An anonymous reader writes "The USB Implementers Forum has finally responded to Palm's complaints that Apple is violating its USB-IF Membership Agreement by preventing the Pre from syncing with iTunes. It's found in favor of Apple. Worse, it's accused Palm itself of violating the Membership Agreement by using Apple's Vendor ID number to disguise the Pre as an Apple device."
Seriously can we keep business politics out of this? You may not like Apple but a lot of people from day one called into question Palms legality on their faking out iTunes from this very reason all the way down to the very fact that nothing said Palm even had to use iTunes as they could have used a third party player, a plugin for iTunes like Blackberry and WinMobile users use without any complaints from Apple, or made their own software . Just because you dont like the outcome does it in any way mean that the outcome wasn't the right one.
Apple is using capabilities of the USB spec to disable interoperation with other manufacturers' equipment for what is clearly purely anticompetitive reasons. Don't you think it's a little late to "keep business politics out of this"?
It seems more like they look at what is plugged in and see if it's an iPod or not. iTunes knows how to handle an iPod, what features it has, and how to organize the music on it. iTunes does not know how to handle other hardware. That's where the plug-ins come in. If anyone just pretended that their hardware was an iPod, who do you think people would complain to when it didn't work right? I bet Apple would get a decent sized share of the complaints even though the problem is someone spoofing the iPod hardware without having the exact same features.
I don't think either party was the hero in this battle, but Palm deserved what it got.
Apple provides legitimate methods to connect a device to iTunes via a public API and/or Toolkit. This lets them support things easier by making sure the public API works after changes.
I see it as less "anti-competitive business practice" and "we want to stop the ball rolling on companies tricking iTunes so support doesn't become a problem."
Look at it this hypothetical scenario which is NOT the case here but goes to the overall problem.
- Lets say ALL of the device companies out there decided to skip the API and do what Palm did: trick it.
- Apple legitimately wants to change something on their end with the way iTunes interfaces with iPod/iPhone. Do something neat / tricky to add a feature or improve performance that they KNOW works on the iPod/iPhone.
- But now they have to worry about breaking every other device out there because the hardware and capabilities are different.
- So now you have to wonder "is this REALLY an iPhone?"
* If only there was some way to know for sure which device this was?
* Oh wait! THAT's what Vendor ID is for.
------------------
This is the sole point of the public API and/or Toolkit. You state funcX() returns Y. Maybe one day you want to add funcZ() or replace funcX() with funcX21() . Maybe you eventually upgrade the API / Toolkit so the client code needs to be changed but it's on the other companies to stay current, not you supporting other companies' devices.
Maybe that's the real issue. Apple changes their stuff far too often, and in far too fundamental ways.
With Windows, I can try to figure out how to connect the machine to an LDAP server (for example), write a cheat sheet about it, and come back 3 years later on a new Windows machine, and my cheat sheet still applies.
If you were to write an "iTunes plugin cheatsheet", you'd find that 3 years later it'd still apply. Or, at least, this [apple.com] would seem to imply that the API has remained stable for almost 2 years. Instead of following the Device Plugin mechanism provided by Apple, Palm decided instead to resort to hackery to trick the application into believing the Pre is an iPhone. They also brazenly claimed they'd provide seamless integration with iTunes without actually getting Apple on board. Exactly how, or why, compatibility was broken is irrelevant: you should expect solutions based on hacking away at an application's internals to break frequently, which already fails to accomplish the premise of "seamless integration" without even getting on Apple's bad side. So, unless someone can convince me the API is unwarrantedly crippled, this choice by Palm is indefensible.
Apple is using capabilities of the USB spec to disable interoperation with other manufacturers' equipment for what is clearly purely anticompetitive reasons. Don't you think it's a little late to "keep business politics out of this"?
Did Apple ever ask to be able to sync with Windows Media Player? Apple wrote their own app. Why can't Palm do the same? Since day one the iTunes library database has been stored in both a binary file and an XML file. Couldn't half of the readers on Slashdot write a simple GUI to read the XML file, let the users choose which music to sync over and copy the files to a Palm Pre in less than 2 hours?
And when they change the format on newer versions, to break compatibility with your application?
(They've been doing these tricks since the BeOS days.)
Any documentation that they have changed their XML file format since 2003 in a way that it broke compatibility...besides [i][b]It's a XML file[/b][/i] how much less obscure of a file format can you get?
Citation please. I've written apps in Python to use the iTunes XML file, and they have not broken after all of my iTunes upgrades. At least since iTunes 5. What Apple usually does is add to the format, stuff like smart lists or video. What one has to do is be defensive in coding so that you don't pick up stuff you don't want. My applications only work with audio files, so I filter out anything that is not an audio file. The XML parsing remains the same.
Apple is using capabilities of the USB spec to disable interoperation with other manufacturers' equipment for what is clearly purely anticompetitive reasons.
Which is entirely within their rights. You may not like that, but tough shit!
The key word here is "spec". The USB spec isn't Apples, and it isn't Palms, and it exists to stop this kind of mucking about and clouding the waters. Vendors shouldn't impersonate other vendors' USB devices, period, and I'd imagine membership of the USB consortium requires accepting this at some point. As much as I admire Palm's chutzpah here, and would like the Pre to natively sync, this is exactly the sort of hacking that isn't acceptable in a mass-market consumer device, and must surely be some anti-competition fishing expedition from Palm.
On a practical note: the iPhone sync is 2-way. What would happen if Palm implemented its sync with a bug that zapped your iTunes library?
USB devices have both a device ID and a vendor ID. The device ID tells what interface the device has, so the software can correctly connect to it. The vendor ID is merely informational, telling who manufactured it.
A device with a device ID corresponding to an iPod should act like an iPod. It shouldn't matter who made it. Spoofing the device ID is not against the rules. An "iPod" made by Palm should work exactly the same when syncing with iTunes as a legitimate iPod made by Apple. That's the purpose of the device ID.
For a more appropriate analogy, think of an auto shop (gotta be a car analogy, right?). This shop specializes in servicing Dodge automobiles. You walk in and say "I need a Dodge Caravan carburetor installed in my Plymouth Voyager." Now, the Plymouth Voyager is exactly the same minivan as the Dodge Caravan; all the parts are exactly the same. The only difference is the little logo glued to it. Would it be silly for the mechanic to refuse to service your car because it doesn't have the Dodge logo?
If this were Internet Exploder that forced vendors to engage in shenanigans like this NO ONE would object to the shenanigan and EVERY Apple fanboy would be standing in line to heap the abuse onto Microsoft.
The fact that the software allows interoperability with nothing more than a spoofed client ID just goes to show that Apple is creating an artificial compatability here that ties into their dominance in media players and online sales of downloadable media. If Google or Microsoft were doing the same thing, people
For a sins what Palm did was 7 and what Apple did was a 4.
If you hacked you Palm to do what Palm did then that would be a sin of 1. But the fact that the company created such actions intentionally against Apples will (3) marketed it (4) to the general public.
If you did it with your own Palm then it is only a 1, perhaps a 3 if you made it public. As you have already purchased the product and what you are doing is actually a favor to Apple as you buying their songs and using their product... However by the corporation doing the same thing, they are hurting apple as they are making a product that is directly competing with their product, and not working with your competitor for compatibility.
Why is it worse for a company to do something then it is for an individual? Well first it is scale, The individual usually has limited influence as they don't have the resources to make a large influence, at best the hack would give you some geek credits and only the brave geeks who could afford to brick their phone to do it.
