USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute

[KnightWRX]

I dont see how this is helpful for the tech world. Congrats all you Apple fanboys Apple has again shown they are growing to become a fascist company that is everything they were against when they started. Doesn't matter its just a matter of time before Missing sync or another company solves this.

That's the point, why didn't Palm just ask Missing Sync to implement Pre support and pay for it ? Missing Sync doesn't spoof anything to sync with iTunes, they use the proper method.

The only thing that's not helpful to the tech world is Palm being lazy and trying to piggy back on somebody else's effort. This sets a dangerous precedent where companies won't innovate, they'll just spoof their way to the top.

 

[rmhurdman]

...
But, that's to be expected. The average IQ in the US is about 100, which is scary in its own right!
Mark

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!

 

[*LTD*]

Okay, look, you stupid monkeys who can't understand this point, but yet someone has to make it over and over again.

This isn't about iTunes being able to sync to other devices. It's about the fact that the Pre had to tell iTunes it as an IPOD to do it! So instead of getting the tiny bit of licensing needed to have their device sync to iTunes, they made their device LIE and pretend to be an ipod. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Apple doesn't want devices that aren't iPods, to tell iTunes that they are. That is all. This isn't about greed, it isn't about money, it's all about fixing a blatant lie that even M$ has the integrity to not perpetrate!

One of the best posts in this thread.

 

[Veri]

Again, you are assuming interoperability is required at a level far beyond the scope of USB.

Required by whom? As far as I can tell, I was making conclusions, based on the USB forum's actions, about the USB forum's interests. What this case has done is confirm that USB is a substandard standard -- but we all knew this already... even Apple, before it saw that the mass Windows market wasn't going to buy FireWire host controllers.

(I was also suggesting what Palm could do next to ensure their devices continue working with iTunes. Once Palm have written a Windows device driver to translate the identification on the host, Apple would have to take the bold and intrusive step of detecting what device drivers are running on the host... unless it plans to update the firmware of every iPod. Good luck on this pointless arms race, Apple.)

Apple is merely utilizing the USB standard to maintain the integrity of their own software.

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"?

Is it really such a hassle that "Palm Pre Sync" might pop up when you plug in your Pre instead of iTunes?

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?

Instead of piggybacking on someone else's investment, maybe they should do a little grunt-work of their own.

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.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

That's the point, why didn't Palm just ask Missing Sync to implement Pre support and pay for it ? Missing Sync doesn't spoof anything to sync with iTunes, they use the proper method.

The only thing that's not helpful to the tech world is Palm being lazy and trying to piggy back on somebody else's effort. This sets a dangerous precedent where companies won't innovate, they'll just spoof their way to the top.

I don't think it was lazyness more Palm just trying to stick it to Apple. They were trying to see how far they could push it, and they lost.

 

[kdarling]

The USB-IF responded in the only way logical and legal way it could.

The USB-IF is partially supported by the fees it gets for selling USB ids. Of course they're going to protect that income, and more importantly, their self-made "authority".

Palm hijacked Apple's USB identifier, which was SPECIFICALLY against the rules and requirements THEY AGREED TO when they signed on as a USB device maker.

Paying the USB-IF to get an id is voluntary. A smart move, but voluntary. It has nothing to do with the right to make USB devices.

Heck, you could start your own USB club and sell ids.

Palm knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway. They needed SOME sort of Hail Mary pass to try to compete with the rapidly growing iPhone market share. So, they cheated. Plain and simple. And now they're busted. Plain and simple.

Yep, but it was fun to watch. One could almost think that Jobs and Rubenstein have a side bet going on it. After all, Jobs got started by selling Blue Boxes to rip off the phone company by copying their codes.

To all the OMG posters: Please notice that Apple hasn't sued Palm, nor even publicly (if at all) complained to the USB-IF. They're just continuing to play cat and mouse with Palm.

