USB Compliance Organization Sides With Apple in Palm Pre Syncing Dispute

[Rodimus Prime]

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

You entire point using ford not making mounting points to chevy motor fails. Ford does not have to offer mounting points for a chevy motor but at the same time ford does not go out of its way to prevent chevy motors from being installed in its cars. if some one wanted to they can modify the mounting points of a Chevy motor and put it in the car. Or hell chevy could make a motor with the mounting points and put it in. Ford would not car.

Palm (Chevy) made mounting points for its motor (pre) to connect with iTunes (ford)

Most consumers to not want to install more crap on their computer. Having to install two piece of software to access ones music annoys most people.

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

 

[dguisinger]

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".

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.

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.

As a hardware developer, I call bull on your stupidity or ignorance.
Yes, you can build a device that uses USB without paying for IDs, but you cannot legally sell it with the USB logos because you have no license to the logos without it. You also don't have licenses to required patents which are held in the pool managed by the USB-IF.

The codes are also distinct and mandatory for a reason. Plug-n-Play is a self-regulated house of cards. If people start ignoring the rules, the whole house of cards collapses. If an OS cannot guarantee the device it sees is what it says it is, how can it load drivers automatically? What if you are selling hardware widgets, and your device starts getting identified wrong by Windows because someone else overlapped your IDs and Microsoft built exceptions into their system to prioritize choosing the other persons product? You'd be pissed as all hell if the device that was properly designed and built under the rules that you are selling didn't work when it got to the consumers boxes.

All apple is doing is properly identifying their devices and properly loading the right drivers as designed by the USB spec. The iPod is not a generic class, its an user defined class, specific to the vendorid and device id... meaning no one has the right to step in and use it with their drivers.

Further more, Palm used proprietary information brought with several ex-Apple employees on how the internal syncing mechanism of the iPod worked. The Palm Pre does not natively use the iPod database, yet it presents the database to iTunes when its in iPod mode, and then converts it all back to Pre's native database. Who the hell thought this was a good use of engineering time? It was obvious from the get go they would get shut out... and using propriety trade secrets stolen in that matter can get you in a lot of trouble...

 

[dguisinger]

You entire point using ford not making mounting points to chevy motor fails. Ford does not have to offer mounting points for a chevy motor but at the same time ford does not go out of its way to prevent chevy motors from being installed in its cars. if some one wanted to they can modify the mounting points of a Chevy motor and put it in the car. Or hell chevy could make a motor with the mounting points and put it in. Ford would not car.

Palm (Chevy) made mounting points for its motor (pre) to connect with iTunes (ford)

Most consumers to not want to install more crap on their computer. Having to install two piece of software to access ones music annoys most people.

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

Wrong again, if it made mounting points, they'd have made something that used the published spec (mounting points) for syncing with iTunes, not use Apple's proprietary ID's and internal undocumented sync methods

 

[Mark Booth]

You entire point using ford not making mounting points to chevy motor fails. Ford does not have to offer mounting points for a chevy motor but at the same time ford does not go out of its way to prevent chevy motors from being installed in its cars. if some one wanted to they can modify the mounting points of a Chevy motor and put it in the car. Or hell chevy could make a motor with the mounting points and put it in. Ford would not car.

Palm (Chevy) made mounting points for its motor (pre) to connect with iTunes (ford)

But adapting Ford motor mounts to accept a Chevy motor does not violate any agreement Chevy specifically made NOT TO DO THAT!

Palm DID join the USB-IF and, in doing so, they AGREED they would not spoof/hijack another vendor's USB identifier. Yet, they turned right around and did just that anyway.

Besides, the analogy wasn't comparing Ford & Chevy to Apple & Palm. Rather, it's a comparison of YOU COMPLAINERS!

But, to humor you... sure, the Chevy guy figured out how to get his motor into a Ford. But that doesn't preclude Ford from changing the motor mounts on the next model to make it more difficult!

I don't know if Apple will file a lawsuit against Palm or not, but I personally hope they do. I think they have a dead-bang winner. But the only problem is damages. Apple would have to prove they lost iPhone sales because of Palm's actions. And, frankly, Palm Pre sales, when compared to the iPhone, are pitiful. So, I think Apple would have a hard time proving significant damages.

Mark

 

[Mark Booth]

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

Competition?!?! You call spooking/hijacking another vendor's USB identifier competition? That's not competing, that's stealing!

Competition would be Palm building their OWN media syncing software. Competition would be Palm actually trying to make their own media software so wonderful that consumers would abandon iTunes and move to Palm's creation.

Competition is building a BETTER mousetrap, not building an ordinary mousetrap that relies on the features of someone else's mousetrap to succeed.

