS X.

Apple has a near monopoly on internet music purchases,

Near? How near? Is there a standard of measurement for this? Or is it like the whole "little bit pregnant" thing?

and it is their responsibility (as a market leader) to encourage competition.

Do you actually believe this? If I were Apple I'd hope the competition gets vapourized tomorrow, so there's NO competition. Why, as a business, woud I want ANY competitors?? But laws prevent me from launching small thermonuclear devices at the othery guy's headquarters. Oh well.

The competition's welfare isn't Apple's responsibility. That's up to everyone else. Don't blame Apple because the rest of the pack couldn't come up with anything better.

Apple is completely guilty of anti-competitive practices,

Which court or judicial body convicted them and when?

and it's a bit frightening to me that everyone is so OK with this. You should be able to (at the very least) be able to use any device to sync your music to itunes.

And I should be able to drive my neghbour's car when I want. It's a hot-**** Merc and everyone on the street loves it. And I'm still waiting for that pony I was promised when I was five.

There shouldn't be a need for third party software to achieve this.

Why should Apple cater to every other manufacturer?

Palm made it work,

No, they didn't make it work. They snuck around and hlped themselves to something they had no permission for in the first place. You need to respect the other's IP rights. RIM made it work, though.


and Apple is purposely thwarting their efforts.

As any sane organization should. Why should Apple allow full iTunes access to be a premier feature of Palm's smartphone?? It's ludicrous.

Totally unacceptable.

What is? Apple's rights to their own IP, or your sense of entitlment?

 

[Goona]

i hate to think where all these Pre owners would be if they owned only a PC and Apple didn't make iTunes for Windows? mercy me, whatever would they sync their Pre to?

You don't know itunes is the only syncing program out there?

 

[pmjoe]

It seems as if you have no understanding of how software and specifically drivers for USB devices work. The "unique" ID that each USB device type is given is how an operating system is able to figure out which device is connected and to load the appropriate driver for it.

Palm broke the USB spec, not just the "spirit" of it.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The USB spec was introduced to encourage interoperability and reuse of device drivers. The vendor ID is intentionally supposed to have as little to do with what drivers are loaded as possible. The USB device classes are where this should primarily be determined.

I'm sure you wouldn't be thrilled if Apple suddenly decided to partner with SanDisk and block all other manufacturer's USB Mass Storage devices, just so they can make a couple of extra $$$. All this USB interoperability was very convenient for Apple a decade ago when very few peripheral devices were Mac compatible.

If you are a Palm Pre owner, my condolences but you should have done your research before selecting a device and carrier.

I own an iPhone.

Sprint is one of the last US carriers trying desperately to hold on to the aging CDMA standard. [blah, blah, blah]

You know, some people live in parts of the US where CDMA is the only reasonable option, but you've already shown you don't know that much.

 

[pmjoe]

As you guys can see, I've been around MacRumors for a while. And Appleinsider before that, etc.

For the last 11 years I've been a complete Apple fanboy (Since buying an iMac on 8/15/1998).

But sheesh, I really can't believe how many of you are applauding Apple's move to restrict interoperability.

Ditto. AppleInsider was far worse for this though. Too many Apple stockholders who only cared about Apple's $$$$$. That's why I moved here.

 

[*LTD*]

More proof that Apple has become the industry's R&D department. This half-asleep industry would be at a total loss without Apple.

 

[Veri]

The competition's welfare isn't Apple's responsibility. That's up to everyone else. Don't blame Apple because the rest of the pack couldn't come up with anything better.

I have thought this so often about anti-trust action against Microsoft in the late 90s... and if they hadn't needed Apple as an argument that they were not monopoly on the desktop, probably they never would have invested money and software development assurances in Apple, and perhaps if they had never invested in Apple, it would have withered away before its resurgence this decade.

So, if Microsoft hadn't made "the competition's welfare" its interest at a time of government bullying, Apple might not even exist.

(Of course, the best businesses don't want to destroy all the competition, because they are comprised of people who are technically excellent and who would be stifled in a vacuum. Microsoft and Apple are great at copying, tweaking and integrating for a mass audience, but have produced little original scholarship in-house, relying on the apes who like to share their tools rather than those who hoard them. What is more, Microsoft has a more active research and development output, but only makes occasional effort integrating this with its mainstream products.)