Should Palm make their own sync app? Absolutely. This all smacks more of getting free press. David vs Goliath, etc. Apple knows it, and that's why they keep quiet.

 

[173080]

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"?

Of course Apple should want money from people who want to enjoy its experience. To enjoy the Apple experience, you buy Apple hardware. It isn't Apple's obligation to let iTunes sync with anything other than their own products.

 

[aristotle]

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 have no clue what I'm talking about? USB devices are categorized into classes of devices such as Human Interface device (HID) or a Mass storage device. When a device is plugged in, the computer queries the class of device first and then looks at the ID. If no ID specific device driver is found, it will fall back on the driver for the class of device. Please enlighten us as to which USB class the iPhone falls under the USB spec for syncing? It is definitely not recognized as a mass storage device. Without a driver specific for the iPhone on the target machine, there would be very little a computer could use the device for other than a modem for tether assuming that feature was turned on. When tethering is turned on, the iPhone emits an additional class to the connected computer and the computer then loads the driver for that class which represents a USB network adaptor.

You should be careful who you call clueless. I work as a software developer and I have been at my current employer for about a decade now. What is your profession?

 

[Oilbrnr]

What is a Pre?

 

[todd2000]

What is a Pre?

Best post in this thread! (Assuming it was a joke)

More on topic, Apple has worked for years, and spent millions of dollars developing, and marketing iTunes. What gives palm ANY right to just come right in and HIJACK iTunes to sync with the Pre? Can I sync my iPod with Zune software? No! What makes this any different?

This whole "Apple has the monopoly on music purchases and players/software therefore they should let other people use their Intellectual Property" is ridiculous. Apple DOES NOT have a monopoly, they just happen to make the most popular Media Management software and players in the world. People have a choice to get other media players and use other software to sync them. As others have stated even with iTunes if they do it right.

Would it be nice if Apple let other devices sync with iTunes? Of course it would, however they are under no obligation (legal or from the USB-IF) to do so. It makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to work on a project for years, and spend all that money on it just to let some company that is to lazy to develop their own software piggyback off of iTunes.

Bottom line, what Palm did was wrong, and their lucky Apple hasn't sued them yet, cause it may even be illegal. Apple owns iTunes, and they have every right to protect their property, and not allow access to any device that they want.

What part of that last sentence don't you people get?

 

[czachorski]

Really? Really? The consumer sees Apple software working one day and not working the next; and that's all I see, also.

This consumer, and most people syncing music players to their computers on the planet, see the Apple software work consistently day after day. Only that very small portion of the market that bought a device from a dubious company implementing questionable practices like Palm are experiencing what you describe. Buyer beware.

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.

You mean only that 70% of the market that uses iPods and iPhones? That group of "the only people"....? lol

Everyone else just sees Apple being its usual control freakish self.

Everyone else being that 1% of the market out there that bought a Pre? That group of "everyone else"?

Too funny - your terms just crack me up.

 

[docholid]

This whole debate is ridiculous. iTunes is not a market

iTunes is, however, a separate product from an iPod or iPhone. When people bring up anti-trust concerns, the issue is that Apple is using their position with a product in one market segment (digital music distribution and management) to protect their position in others (portable music players and portable phones). If iTunes was made by somebody else, they'd have a vested interest in being able to sync natively with as many devices as possible, and that's the anti-trust problem.

Certainly, you can tell me that there are alternatives to the iTunes Store, but there's no denying that it holds a dominant market share when it comes to digital music distribution. You can also tell me that one can download software to sync with my iTunes material, but that's hardly the same, is it? If during the browser fiasco Microsoft had flatly disabled the ability to even install Netscape, and I told you that you could install Netscape by first installing a separate piece of software (say, VMWare with a Linux guest OS), you'd tell me the same thing. Requiring separate software creates a barrier to entry for other devices. No one is asking Apple to code for other devices, but iTunes would be a better product if the ability to natively sync was an open standard that Apple published to provide a better experience to the users of other portable devices.