And you are wrong on both counts. First much of iTunes as it exists today was developed by Apple once they bought the original software, so they are fully in their moral right to ONLY let their equipment use it (which even at that isnt 100% true since other devices CAN use it like the Motorola iTunes phones) Also you are wrong in it being a DMCA issue as there as there is absolutely no compatibility issue. You have other means of getting and using the music in iTunes it's self, you just dont feel like burning a bunch of DVDs or CDs. Had iTunes still have DRM you might have a point, but as they dont except for movies which to my knowledge the Pre didnt play anyway, your point is invalid.
Morally, it's wrong of Apple to deny other media device manufacturers access to iTunes and ITMS.
Morally? There's nothing immoral about it so far as I can see. With apologies to the authors on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] I just don't see how morality comes into the picture here.
descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or belief which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are arbitrarily created and subjectively defined by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience.
normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to other alternatives by the sane "moral" person, under specified conditions.
There is no authoritative code of conduct here other than our laws and the bylaws. You personally may feel they are behaving immorally but there are plenty who will disagree with you so your personal morals can't be argued in any sort of universal authoritative sense. You might make an open source style argument but you're on shaky ground there too. Neither ITMS nor iTunes is open source software. You know that up front. You also probably know that there are free (as in speech) and/or legal alternatives to both. If you don't like what Apple offers you don't have to use their software and services. Apple is not under any moral or legal obligation to cater to your every whim.
There also is no ideal code of conduct here that we can all agree on. Apple worked hard to create their combination of products and services. Should they not reap the benefits, especially when it has no detrimental effect on you? You may not like Apple not letting it's competitors be free riders [wikipedia.org] but I see nothing morally wrong with them preventing the competition from capitalizing on their work. ITunes is not some piece of public infrastructure and there is no compelling argument that it represents a market failure [wikipedia.org]. The entire reason we have copyrights and patents is precisely to advance the public interest in the face of the free rider problem. There is no compelling public interest to making iTunes or ITMS the equivalent of a common carrier at this time. Neither the software nor the service is a monopoly - both are merely popular in comparison to the alternatives available.
Legally, it's likely also wrong.
I suspect you are not a lawyer and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to back that assertion. I'm pretty aware of the issues involved and I cannot think of any reasonably legal argument whereby Apple is doing anything against the law. Happy to be proven wrong but I doubt you can prove me wrong.
The Sherman Act says actions meant to preserve market dominance are illegal when they destroy competition itself.
No, it doesn't actually say that. Read the act [wikipedia.org] and the subsequent legislation including the Clayton Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. Market dominance by definition means that you have destroyed competition. What anti-trust law guards against is elimination of competition to the detriment of consumers. That is a MUCH harder case to make.
Apple isn't disabling the Pre's syncing because of worry about consumer, they do so because letting the Pre sync could damage their iPod sales. Despite a variety of alternatives, iPod's still command a healthy share of the mobile audio players market.
Apple is in the business of selling hardware - iPods and more importantly iPhones. So is Palm in the business of making and selling phones but NOT MP3 players. Apple has created software and a download service that helps create a market for their devices. These services have been quite successful. Palm has (to my knowledge) not created their own iTunes equivalent but instead has chosen to free ride on Apple's investment, knowing they will sell phones at Apple's expense. People who buy a Pre are probably not going to buy an iPhone as well. So what reasonably argument can we make that Apple should be supportive of this? I certainly can't think of one.
A case also could be made that Apple's disabling the Pre's ability to sync as a native iPod is illegal product tying - i.e. requiring the purchase of one product to complete purchase or use of another.
Tying is not generally held to be illegal unless there is no relationship between the goods offered for sale or some sort of price discrimination. There is no compelling argument for tying here because each part of the service is independent (you don't HAVE to use iTunes or ITMS with an iPod).
An MP3 player by itself isn't especially useful without software to load the files on to the device but you don't have to use Apple's software to do it. ITunes is merely one of many ways to manage a music library and interface with an MP3 player. Even iPods don't require iTunes to work nor does iTunes require an iPod to be useful - you can play music from iTunes without even owning an iPod. Furthermore iTunes is free so no one is required to pay anything to use it.
ITMS is a service and the product it provides (MP3 files) can be obtained easily elsewhere for similar if not lesser cost.
Morally? Doesn't it seem a bit greedy of Apple to stop the Pre from syncing just because Palm wanted to make life easier for users and making it a PITA to use a Pre might get some people to buy iPods?
Palm isn't selling MP3 players. Palm sells phones. Palm is trying to be a free rider [wikipedia.org] on the work of Apple. Apple is in the business of selling handsets like Palm. If someone buys a handset from Palm they don't buy one from Apple. It's a zero sum game. Why should Apple pay to support Palm when it is perfectly legal for Palm to set up their own version of iTunes and ITMS?
However, none have the breadth that ITMS has as far as selection. It's much like how WalMart isn't a monopoly because other companies sell lots of the same stuff-they just happen to be hundreds of times bigger than your average supermarket chain
That's a fairly good analogy and illustrative. Apple is for the moment the 800lb gorilla in the MP3 music market. Like Walmart however they are no where close to being a monopoly. Dominant? Yes. Influential? Certainly. Monopoly? Nope. A monopoly that is detrimental to consumers? No way. Sorry but you haven't convince me that Apple's actions are in any way illegal.
Think about what you just did: you posted on Slashdot.
You used a web browser, which sent a few HTTP requests, represented as TCP/IP packets over an ethernet cable, which then traveled to an internet router, possibly via DSL or DOCSIS, got routed via OSPF and BGP, to a server running Apache and Perl.
Every step of that journey involved one or more open, freely-available standards-based protocols that have been embraced by hundreds if not thousands of vendors so they could all communicate with each other. Without all those open protocols, you would be stuck on a Microsoft internet, or an Apple internet, or maybe even a boring conservative IBM internet, and they would all be walled gardens, completely blocked off from each other.
You just made a good argument against what Palm did. With all these standards, if companies didn't follow them, there could be problems. Palm didn't follow USB standards and tricked iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Not every protocol has to be an open standard. If Apple doesn't want to allow everyone to sync with iTunes, they don't have to. Also, openness does not benefit everyone. It benefits some, and could potentially benefit everyone, but doesn't always. When Apple allowed Mac clones to be made, most people thought it would bring Mac OS to a wider market and make Apple more money. Apple still made the OS, and even got licensing fees from the clone manufacturers. All it ended up doing was bite into Apple's revenue. Mac OS market share didn't grow, and Apple was just losing sales to the clones. Even if the average iPod user buys 100 songs over the life of the iPod, Apple still makes more money from the iPod sale than from the music. Why would they want to cut into their iPod sales just to potentially increase the money they get from the iTunes store?
You started off arguing for Apple against Palm by talking about standards needing to be followed which Palm is not doing.
Then you switched to arguing against Apple (but still not for Palm) because you dislike iPods personally.
I guess in the end the issue with following standards is more important than one persons opinion of one product of one company.
So I agree with you that Palm fucked up here by violating standards and trying to wall you into their Pre garden or something.
Oh, and to correct one of your statements, Apple does integrate with 3rd parties with open arms. They did so with blackberry, Microsoft, and a few others. The iTunes APIs are published by Apple. I don't know if any license fee is involved, but I didn't think so. Don't quote me on that last bit though.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 23, @07:26AM (#29513957)
Not only does it not need to be authorized, it is also legal to circumvent any and all obstructions which have been put into place to prevent syncing with iTunes, per explicit exemption in the DMCA for creating compatibility.
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass. Apple provides an API toallow iTunes to snyc to anything. All palm needed was a plugin. However palm broke their USB speecs, and legal agreements they lied to end users, iTunes and the USB-IF
Instead of following the rules palm stole and lied to every pre owner and your too stupid to see that. Apple constantly changes things and yetstill have a better user Interface than msft who won't change their underwear.
I'm impressed by this persuasive post full of pertinent facts and references, and I only have a few lingering questions:
How does one "snyc" with iTunes?