And, yes, I am proud to be an Apple fan! Are you just as proud to be an Apple hater?

Mark

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Competition?!?! You call spooking/hijacking another vendor's USB identifier competition? That's not competing, that's stealing!

Competition would be Palm building their OWN media syncing software. Competition would be Palm actually trying to make their own media software so wonderful that consumers would abandon iTunes and move to Palm's creation.

Competition is building a BETTER mousetrap, not building an ordinary mousetrap that relies on the features of someone else's mousetrap to succeed.

And, yes, I am proud to be an Apple fan! Are you just as proud to be an Apple hater?

Mark

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.

 

[dguisinger]

Competition?!?! You call spooking/hijacking another vendor's USB identifier competition? That's not competing, that's stealing!

Competition would be Palm building their OWN media syncing software. Competition would be Palm actually trying to make their own media software so wonderful that consumers would abandon iTunes and move to Palm's creation.

Competition is building a BETTER mousetrap, not building an ordinary mousetrap that relies on the features of someone else's mousetrap to succeed.

And, yes, I am proud to be an Apple fan! Are you just as proud to be an Apple hater?

Mark

Don't bother arguing with them... you can't squeeze water, knowledge, or reason from that rock...

 

[*LTD*]

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

Apple choose to intentionally break iTunes syncing.

"Syncing" is what RIM does, and what third party solutions allow, and what Apple allows cooperative parties to enjoy in a specific, workable way. Palm was never "syncing", it was breaking the rules and taking for itself the kind of access to iTunes it was never granted in the first place. Palm essentially hijacked iTunes. Not even MS, for all of their copying and following, would attempt such a thing.

 

[OllyW]

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

That's only for the USA. It's half that worldwide.

 

[dguisinger]

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.

There was no point to what you just said
Because Apple is not trying to use parts of MS software without permission to make OS X work in a way to attract MS customers to switch.

...
FAIL

 

[Rodimus Prime]

There was no point to what you just said
Because Apple is not trying to use parts of MS software without permission to make OS X work in a way to attract MS customers to switch.

...
FAIL

Thank you for not reading what I quoted.

I pointed out building a better mouse trap does not mean jack in getting people to changed and I provided proof of that. Everyone argue that Palm needs to build a better mouse trap and I just show it is a lot more complicated than that to get people to changed.

So Mr. Blind man please do not just say Fail when you release that you have no counter argument. Typic blind man comeback when they have no counter point.

 

[ALUOp]

P: I am suing A. I pretended to be A so that I could hook up with A's wife.
Judge: You are wrong.

Isn't this expected?

How come there are bunch of people saying "hey, A has the obligation to allow others to share his wife"? Just because A's wife is so good and everybody loves her?
What kind of logic is this?

iTunes is developed and owned by Apple.
Apple can even choose to disallow iTunes to work with some particular models of iPod or iPhone.
It may not make sense to you and you may not be happy with it but it is their right to do so.
Isn't this straightforward enough?

 

[dguisinger]

Thank you for not reading what I quoted.

I pointed out building a better mouse trap does not mean jack in getting people to changed and I provided proof of that. Everyone argue that Palm needs to build a better mouse trap and I just show it is a lot more complicated than that to get people to changed.

So Mr. Blind man please do not just say Fail when you release that you have no counter argument. Typic blind man comeback when they have no counter point.

Actually I did read what you wrote. Your argument is too broken to justify a detailed response.

Your argument was why should Palm bother making a better mouse trap because it may not get them more business.

Palm doesn't have to make a better mouse trap, they just have to make a mouse trap.

Right now they are doing the equivalent of selling an empty box that says mouse trap, but hoping you can still get the mouse trap elsewhere from someone as charity.

And if you take it to the logical conclusion, you are saying its not worth it for Apple to make their own stuff because they are in the minority; therefore my response was valid, where I said it would be wrong for Apple to build OS X off Windows without paying for it.

I know, I have to dumb things down for you, I understand.

 

[stillill]

Anyone think Apple should maybe put some of their effort into fixing the cr@p that is Snow Leopard rather than squishing Palm? Oh, that's right - they already have our $30 for that particular placemat.

 

[Stratus Fear]

It apple fan boys who not see how this crap going on with Apple is something other companies do as well claiming to protect their products when really it is there to prevent competition.

This has nothing to do with "fanboys." This has to do with operating your business appropriately. Also, if Palm created their own syncing/music management program, what if it ended up being BETTER than iTunes? That's real competition. By just using iTunes, there's actually less competition.