I'm not so much disappointed in Apple, as they're doing what companies do...try to maximize their profits. I'm more disappointed in the Apple community...where I once saw a dedication to the ideals of openness and new ideas, I now see only blind dedication to a company and its products.

 

[Stratus Fear]

The USB standard isn't (and shouldn't) be concerned with an individual application. What it's concerned with is 1) any USB device can be connected to any USB host, whether an OS has a driver to recognize it or not 2) a handful of generic classes that every OS can have a driver for to support a multitude of devices of one class without any extra support and 3) that the OS generally recognizes devices that support USB. The USB-IF isn't here to play police for a user-facing application that doesn't even prevent a device from being connected to and recognized by the system. It's silly to think it is here for that purpose, and silly to think it's wrong that they don't do it now. USB is about general interoperability with computers, not specific software packages.

 

[Veri]

This consumer, and most people syncing music players to their computers on the planet, see the Apple software work consistently day after day

Perhaps I was not explicit enough: the consumer of Palm sees Apple software suddenly not working (as does the the observer). I'm not sure how you read into my post a suggestion that you or I, as iPod/iPhone users, would have our use of iTunes affected.

Only that very small portion of the market that bought a device from a dubious company implementing questionable practices like Palm are experiencing what you describe.

Hmm... is this like Apple saying the Windows experience on an Intel iMac is at least as good as on a Windows OEM box? Although in that case, because Microsoft actually tries to operate Windows on a wide range of hardware,it's not awful... just a lot more hairy than on the average PC (hey, Apple, I have a 64-bit workstation here! Fancy releasing some official drivers? actually, if you started by just getting warm reboots to reset the hardware properly I'd be happy).

You mean only that 70% of the market that uses iPods and iPhones? That group of "the only people"....? lol

I think I am a counterexample to your false dichotomy: I am currently using an iMac, connected to which is an iPod, but I have no particular love for Apple. At the time of purchase, they seemed like a good idea... they are still great machines. But, as an observer of Apple's behaviour, I am thoroughly put off them.

Incidentally, be careful with the numbers game: on an arbitrary desktop, there is a far higher than 70% chance that you won't see a Mac. Should we then dismiss the Apple Computer market entirely?I mean, a group that small must be irrelevant, right?

 

[Mark Booth]

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.

Yeah, I didn't word my post very well to carry the appropriate meaning. I realized it right after I posted it but I had to go pick up my wife from her exercise class and didn't have time to fix it.

What I meant was that, statistically, half the people have below average IQs.

Mark

 

[Stratus Fear]

Certainly, you can tell me that there are alternatives to the iTunes Store, but there's no denying that it holds a dominant market share when it comes to digital music distribution. You can also tell me that one can download software to sync with my iTunes material, but that's hardly the same, is it? If during the browser fiasco Microsoft had flatly disabled the ability to even install Netscape, and I told you that you could install Netscape by first installing a separate piece of software (say, VMWare with a Linux guest OS), you'd tell me the same thing. Requiring separate software creates a barrier to entry for other devices. No one is asking Apple to code for other devices, but iTunes would be a better product if the ability to natively sync was an open standard that Apple published to provide a better experience to the users of other portable devices.

I'm not so much disappointed in Apple, as they're doing what companies do...try to maximize their profits. I'm more disappointed in the Apple community...where I once saw a dedication to the ideals of openness and new ideas, I now see only blind dedication to a company and its products.

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.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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.

You there is a difference between failure to support some one else product and intentionally breaking it.

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

 

[CQd44]

What is a Pre?

A miserable pile of technology.

But enough talk, have at you!