How much would a pair of USB "speecs" cost?
What did palm steal?
What were you describing as "your too stupid..."?
Are the "yetstill" related in any way to the Sasquatch?
Didn't I just see a post [slashdot.org] suggesting that Apple's API has been stable for years and that the problem was that Palm wasn't actually using the API?
And how did you come by insight about how often a corporation like Microsoft might "change their underwear"?
Thank you for your many thoughtful contributions to this discussion.:-)
To all those people who think "What is the big deal about faking yourself as Apple?". The point is that these are reserved identifiers in the same way as barcodes are reserved identifiers.
Would it be right for Palm to use the iPhone barcode for the Pre? Clearly not.
So here is another case where there is a specific rule around reserved identifiers and Palm broke the rules. Their alternative is to opt-out of the USB group and do it themselves without its blessing or just suck it up.
Complaining about the rules of a game after joining the table and playing a few hands is just dumb.
Or maybe Palm is faking the ID so that its owners can use the iTunes software that Apple spends significant money developing, rather than develop its own software. Apple is preventing that despicable behavior.
First let me say that I'm glad Palm got reprimanded for faking the vendor ID. If suddenly that was allowed, there would be utter chaos as multiple devices pretend to be other devices and mess up proper loading of drivers and other important features.
That said, if Apple wants money back for the software development they put in iTunes, they need to charge for it. Once the software is installed on my computer it's no longer their software, it's mine. I should have the right to use to sync with whatever device I want to sync with, and anybody should have the right to make their hardware talk with whatever software is available on the user's computers.
And finally, I don't even understand why Palm wants that feature. The real problem is that I need to sync my iphone with that piece of crap software, not that I can't sync other stuff with itunes. God, how I wish I never had to open that horrible software, could just mount the iphone like a usb drive, and dump music files there, as with any other mp3 mplayer.
But Apple provides an API that does exactly what Palm wanted to do - sync the Pre with iTunes. All they had to do was look at this published API and write a plugin. Apple aren't trying to "force Palm out" via anticompetitive practices, they are just saying "if you want to sync with iTunes, stop spoofing our USB ID and write your own plugin using the published API for iTunes sync".
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 23, @07:31AM (#29513999)
Apple isn't doing anything to extend USB in a proprietary fashion; it's using an existing feature to differentiate between devices. It's blocking some of them deliberately from working with its software, but it's doing so in a USB-compatible way. Even if they were denied this access, wouldn't it be possible for them to create a challenge-response between the software and their authorized devices that didn't involve the USB Vendor ID?
On the other hand, faking a Vendor ID for your USB device is bound to irritate and annoy the standards group responsible for issuing and tracking Vendor IDs -- even if it's done for the noblest of compatibility purposes.
This iTunes lockout is really lame, but the USB-IF shouldn't have to be involved in it. And instead of fighting that battle, couldn't Palm channel its energy into developing an alternative to iTunes and partnering with a decent DRM-free music provider such as Amazon? If their alternative is solid enough, perhaps it could be licensed to other device manufacturers for extra benefit?
Well said. Moreover, for those of us who have dealt with hardware piracy, Device and Vendor IDs are critical identification tools, not only to ensure that OUR software runs correctly, but it's one other way to identify pirated hardware. Most pirates aren't smart enough to use the correct information in the flash. Heck it was so important 10 years ago that Microsoft used Windows Update to enforce four-field enforcement on PCI devices. Instead of using two-field matching, that allowed, say, Asus motherboards to coat-tail on Intel drivers, Windows Update required four-field matching (Vendor ID, Device ID, Subvendor ID, subdevice ID). While it added an additional layer of validation cost, Microsoft did it because of the problems with incompatible drivers, not piracy. Also, in the PCI world, falsifying IDs is just as critical as in the USB world.
My main concern is that the purpose of these IDs is to ensure compatibility, which Apple can, in no way, guarantee with the Pre. Had Palm asked and entered into an arrangement, they might've had the opportunity to do it right. It's also true that Apple has no legal requirement to facilitate the functionality and no MORAL obligation, for that matter. The way Palm went about the Pre indicates that no matter how revolutionary the OS is (and it IS), it will be marginalized for both consumers AND business. Palm has developed a pattern on the Pre of half-assing things that actually MATTER (ActiveSync security, anyone?).
We here at Bob's Atrocious Dealings are having a problem and require your help.
As you may know, Neodyne Inexpensive Care-taking Equipment gives away free diabetes test strips as an incentive to get people to buy their Glucodex 1726 Blood Glucose Meter. These strips are coded to only work with their meter.
We here at B.A.D. sell a competing meter, the Blud-O-Matic 666, which has been designed to use their free strips by pretending to be their meter.
Now you may not have known about our device, as we didn't submit it to you for review. You approved our previous product, the Seth's-Audi-Scope 1996, so we figured you'd be good.
Now our customers, who use the free strips that N.I.C.E. provides their users, are having problems since they keep changing the way their meter works. This is causing us problems, and our confused customers aren't even asking us for support sometimes since they think it's N.I.C.E.'s fault.
FDA, please slap down N.I.C.E. for hampering competition by making it hard for us to profit off their hard work by deliberately changing their strips to fail with our unregistered, uncertified meter. It's confusing our customers that one of the features we trumpet in all our marketing keeps breaking.
Palm claimed Apple was violating the spirit of the agreement by using their vendor ID to lock iTunes to their products.
Palm used this to justify breaking the actual letter of the agreement by using Apple's vendor ID to trick iTunes into thinking Palm devices were iPods.
So, guess who got in trouble? The guy who actually violated the agreement, of course.
Obviously, the USB-IF is going to take a dim view of spoofing vendor IDs. They were considered important enough to have in the spec, for whatever reason, so faking them isn't going to go over well. I don't really know what outcome Palm was expecting.
However, that said, I can't see tying attempts between products(above and beyond the natural tying effects that the complexity of software interaction naturally produces) as being even a remotely good thing for users, competition, or technological development generally.
Imagine if, back in the day, the "Well, they should just write their own iTunes-like application" had been applied to Compaq and the IBM-compatible clone kiddies. "Well, they can just write their own OS and set of applications..." Even back then, with the fairly minimal legacy effects, that would have retarded the development of cheap, standard, supports-the-software-you-want-to-run computers. It is basically demanding that anybody who wants to make anything must have a complete vertically integrated product range, to which they must induce customers to switch.
Very rarely in the history of technology has that ever worked particularly well. Most of the time, development consists of a few standards, formal or de-facto, and the surrounding ecosystems of add-ons, compatible widgets, clones, extensions, and software, authorized and unauthorized. And, frankly, that has worked pretty well. Modern technology is competitive, fast, ubiquitous, and impressively cheap.
If, in the future, we move away from the annoying-but-largely-useless forms of tying involving monkeying with pinouts every generation, and obfuscating stuff, and move to effective forms of tying based on crypto challenge-response, signing, vendor IDs, and the like(along with a fair bit of force of law, thanks to Mr. DMCA) I fear we will see a much less rich period of technological development.
Few companies are large enough, or smart enough, to maintain a fully integrated product line. Fewer customers actually want to use every one of a company's products, and none of their competitor's products. They want things to work together. Obviously, some degree of imperfection in interface is to be expected, interconnection of complex systems is Hard and writing wholly unambiguous specs is Very Hard. Deliberate breakage, though, is insult to injury.
I love how the comments immediately blame Apple for all of this. How is this any of Apple's fault?
PALM complained about APPLE to the USB-IF. Apple re-tweaked iTunes, their own software, to verify the devices claiming to be ipods were really ipods. They didn't claim copyright infringement, they didn't issue DMCA notices, they didn't make patent infringement claims, they just changed their software to make sure devices they support were actually devices they were modifying. Palm makes it's computer connections lie, and it's Apple's fault. Awesome.