 

[dguisinger]

Anyone think Apple should maybe put some of their effort into fixing the cr@p that is Snow Leopard rather than squishing Palm? Oh, that's right - they already have our $30 for that particular placemat.

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.

 

[satcomer]

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).

I glad for you stating this. TMI!

But sheesh, I really can't believe how many of you are applauding Apple's move to restrict interoperability. And yes, this is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior. Apple is using their dominance in digital music players (both hardware and software) to keep alternative products from utilizing iTunes.

You have to really know your tech history! This is PERSONAL for Apple, plain and simple. Palm is filled to the brim with ex-Apple employees since Palm's beginning. It is almost like Hatfield-McCoy feud between Apple & Palm.

Nobody asked them to support Pre syncing. Every consumer with a Pre would have been fine with them ignoring it. As consumers, we would have had more choice if they did ignore it.

That sounds like a Linux Fan Boy talking. You might as well say water is wet!

What happened to the "It's better to be a pirate than join the Navy" mentality that I loved about the Apple community? It's like most people here have become drones... as if the people applauding Microsoft's abusive monopoly shifted over the last decade and now make up most of the Apple community.

You watch to much TV because that was a TV quote not a real one.

It's time to Think Different again, folks.

I do think different. I don't blinding worship ant company but I don't jump to conclusions. As I said before there is personal history in all of this .Apple is mad and always will be mad at Palm. This all is just a long chain of shots over the wall between the two companies. My point is study history and things really start to make sense in the tech world. Both Apple & Palm are filled with people and people tend to hold grudges.

 

[OllyW]

You watch to much TV because that was a TV quote not a real one.

You are wrong, it really happened.

 

[Mark Booth]

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.

Good strategy! When you are losing the argument, change the subject!

Mark

 

[dguisinger]

You are wrong, it really happened.

That quote had everything to do with organizational structure and bureaucracy (also in the navy); not stealing other people's work.

 

[Mark Booth]

Anyone think Apple should maybe put some of their effort into fixing the cr@p that is Snow Leopard rather than squishing Palm? Oh, that's right - they already have our $30 for that particular placemat.

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

And, as far as "squishing Palm" is concerned.... Apple is a publicly traded company. They HAVE to spend time, energy and resources to deal with the Palms and Psystars of the world. If they don't, they aren't fulfilling the legal obligation they have to their shareholders.

Mark

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

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".



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.



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.

Bingo.

 

[hodgeheg]

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

But what is scarier than Palm's outright deceptive actions, is the number of folks in this thread that simply don't "get it". I mean those of you that simply can't understand why what Palm did was completely wrong. It was immoral, probably illegal, and just plain wrong. Yet, too many don't get it at all and that is scary!

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

Mark

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!

 

[Veri]

Yes, you can build a device that uses USB without paying for IDs, but you cannot legally sell it with the USB logos because you have no license to the logos without it.

I have had a computer with a USB since 1998, I think... it was only a couple of days ago that I committed the USB logo to memory. Take 100 people off the street and see how many of those not in the tech industry can draw it, or even identify it. In summary, no consumer cares about the logo, and these days would probably even take it for granted that an external peripheral is USB/that-rectangular-connector.

To knock down the converse, how big is your pile of USB devices with the USB logo which nevertheless hang horribly with various combinations of operating systems, hubs, etc? Even bigger than mine, I am sure.

You also don't have licenses to required patents which are held in the pool managed by the USB-IF.

What are the nonobvious original ideas in the USB specification? It sounds like you're saying that some patents need to be challenged.

 

[dguisinger]

I have had a computer with a USB since 1998, I think... it was only a couple of days ago that I committed the USB logo to memory. Take 100 people off the street and see how many of those not in the tech industry can draw it, or even identify it. In summary, no consumer cares about the logo, and these days would probably even take it for granted that an external peripheral is USB/that-rectangular-connector.

To knock down the converse, how big is your pile of USB devices with the USB logo which nevertheless hang horribly with various combinations of operating systems, hubs, etc? Even bigger than mine, I am sure.


What are the nonobvious original ideas in the USB specification? It sounds like you're saying that some patents need to be challenged.

I love it how people find things to be obvious and unoriginal once they've been using it for 15 years. At the time USB was introduced, a hub topology plug-n-play self powered serial bus was rather unique (FireWire is not hub topology), and USB required less brains on the device side as it was host driven which brought lower costs. It also has a unique electrical signaling system. It also had a specific connector which is covered in patents.


Just because you don't bother to look at logos on packaging doesn't mean vendors don't want the logo, and that vendors don't want all the other advantages of a working Plug-n-Play spec that others don't trample on for monetary gain at the expense of consumers and developers playing by the rules...