 

[pdjudd]

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

No, they tightened the recognition schemes of their own devices to stop others from spoofing them. Apple has not banned Palms USB ID from the Mac hardware level, it just closed a security hole in its own software. It had the effect of stopping the syncing of a certain market player but Apple never intended to build support in the first place and even announced that. Apple never said that iTunes was open to non Apple players like the Pre.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

No, they tightened the recognition schemes of their own devices to stop others from spoofing them. Apple has not banned Palms USB ID from the Mac hardware level, it just closed a security hole in its own software. It had the effect of stopping the syncing of a certain market player but Apple never intended to build support in the first place and even announced that. Apple never said that iTunes was open to non Apple players like the Pre.

What you are saying is splitting hairs. The ONLY reason apple did was it did was to stop Pre from syncing. They broke i, then claim some BS reasoning behind it.

Apple is breaking syncing and chances are it is with a very simple line If then statement line of code to do so. in the end what apple is doing is just making the consumer lose.

It sad the companies across the board pull these BS stunts off instead of making things easier for the consumer they make it harder and remove our choices. Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

 

[Mark Booth]

A friend suggested this analogy:

Complaining about Apple not allowing Palm to sync their Pre to iTunes is akin to complaining about Ford not putting their motor mounts in the proper place for a Chevy motor!

iTunes is Apple's software. If Palm wants to survive, it should get off its dead a$$ and make its own media syncing software to compete with iTunes. But, instead, they want to sit around and whine about not being able to use Apple's software. Idiots!

I guess I should feel sorry for those Palm Pre owners that bought into Palm's hype of syncing with iTunes. But I don't. In this day and age, anyone with a computer, an internet connection, and the Google URL could have researched this subject before making a purchase. That, plus the tiniest modicum of common sense should have inspired caution about buying into Palm's hype.

Mark

 

[Mark Booth]

Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

GOOD! I don't want Apple to play nice! I want Apple to CRUSH the others!

Business is war and war is hell!

Mark

 

[Stratus Fear]

You there is a difference between failure to support some one else product and intentionally breaking it.

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

You're looking at it the wrong way. By making sure it doesn't work, Apple is saying "we are not supporting this." There's no reason to leave it working if it's something they don't intend to support. Leaving it working is an admission that they want it to be there, and people will call them on it. Similar to trademark. If you don't protect your trademark when somebody violates it, you're saying you support their use of your trademark.

 

[Stratus Fear]

What you are saying is splitting hairs. The ONLY reason apple did was it did was to stop Pre from syncing. They broke i, then claim some BS reasoning behind it.

Apple is breaking syncing and chances are it is with a very simple line If then statement line of code to do so. in the end what apple is doing is just making the consumer lose.

It sad the companies across the board pull these BS stunts off instead of making things easier for the consumer they make it harder and remove our choices. Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

The ONLY reason Palm tried to hook into iTunes is because they didn't want to spend time creating their own solution.

The least Palm would need to do is make a sync conduit to hook into that XML file to sync the Pre with an iTunes library. In the end, by not doing it the provided and accepted way, they're making their consumers lose. If you're blaming this on Apple, you're saying the onus is on them to support Pre users.

 

[pdjudd]

What you are saying is splitting hairs. The ONLY reason apple did was it did was to stop Pre from syncing. They broke i, then claim some BS reasoning behind it.

Apple is breaking syncing and chances are it is with a very simple line If then statement line of code to do so. in the end what apple is doing is just making the consumer lose.

It sad the companies across the board pull these BS stunts off instead of making things easier for the consumer they make it harder and remove our choices. Apple is one of the worse companies out there when it comes to playing nice with others.

If a cop only ends up pulling you (and just you) over for speeding on a given day doesn't mean that the cop is targeting you, its only means that you are the only one that got caught by them. Palm is the only one being affected because nobody else is doing what Palm did. You sound surprised that when Palm acts alone, it looks like they get targeted. Its not becasue they have the flashy car - Apple doesn't give a rats tooshie. Palm wants to think that they can speed on any road they want to instead of the lane designated for the faster speeds. It doesn't work that way.