Apple is not the most open company around, but if openess is what you want then don't buy Apple, it's not like you're forced to.
I'm not really sure why people whine about the iPod not being open. It doesn't lock you in to the iTunes store, or DRM stuff, even on video. I buy most of my music from EMusic then Amazon MP3 store then finally iTunes. It'll accept music from peer-to-peer networks as well.
90% of my videos are ripped from DVD and have no DRM. Works fine on my iPod and Apple TV.
WebKit, Grand Central, Darwin Streaming Server, LaunchD (some Linux please pick this up...), Bonjour (Yes ZeroConf, but I think they're the first to make it popular), Even XQuartz so that OSS stuff that uses X11 can run under OS X looking like OS X. They even have a cute little website with the word 'forge' in it: http://macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
Hell they even have Darwin, the base of OS X. Lets see Microsoft release an OSS version of XP minus some GUI bits.
Yes, Apple is protective of quite a bit of stuff. But they're released a ton more OSS that I've found than MS.
Difference number 2: MS was hated by many geeks, and by geek sites such as Slashdot, or at least criticised for these actions. Apple on the other hand are loved, even by geeks, with these actions twisted around to be good things, and with sites given no end of free advertising and hype ("You can read this webpage On Your Iphone" as we once had, or witness yesterday's non-story of "Someone releases a second application for the Iphone"...)
If Apple actually did become big - e.g., the hype around the Iphone becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and in 10 years time, mobile computer is dominated by a monopoly that completely locks down the platform, locks out competitors, and where Apple need to give permission for you to run a 3rd party application on the mobile computer you've bought - will this attitude changed?
That's completely retarded. DRM is out of the picture on iTunes store and if you insist on purchasing there, nothing keeps you from syncing your music library to whatever device you have.
There was no requirement for Palm to highjack Apple's ID just so that they can benefit from cheap engineering. RIM made the right decision and that is to not rely on software they dont control for their syncing.
What Palm did is sell a device to their customers and provided no guarantee as to the usability of the product, because they hack another company's software solution.
Does Apple have a 95% share of the portable music player market? I don't think so, a quick Google shows it to be between 70 and 80%. That's not a monopoly.
Does Apple have a 95% share in the legal music download market? I doubt it. Again it looks like about 70%.
Apple is not a monopoly, merely the dominant vendor.
That's not even the relevant market in this discussion. The relevant market would be online digital music sales. i.e iTunes Music Store.
Unless you buy DRMed Fairplay, that is not a monopoly. DRMed Fairplay (unfortunately all DRMed music) might be legal monopolies. No case has ever been decided about that per se but the general consensus is that Apple can keep others from using Fairplay. Also Apple's agreement with the music companies might even require it. If you bought nonDRMed AAC from iTunes, you can play that on any player that is capable of playing AAC. That means the Sony PSP, the MS Zune, the Sansa etc.
Also other competitors are free to create their own music stores. In fact other have. Most of them went bankrupt before and after iTunes existed. Amazon today sells MP3s and MS Zune Marketplace sells music online as well. Anyone is free to create a music store (as long as they have agreements with the music creators).
Also you limited the argument to one mode of distribution. You can get music without ever going to an online store from both legal and illegal sources. I have bought some music online but most of my music was ripped from CDs. Some people use P2P to get their music illegally.
False. MS was convicted of using their monopoly one one market to gain market share without competing in other, separate markets, notably: web browsers, media players, and server OS's. MS did settle numerous lawsuits with regard to illegally stifling competitors in their primary market and in office suites as well, but have not been convicted that I know of.
My recollection is different than MS simply including a browser in their OS and trying to integrate it. I remember them threatening and strong-arming OEMs not to include Netscape as a browser on installs. They could include Netscape but their OEM prices would be affected. Also MS behavior was not limited to browsers. Intel wanted to develop a compiler for this new language called Java. MS hinted that they might favor AMD in any future Window development for x86 if they did.Sun licensed Java to MS with the written agreement that MS maintained compatibility with Sun standards. MS version of Java had 2 commands that were not in standard Java. Those kind of tactics were being exposed in the trial.
Apple is potentially leveraging their influence in the online digital music sales market to gain a competitive advantage in the smartphone market. A comparison with MS, who used their desktop OS market to gain an unfair advantage in the web browser market, for example, is a pretty reasonable one in many ways.
Wasn't the point of contention in your original argument about the music store and not the app store? Palm can't access iTunes software. However Palm could access nonDRMed music as well as iTunes metadata had (1) they written their own app or (2) written their own iTunes plugin (There is a public Apple API for this). Considering the amount of freeware plugins you can get for iTunes, it does not appear that to be a barrier for Palm to do. Some plugins even allow you to sync iTunes to another player.
But about the app store: These application only run in OS X on the iPhone. Apple as no obligation to create an app store for a competitor. Nothing prevents their competitors from creating their own stores. They just can't use Apple's iTunes software to do it as point of integration.
Had Apple acted like MS what they would be doing is threatening Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, etc. not to do business with Palm. They would also be pressuing MS not to support Palm in Windows, trying to persuade Linux developers not to develop Palm software. That would be more akin to what MS did.
The difference is this:
Microsoft was using their monopoly* with Windows (software) to push another piece of software (Internet Explorer). The reason I have to side with Apple on this is because they aren't using their monopoly* on iPods (hardware) to push another piece of hardware. And the Zune software won't sync my iPod... so should I sue Microsoft, for not allowing their software to work with my hardware? Because that's all that Apple is doing. They're not allowing their software to work with the Palm hardware.
*Let's not be pedantic about my use of the word "monopoly" -k-?
It would be rather trivial for Palm to write their own sync app that, through Apple's own published public APIs, could sync with an iTunes library through software. Palm just wants a free ride. Apple are well within their rights to stick it to them.
Apple: you want this shiny little music player? Huh? You want it? Huh? Well then you have to change everything you own to Apples version
Reality check:
The only "lock in" with iPod/iTunes is if you choose to buy DRMd content from the iTunes store.
iTunes/iPod works fine with MP3 and unprotected AAC files from any source (video files, too) - legal or otherwise. It will rip your CDs to MP3 if you don't like AAC. The only things you have to get from the iTunes store are firmware updates and iPhone Apps.
iTunes stores all its music files as regular disk files. It will sort them into artist/album folders and number the files for you, if you choose. Copying files to a vanilla MP3 player that works like a USB drive is a cinch.
Although the main iTunes metadata file is a proprietary binary, iTunes maintains a mirror of all the metadata you are likely to need, including your playlists, as an XML file with a fairly obvious structure. Its easy to write scripts to parse this and sync playlists, generate m3u files etc. 3rd Party Applications like Missing Sync will let you choose iTunes playlists and sync them to your phone. Games such as Oolite will look for specific iTunes playlists and use them for in-game music.
Buy MP3s from Amazon and their download app happily stuffs them into your iTunes libfrary for you.
OS X has a "Sync Services" framework, with a published API, to let third parties sync contact and calendar data with their devices.
No, Linux isn't supported - pity but join the queue. Guess what: my HTC Hero Android phone doesn't fully support Mac* or Linux either.
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
Well, maybe someday a court will decide that Apple have a dominant position in the media player market, and further deiced that the "openness" described above is not sufficient to satisfy anti-trust laws. Then, and only then, will Apple be obliged to help others compete with their products.