 

[kdarling]

It seems as if you have no understanding of how software and specifically drivers for USB devices work. The "unique" ID that each USB device type is given is how an operating system is able to figure out which device is connected and to load the appropriate driver for it.

Only if you need non-standard functions, and even then the generic class driver often works. If you plug in a keyboard, it uses the generic HID driver. Video cam? Video class driver. Mass storage? Ditto.

Otherwise we would need hundreds of separate drivers for the manufacturer of every USB dongle in the world.

If you are a Palm Pre owner, my condolences but you should have done your research before selecting a device and carrier. Sprint is one of the last US carriers trying desperately to hold on to the aging CDMA standard. Everyone else is moving on to LTE (4G GSM) in the 2010-2011 time period.

CDMA was ahead of its time. The GSM carriers had to go to CDMA air protocols to get 3G.

As for LTE, even Verizon won't have it fully rolled out until early 2014.

PS. Before someone parrots the Verizon line that LTE is currently data only, LTE is an extension of UTMS (3G GSM in Europe and Canada) which is also data only but has a dedicated voice layer within the data stream for voice calls on the carrier network. LTE will work the same way.

You are batting zero today. Stop reading wikipedia, it's rotting your brain.

LTE has nothing technically to do with UTMS or GSM or CDMA. It is a totally different standard.

 

[twilson]

What a surprise: the standards body of a poor standard making poor decisions about the nature of standards.

The purpose of a standard is to ease interoperability. Apple's actions are against the spirit and letter of "standard".

WRONG!

The USB standard is to ensure that when a compliant USB device is plugged into a compliant USB port, specific messages and informations are sent back and forth. These messages may or may not also contain custom, specific responses and data.

For example when asking a device for its Vendor ID, it will ONLY respond with the Vendor ID assigned to the Vendor by USB-IF (not what Palm was doing).

Basically I can plug in an unsupported Canon/Nikon camera and they will respond saying that are Canon/Nikon devices respectively as well as what model number they are etc. They will also say that they are, more than likely, Mass Storage Class devices to allow access to the memory cards.

As they are saying that the are Mass Storage Class devices, there are certain functionality that they must expose, and the supported functionality will be communicated via the USB port in a "standard way" and be interpretable by software accordingly.

The above cameras example all use clearly defined protocols and messages. Adhering to this correct messaging/protocol format is what ensures the "interoperability" being referred to by the USB spec.

Just because I can tell what the device is doesn't necessarily mean I can use it.

Custom/proprietary devices and communication over USB are permitted and perfectly acceptable. As long as a device:

• says what it does in the correct way;
• and does what is required for it to be a device of a given class or classes;
• and performs the operations for its specified classes with the correct result

it is perfectly fine as a USB device.

The "interoperability" allows a third-party to figure out and create a software driver for a USB device that would otherwise be unsupported. A perfect example of this is the PlayStation Eye camera.

Only the PS3 has a driver for the PlayStation Eye, however when I plug it into my Mac, it knows I have plugged in a webcam-device made by Sony. As a result third-party developers have been able to create a driver for the camera, as it communicates using a defined messaging standard.

 

[pmjoe]

This post is completely ignorant of the realities. Apple isn't locking out any USB devices that say "I am a Palm Pre device, and I am made by Palm". They lock out devices that say "I am an iPod, and I am made by Apple" when in fact they are not iPods and not made by Apple. Apple shouldn't have to do this (that is what the USB Compliance Organization just said; Palm isn't allowed to make products whose USB chip claims it is made by Apple), but it is absolute common sense that you don't let anything connect to your computer that is not in compliance with USB regulations.

Your post is completely ignorant of reality. What Palm first did was have the Pre post a USB profile that said it was an "iPod" class device made by "Palm". That is what any USB device does. iPod is just a class of device, like "Mass Storage" or "HID" that helps determine what drivers to use. That is how every USB device interoperates on any platform. Apple then changed iTunes to only interact with "iPods" made by "Apple". That was when Palm complained to USB-IF.

Would you feel better about this if Apple only allowed you to connect "HID" keyboards and mice made by "Apple"?