Also bear in mind that what anti-trust regulators are really concerned about is using a dominant position in one market to strong arm your way into another. Apple has built the iPod/iTunes/iTMS tripod up from scratch, popularising the pocket MP3 player and virtually inventing the legal music download market, not by leveraging an existing monopoly. The only aspect that's even worth debating in that context is whether they're using iPod/iTunes/iTMS to strongarm their way in to the Phone market. Looks to me like the main reason for the iPhone's success is that previous smartphones (esp. WM) were pants - and if you think their harming the market ask yourself what the Palm Pre, Android or the various 3rd party WM skins would have looked like - or whether they would exist - without the iPhone shaking things up.
(*I should qualify that: HTC provide a calendar/contacts sync application for windows only - same story with firmware updates. Android is fairly hardware-agnostic, provided you're happy to use Google for calendar/contacts).
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
Um, no it wouldn't. Palm made their device compatible with iTunes. Apple didn't have to do a thing. Instead, they deliberately broke the compatibility.
You want to know what cost Apple money? Paying someone to re-write the iTunes sync so it wouldn't work with other vendors' products. If they'd done nothing, Palm's device would have continued to work fine with no effort from Apple.
Apple can't break compatibility with existing iPods. If the Pre acts just like an iPod, there's no reason for the sync to not work no matter how many times it's updated.
Now, if the Pre isn't emulating an iPod correctly, then yes, compatibility might break on iTunes updates, but that's Palm's problem, and they will fix it.
However, making it impossible to "correctly" emulate an iPod without also reporting an Apple vendor ID was considered a low blow by Palm. There's a device ID and a vendor ID; if the device claims to be an iPod manufactured by Palm, it should act exactly the same as an iPod manufactured by Apple. Not syncing with it just because it's made by Palm only serves to maintain an Apple monopoly. There's no real explanation for it aside from that.
Not even close. You can step entirely outside the Apple ipod/iTunes ecosystem and still get a full range of music. If you step outside the MS ecosystem there are significant programs (games and important business software) you cannot run and significant pieces of hardware you cannot use or cannot use fully.
Or (now the DRM is gone) you even buy any tracks from the iTunes store and import them into another music manager which fully supports your not-Apple AAC music player
Emulating another device to provide compatibility is perfectly acceptable
Except when you have signed a contract saying you wouldn't. The problem is that Palm decided to use Apple's USB Vendor-ID to identify the Palm-Pre, which is something Palm promised not to do in their contract with the USB-IF (Who hands out USB Vendor IDs). Palm violated existing contracts while attempting to emulate Apple's devices and Apple called them on it.
I don't think there is any reasonable argument for forcing Apple to let the Palm-Pre use their software.
Talk about a pathetic article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is using capabilities of the USB spec to disable interoperation with other manufacturers' equipment for what is clearly purely anticompetitive reasons. Don't you think it's a little late to "keep business politics out of this"?
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think either party was the hero in this battle, but Palm deserved what it got.
Apple provides legitimate methods to connect a device to iTunes via a public API and/or Toolkit. This lets them support things easier by making sure the public API works after changes.
I see it as less "anti-competitive business practice" and "we want to stop the ball rolling on companies tricking iTunes so support doesn't become a problem."
Look at it this hypothetical scenario which is NOT the case here but goes to the overall problem.
- Lets say ALL of the device companies out there decided to skip the API and do what Palm did: trick it.
- Apple legitimately wants to change something on their end with the way iTunes interfaces with iPod/iPhone.
Do something neat / tricky to add a feature or improve performance that they KNOW works on the iPod/iPhone.
- But now they have to worry about breaking every other device out there because the hardware and capabilities are different.
- So now you have to wonder "is this REALLY an iPhone?"
* If only there was some way to know for sure which device this was?
* Oh wait! THAT's what Vendor ID is for.
------------------
This is the sole point of the public API and/or Toolkit. You state funcX() returns Y. Maybe one day you want to add funcZ() or replace funcX() with funcX21() . Maybe you eventually upgrade the API / Toolkit so the client code needs to be changed but it's on the other companies to stay current, not you supporting other companies' devices.
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's the real issue. Apple changes their stuff far too often, and in far too fundamental ways.
With Windows, I can try to figure out how to connect the machine to an LDAP server (for example), write a cheat sheet about it, and come back 3 years later on a new Windows machine, and my cheat sheet still applies.
If you were to write an "iTunes plugin cheatsheet", you'd find that 3 years later it'd still apply. Or, at least, this [apple.com] would seem to imply that the API has remained stable for almost 2 years. Instead of following the Device Plugin mechanism provided by Apple, Palm decided instead to resort to hackery to trick the application into believing the Pre is an iPhone. They also brazenly claimed they'd provide seamless integration with iTunes without actually getting Apple on board. Exactly how, or why, compatibility was broken is irrelevant: you should expect solutions based on hacking away at an application's internals to break frequently, which already fails to accomplish the premise of "seamless integration" without even getting on Apple's bad side. So, unless someone can convince me the API is unwarrantedly crippled, this choice by Palm is indefensible.
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Apple ever ask to be able to sync with Windows Media Player? Apple wrote their own app. Why can't Palm do the same? Since day one the iTunes library database has been stored in both a binary file and an XML file. Couldn't half of the readers on Slashdot write a simple GUI to read the XML file, let the users choose which music to sync over and copy the files to a Palm Pre in less than 2 hours?
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Informative)
Any documentation that they have changed their XML file format since 2003 in a way that it broke compatibility...besides [i][b]It's a XML file[/b][/i] how much less obscure of a file format can you get?
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is entirely within their rights. You may not like that, but tough shit!
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:5, Insightful)
On a practical note: the iPhone sync is 2-way. What would happen if Palm implemented its sync with a bug that zapped your iTunes library?
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect analogies, both of them.
USB devices have both a device ID and a vendor ID. The device ID tells what interface the device has, so the software can correctly connect to it. The vendor ID is merely informational, telling who manufactured it.
A device with a device ID corresponding to an iPod should act like an iPod. It shouldn't matter who made it. Spoofing the device ID is not against the rules. An "iPod" made by Palm should work exactly the same when syncing with iTunes as a legitimate iPod made by Apple. That's the purpose of the device ID.
For a more appropriate analogy, think of an auto shop (gotta be a car analogy, right?). This shop specializes in servicing Dodge automobiles. You walk in and say "I need a Dodge Caravan carburetor installed in my Plymouth Voyager." Now, the Plymouth Voyager is exactly the same minivan as the Dodge Caravan; all the parts are exactly the same. The only difference is the little logo glued to it. Would it be silly for the mechanic to refuse to service your car because it doesn't have the Dodge logo?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this were Internet Exploder that forced vendors to engage in shenanigans
like this NO ONE would object to the shenanigan and EVERY Apple fanboy would
be standing in line to heap the abuse onto Microsoft.
The fact that the software allows interoperability with nothing more than
a spoofed client ID just goes to show that Apple is creating an artificial
compatability here that ties into their dominance in media players and
online sales of downloadable media. If Google or Microsoft were doing the
same thing, people
Re:Legality? (Score:5, Insightful)
For a sins what Palm did was 7 and what Apple did was a 4.
If you hacked you Palm to do what Palm did then that would be a sin of 1. But the fact that the company created such actions intentionally against Apples will (3) marketed it (4) to the general public.
If you did it with your own Palm then it is only a 1, perhaps a 3 if you made it public. As you have already purchased the product and what you are doing is actually a favor to Apple as you buying their songs and using their product...
However by the corporation doing the same thing, they are hurting apple as they are making a product that is directly competing with their product, and not working with your competitor for compatibility.
Why is it worse for a company to do something then it is for an individual?
Well first it is scale, The individual usually has limited influence as they don't have the resources to make a large influence, at best the hack would give you some geek credits and only the brave geeks who could afford to brick their phone to do it.
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Morality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Morally, it's wrong of Apple to deny other media device manufacturers access to iTunes and ITMS.
Morally? There's nothing immoral about it so far as I can see. With apologies to the authors on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] I just don't see how morality comes into the picture here.
There is no authoritative code of conduct here other than our laws and the bylaws. You personally may feel they are behaving immorally but there are plenty who will disagree with you so your personal morals can't be argued in any sort of universal authoritative sense. You might make an open source style argument but you're on shaky ground there too. Neither ITMS nor iTunes is open source software. You know that up front. You also probably know that there are free (as in speech) and/or legal alternatives to both. If you don't like what Apple offers you don't have to use their software and services. Apple is not under any moral or legal obligation to cater to your every whim.
There also is no ideal code of conduct here that we can all agree on. Apple worked hard to create their combination of products and services. Should they not reap the benefits, especially when it has no detrimental effect on you? You may not like Apple not letting it's competitors be free riders [wikipedia.org] but I see nothing morally wrong with them preventing the competition from capitalizing on their work. ITunes is not some piece of public infrastructure and there is no compelling argument that it represents a market failure [wikipedia.org]. The entire reason we have copyrights and patents is precisely to advance the public interest in the face of the free rider problem. There is no compelling public interest to making iTunes or ITMS the equivalent of a common carrier at this time. Neither the software nor the service is a monopoly - both are merely popular in comparison to the alternatives available.
Legally, it's likely also wrong.
I suspect you are not a lawyer and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to back that assertion. I'm pretty aware of the issues involved and I cannot think of any reasonably legal argument whereby Apple is doing anything against the law. Happy to be proven wrong but I doubt you can prove me wrong.
Parent
Anti trust and free riders (Score:4, Interesting)
The Sherman Act says actions meant to preserve market dominance are illegal when they destroy competition itself.
No, it doesn't actually say that. Read the act [wikipedia.org] and the subsequent legislation including the Clayton Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. Market dominance by definition means that you have destroyed competition. What anti-trust law guards against is elimination of competition to the detriment of consumers. That is a MUCH harder case to make.
Apple isn't disabling the Pre's syncing because of worry about consumer, they do so because letting the Pre sync could damage their iPod sales. Despite a variety of alternatives, iPod's still command a healthy share of the mobile audio players market.
Apple is in the business of selling hardware - iPods and more importantly iPhones. So is Palm in the business of making and selling phones but NOT MP3 players. Apple has created software and a download service that helps create a market for their devices. These services have been quite successful. Palm has (to my knowledge) not created their own iTunes equivalent but instead has chosen to free ride on Apple's investment, knowing they will sell phones at Apple's expense. People who buy a Pre are probably not going to buy an iPhone as well. So what reasonably argument can we make that Apple should be supportive of this? I certainly can't think of one.
A case also could be made that Apple's disabling the Pre's ability to sync as a native iPod is illegal product tying - i.e. requiring the purchase of one product to complete purchase or use of another.
Tying is not generally held to be illegal unless there is no relationship between the goods offered for sale or some sort of price discrimination. There is no compelling argument for tying here because each part of the service is independent (you don't HAVE to use iTunes or ITMS with an iPod).
An MP3 player by itself isn't especially useful without software to load the files on to the device but you don't have to use Apple's software to do it. ITunes is merely one of many ways to manage a music library and interface with an MP3 player. Even iPods don't require iTunes to work nor does iTunes require an iPod to be useful - you can play music from iTunes without even owning an iPod. Furthermore iTunes is free so no one is required to pay anything to use it.
ITMS is a service and the product it provides (MP3 files) can be obtained easily elsewhere for similar if not lesser cost.
Morally? Doesn't it seem a bit greedy of Apple to stop the Pre from syncing just because Palm wanted to make life easier for users and making it a PITA to use a Pre might get some people to buy iPods?
Palm isn't selling MP3 players. Palm sells phones. Palm is trying to be a free rider [wikipedia.org] on the work of Apple. Apple is in the business of selling handsets like Palm. If someone buys a handset from Palm they don't buy one from Apple. It's a zero sum game. Why should Apple pay to support Palm when it is perfectly legal for Palm to set up their own version of iTunes and ITMS?
However, none have the breadth that ITMS has as far as selection. It's much like how WalMart isn't a monopoly because other companies sell lots of the same stuff-they just happen to be hundreds of times bigger than your average supermarket chain
That's a fairly good analogy and illustrative. Apple is for the moment the 800lb gorilla in the MP3 music market. Like Walmart however they are no where close to being a monopoly. Dominant? Yes. Influential? Certainly. Monopoly? Nope. A monopoly that is detrimental to consumers? No way. Sorry but you haven't convince me that Apple's actions are in any way illegal.
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about what you just did: you posted on Slashdot.
You used a web browser, which sent a few HTTP requests, represented as TCP/IP packets over an ethernet cable, which then traveled to an internet router, possibly via DSL or DOCSIS, got routed via OSPF and BGP, to a server running Apache and Perl.
Every step of that journey involved one or more open, freely-available standards-based protocols that have been embraced by hundreds if not thousands of vendors so they could all communicate with each other. Without all those open protocols, you would be stuck on a Microsoft internet, or an Apple internet, or maybe even a boring conservative IBM internet, and they would all be walled gardens, completely blocked off from each other.
You just made a good argument against what Palm did. With all these standards, if companies didn't follow them, there could be problems. Palm didn't follow USB standards and tricked iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Not every protocol has to be an open standard. If Apple doesn't want to allow everyone to sync with iTunes, they don't have to. Also, openness does not benefit everyone. It benefits some, and could potentially benefit everyone, but doesn't always. When Apple allowed Mac clones to be made, most people thought it would bring Mac OS to a wider market and make Apple more money. Apple still made the OS, and even got licensing fees from the clone manufacturers. All it ended up doing was bite into Apple's revenue. Mac OS market share didn't grow, and Apple was just losing sales to the clones. Even if the average iPod user buys 100 songs over the life of the iPod, Apple still makes more money from the iPod sale than from the music. Why would they want to cut into their iPod sales just to potentially increase the money they get from the iTunes store?
Parent
Re:Talk about a pathetic article (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post is confusing.
You started off arguing for Apple against Palm by talking about standards needing to be followed which Palm is not doing.
Then you switched to arguing against Apple (but still not for Palm) because you dislike iPods personally.
I guess in the end the issue with following standards is more important than one persons opinion of one product of one company.
So I agree with you that Palm fucked up here by violating standards and trying to wall you into their Pre garden or something.
Oh, and to correct one of your statements, Apple does integrate with 3rd parties with open arms.
They did so with blackberry, Microsoft, and a few others.
The iTunes APIs are published by Apple. I don't know if any license fee is involved, but I didn't think so. Don't quote me on that last bit though.
Parent
Palm Got What They Deserved (Score:3, Insightful)
Serves them right.
Re:Palm Got What They Deserved (Score:5, Insightful)
Why syncing with iTunes need to be authorized?
Parent
Re:Palm Got What They Deserved (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only does it not need to be authorized, it is also legal to circumvent any and all obstructions which have been put into place to prevent syncing with iTunes, per explicit exemption in the DMCA for creating compatibility.
Parent
Re:Palm Got What They Deserved (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't Palm write their own syncing program?
The iTunes tracks aren't protected by DRM.
Palm was trying to get a free ride by not having to write their own syncing program.
Parent
Re:Palm Got What They Deserved (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass. Apple provides an API toallow iTunes to snyc to anything. All palm needed was a plugin. However palm broke their USB speecs, and legal agreements they lied to end users, iTunes and the USB-IF
Instead of following the rules palm stole and lied to every pre owner and your too stupid to see that. Apple constantly changes things and yetstill have a better user Interface than msft who won't change their underwear.
I'm impressed by this persuasive post full of pertinent facts and references, and I only have a few lingering questions:
Thank you for your many thoughtful contributions to this discussion. :-)
Parent
Think of Barcodes (Score:5, Insightful)
To all those people who think "What is the big deal about faking yourself as Apple?". The point is that these are reserved identifiers in the same way as barcodes are reserved identifiers.
Would it be right for Palm to use the iPhone barcode for the Pre? Clearly not.
So here is another case where there is a specific rule around reserved identifiers and Palm broke the rules. Their alternative is to opt-out of the USB group and do it themselves without its blessing or just suck it up.
Complaining about the rules of a game after joining the table and playing a few hands is just dumb.
Re:Think of Barcodes (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe Palm is faking the ID so that its owners can use the iTunes software that Apple spends significant money developing, rather than develop its own software. Apple is preventing that despicable behavior.
First let me say that I'm glad Palm got reprimanded for faking the vendor ID. If suddenly that was allowed, there would be utter chaos as multiple devices pretend to be other devices and mess up proper loading of drivers and other important features.
That said, if Apple wants money back for the software development they put in iTunes, they need to charge for it. Once the software is installed on my computer it's no longer their software, it's mine. I should have the right to use to sync with whatever device I want to sync with, and anybody should have the right to make their hardware talk with whatever software is available on the user's computers.
And finally, I don't even understand why Palm wants that feature. The real problem is that I need to sync my iphone with that piece of crap software, not that I can't sync other stuff with itunes. God, how I wish I never had to open that horrible software, could just mount the iphone like a usb drive, and dump music files there, as with any other mp3 mplayer.
Parent
Re:Think of Barcodes (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Think of Barcodes (Score:4, Informative)
But Apple provides an API that does exactly what Palm wanted to do - sync the Pre with iTunes. All they had to do was look at this published API and write a plugin. Apple aren't trying to "force Palm out" via anticompetitive practices, they are just saying "if you want to sync with iTunes, stop spoofing our USB ID and write your own plugin using the published API for iTunes sync".
Parent
This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple isn't doing anything to extend USB in a proprietary fashion; it's using an existing feature to differentiate between devices. It's blocking some of them deliberately from working with its software, but it's doing so in a USB-compatible way. Even if they were denied this access, wouldn't it be possible for them to create a challenge-response between the software and their authorized devices that didn't involve the USB Vendor ID?
On the other hand, faking a Vendor ID for your USB device is bound to irritate and annoy the standards group responsible for issuing and tracking Vendor IDs -- even if it's done for the noblest of compatibility purposes.
This iTunes lockout is really lame, but the USB-IF shouldn't have to be involved in it. And instead of fighting that battle, couldn't Palm channel its energy into developing an alternative to iTunes and partnering with a decent DRM-free music provider such as Amazon? If their alternative is solid enough, perhaps it could be licensed to other device manufacturers for extra benefit?
Re:This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. (Score:4, Funny)
Well said. Moreover, for those of us who have dealt with hardware piracy, Device and Vendor IDs are critical identification tools, not only to ensure that OUR software runs correctly, but it's one other way to identify pirated hardware. Most pirates aren't smart enough to use the correct information in the flash. Heck it was so important 10 years ago that Microsoft used Windows Update to enforce four-field enforcement on PCI devices. Instead of using two-field matching, that allowed, say, Asus motherboards to coat-tail on Intel drivers, Windows Update required four-field matching (Vendor ID, Device ID, Subvendor ID, subdevice ID). While it added an additional layer of validation cost, Microsoft did it because of the problems with incompatible drivers, not piracy. Also, in the PCI world, falsifying IDs is just as critical as in the USB world.
My main concern is that the purpose of these IDs is to ensure compatibility, which Apple can, in no way, guarantee with the Pre. Had Palm asked and entered into an arrangement, they might've had the opportunity to do it right. It's also true that Apple has no legal requirement to facilitate the functionality and no MORAL obligation, for that matter. The way Palm went about the Pre indicates that no matter how revolutionary the OS is (and it IS), it will be marginalized for both consumers AND business. Palm has developed a pattern on the Pre of half-assing things that actually MATTER (ActiveSync security, anyone?).
Parent
Letter to FDA (Score:5, Funny)
Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Palm claimed Apple was violating the spirit of the agreement by using their vendor ID to lock iTunes to their products.
Palm used this to justify breaking the actual letter of the agreement by using Apple's vendor ID to trick iTunes into thinking Palm devices were iPods.
So, guess who got in trouble? The guy who actually violated the agreement, of course.
Unsurprising; but doesn't make me enthusiastic... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, that said, I can't see tying attempts between products(above and beyond the natural tying effects that the complexity of software interaction naturally produces) as being even a remotely good thing for users, competition, or technological development generally.
Imagine if, back in the day, the "Well, they should just write their own iTunes-like application" had been applied to Compaq and the IBM-compatible clone kiddies. "Well, they can just write their own OS and set of applications..." Even back then, with the fairly minimal legacy effects, that would have retarded the development of cheap, standard, supports-the-software-you-want-to-run computers. It is basically demanding that anybody who wants to make anything must have a complete vertically integrated product range, to which they must induce customers to switch.
Very rarely in the history of technology has that ever worked particularly well. Most of the time, development consists of a few standards, formal or de-facto, and the surrounding ecosystems of add-ons, compatible widgets, clones, extensions, and software, authorized and unauthorized. And, frankly, that has worked pretty well. Modern technology is competitive, fast, ubiquitous, and impressively cheap.
If, in the future, we move away from the annoying-but-largely-useless forms of tying involving monkeying with pinouts every generation, and obfuscating stuff, and move to effective forms of tying based on crypto challenge-response, signing, vendor IDs, and the like(along with a fair bit of force of law, thanks to Mr. DMCA) I fear we will see a much less rich period of technological development.
Few companies are large enough, or smart enough, to maintain a fully integrated product line. Fewer customers actually want to use every one of a company's products, and none of their competitor's products. They want things to work together. Obviously, some degree of imperfection in interface is to be expected, interconnection of complex systems is Hard and writing wholly unambiguous specs is Very Hard. Deliberate breakage, though, is insult to injury.
How is this Apple's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how the comments immediately blame Apple for all of this. How is this any of Apple's fault?
PALM complained about APPLE to the USB-IF. Apple re-tweaked iTunes, their own software, to verify the devices claiming to be ipods were really ipods. They didn't claim copyright infringement, they didn't issue DMCA notices, they didn't make patent infringement claims, they just changed their software to make sure devices they support were actually devices they were modifying. Palm makes it's computer connections lie, and it's Apple's fault. Awesome.
Apple is not the most open company around, but if openess is what you want then don't buy Apple, it's not like you're forced to.
I'm not really sure why people whine about the iPod not being open. It doesn't lock you in to the iTunes store, or DRM stuff, even on video. I buy most of my music from EMusic then Amazon MP3 store then finally iTunes. It'll accept music from peer-to-peer networks as well.
90% of my videos are ripped from DVD and have no DRM. Works fine on my iPod and Apple TV.
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:5, Informative)
WebKit, Grand Central, Darwin Streaming Server, LaunchD (some Linux please pick this up...), Bonjour (Yes ZeroConf, but I think they're the first to make it popular), Even XQuartz so that OSS stuff that uses X11 can run under OS X looking like OS X. They even have a cute little website with the word 'forge' in it: http://macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
Hell they even have Darwin, the base of OS X. Lets see Microsoft release an OSS version of XP minus some GUI bits.
Yes, Apple is protective of quite a bit of stuff. But they're released a ton more OSS that I've found than MS.
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:5, Informative)
Difference number 2: MS was hated by many geeks, and by geek sites such as Slashdot, or at least criticised for these actions. Apple on the other hand are loved, even by geeks, with these actions twisted around to be good things, and with sites given no end of free advertising and hype ("You can read this webpage On Your Iphone" as we once had, or witness yesterday's non-story of "Someone releases a second application for the Iphone"...)
If Apple actually did become big - e.g., the hype around the Iphone becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and in 10 years time, mobile computer is dominated by a monopoly that completely locks down the platform, locks out competitors, and where Apple need to give permission for you to run a 3rd party application on the mobile computer you've bought - will this attitude changed?
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Insightful)
That's completely retarded. DRM is out of the picture on iTunes store and if you insist on purchasing there, nothing keeps you from syncing your music library to whatever device you have.
There was no requirement for Palm to highjack Apple's ID just so that they can benefit from cheap engineering. RIM made the right decision and that is to not rely on software they dont control for their syncing.
What Palm did is sell a device to their customers and provided no guarantee as to the usability of the product, because they hack another company's software solution.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt Palm can do squat on this issue. They violated their USB license by using another vendor ID.
They might actually have to pay a penalty on that.
And because they went beyond their USB manufacturer agreement, they don't have a case in court.
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Informative)
Does Apple have a 95% share of the portable music player market? I don't think so, a quick Google shows it to be between 70 and 80%. That's not a monopoly.
Does Apple have a 95% share in the legal music download market? I doubt it. Again it looks like about 70%.
Apple is not a monopoly, merely the dominant vendor.
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you buy DRMed Fairplay, that is not a monopoly. DRMed Fairplay (unfortunately all DRMed music) might be legal monopolies. No case has ever been decided about that per se but the general consensus is that Apple can keep others from using Fairplay. Also Apple's agreement with the music companies might even require it. If you bought nonDRMed AAC from iTunes, you can play that on any player that is capable of playing AAC. That means the Sony PSP, the MS Zune, the Sansa etc.
Also other competitors are free to create their own music stores. In fact other have. Most of them went bankrupt before and after iTunes existed. Amazon today sells MP3s and MS Zune Marketplace sells music online as well. Anyone is free to create a music store (as long as they have agreements with the music creators).
Also you limited the argument to one mode of distribution. You can get music without ever going to an online store from both legal and illegal sources. I have bought some music online but most of my music was ripped from CDs. Some people use P2P to get their music illegally.
My recollection is different than MS simply including a browser in their OS and trying to integrate it. I remember them threatening and strong-arming OEMs not to include Netscape as a browser on installs. They could include Netscape but their OEM prices would be affected. Also MS behavior was not limited to browsers. Intel wanted to develop a compiler for this new language called Java. MS hinted that they might favor AMD in any future Window development for x86 if they did.Sun licensed Java to MS with the written agreement that MS maintained compatibility with Sun standards. MS version of Java had 2 commands that were not in standard Java. Those kind of tactics were being exposed in the trial.
Wasn't the point of contention in your original argument about the music store and not the app store? Palm can't access iTunes software. However Palm could access nonDRMed music as well as iTunes metadata had (1) they written their own app or (2) written their own iTunes plugin (There is a public Apple API for this). Considering the amount of freeware plugins you can get for iTunes, it does not appear that to be a barrier for Palm to do. Some plugins even allow you to sync iTunes to another player.
But about the app store: These application only run in OS X on the iPhone. Apple as no obligation to create an app store for a competitor. Nothing prevents their competitors from creating their own stores. They just can't use Apple's iTunes software to do it as point of integration.
Had Apple acted like MS what they would be doing is threatening Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, etc. not to do business with Palm. They would also be pressuing MS not to support Palm in Windows, trying to persuade Linux developers not to develop Palm software. That would be more akin to what MS did.
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be rather trivial for Palm to write their own sync app that, through Apple's own published public APIs, could sync with an iTunes library through software. Palm just wants a free ride. Apple are well within their rights to stick it to them.
iTunes SDK for Windows [apple.com]
Apple Script for OS X [dougscripts.com]
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain how you are forced by Apple to use only the one store for your music purchases.
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Informative)
Apple: you want this shiny little music player? Huh? You want it? Huh? Well then you have to change everything you own to Apples version
Reality check:
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
Well, maybe someday a court will decide that Apple have a dominant position in the media player market, and further deiced that the "openness" described above is not sufficient to satisfy anti-trust laws. Then, and only then, will Apple be obliged to help others compete with their products.
Also bear in mind that what anti-trust regulators are really concerned about is using a dominant position in one market to strong arm your way into another. Apple has built the iPod/iTunes/iTMS tripod up from scratch, popularising the pocket MP3 player and virtually inventing the legal music download market, not by leveraging an existing monopoly. The only aspect that's even worth debating in that context is whether they're using iPod/iTunes/iTMS to strongarm their way in to the Phone market. Looks to me like the main reason for the iPhone's success is that previous smartphones (esp. WM) were pants - and if you think their harming the market ask yourself what the Palm Pre, Android or the various 3rd party WM skins would have looked like - or whether they would exist - without the iPhone shaking things up.
(*I should qualify that: HTC provide a calendar/contacts sync application for windows only - same story with firmware updates. Android is fairly hardware-agnostic, provided you're happy to use Google for calendar/contacts).
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Insightful)
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
Um, no it wouldn't. Palm made their device compatible with iTunes. Apple didn't have to do a thing. Instead, they deliberately broke the compatibility.
You want to know what cost Apple money? Paying someone to re-write the iTunes sync so it wouldn't work with other vendors' products. If they'd done nothing, Palm's device would have continued to work fine with no effort from Apple.
Parent
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple can't break compatibility with existing iPods. If the Pre acts just like an iPod, there's no reason for the sync to not work no matter how many times it's updated.
Now, if the Pre isn't emulating an iPod correctly, then yes, compatibility might break on iTunes updates, but that's Palm's problem, and they will fix it.
However, making it impossible to "correctly" emulate an iPod without also reporting an Apple vendor ID was considered a low blow by Palm. There's a device ID and a vendor ID; if the device claims to be an iPod manufactured by Palm, it should act exactly the same as an iPod manufactured by Apple. Not syncing with it just because it's made by Palm only serves to maintain an Apple monopoly. There's no real explanation for it aside from that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is the Microsoft of MP3 players.
Not even close. You can step entirely outside the Apple ipod/iTunes ecosystem and still get a full range of music. If you step outside the MS ecosystem there are significant programs (games and important business software) you cannot run and significant pieces of hardware you cannot use or cannot use fully.
Or (now the DRM is gone) you even buy any tracks from the iTunes store and import them into another music manager which fully supports your not-Apple AAC music player
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you step outside the MS ecosystem there are significant programs (games and important business software) you cannot run
Step outside of Microsoft and lose games? I don't understand. There are plenty of games for PlayStation 2, PLAYSTATION 3, and Wii.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bring the DMCA into this? Apple hasn't sued Palm, nor have they brought in the law in any way. This is purely a technical fight between the two.
The Pre is lying and Apple is calling Palm on it. I fail to see how Apple is wrong.
And just because someone says MP3 or music and you hear "Apple" doesn't mean that Apple has any kind of (legally defined) monopoly.
In short, you're an idiot.
Re:apple - the most anti-open company (Score:4, Insightful)
Emulating another device to provide compatibility is perfectly acceptable
Except when you have signed a contract saying you wouldn't. The problem is that Palm decided to use Apple's USB Vendor-ID to identify the Palm-Pre, which is something Palm promised not to do in their contract with the USB-IF (Who hands out USB Vendor IDs). Palm violated existing contracts while attempting to emulate Apple's devices and Apple called them on it.
I don't think there is any reasonable argument for forcing Apple to let the Palm-Pre use their software.
Parent
Re:iTunes? (Score:4, Insightful)
You couldn't figure out how to make your iPhone play mp3s?
Box it up and return your computer to the store. You are too stupid to own a computer. Or a troll. Pick one.
Parent