Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes 841
endikos writes "Apple updated iTunes to version 8.2.1. According to the changelog, it offers bug fixes and 'addresses an issue with verification of Apple devices.' In other words, 'Buzz off, Palm Pre. You ain't no iPhone.'"
How it went down: (Score:5, Funny)
Apple: "Oh yes iDid."
Re:How it went down: (Score:5, Funny)
Palm: "Oh no you didn't!"
Apple: "Oh yes iDid."
Palm: Talk to the hand.
Re:How it went down: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How it went down: (Score:5, Funny)
Palm: *open-handed smack*
Re:How it went down: (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:5, Insightful)
hardware company and not like a software company. Clones aren't necessarily bad as long as they can build superior devices (or have the image for it) and where they would still make money on every sale. They could make decent money being the #1 music site on the web. So what the device isn't an iPod?
I wonder how many people care about iTunes connectivity when they buy an mp3 player? Is it a requirement or afterthought? If it becomes a requirement, that would promote more lock-in for Apple than sabotaging their software against other devices.
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe because apple IS a hardware company. They use software to drive hardware sales. OS X sells Macs; the iTunes Music Store sells iPods; the App Store sells iPhones. They can't very well sell their hardware if other hardware companies start circumventing the things that tie Apple's hardware to their software. The Pre pretending to be an iPhone when connecting to iTunes is similar to Psystar making PCs think they're Macs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:4, Informative)
...but nearly every other operating system software company is out of business or going that way. And when Apple allowed clones to run Mac OS, they lost market share.
Apple's business model of using software to support their own hardware sales works well for them. There's no reason for them to change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like IBM in 1985 I'd say.
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because apple IS a hardware company.
Why do people try to pigeonhole Apple into a one-or-the-other-ware company? They sell both.
Apple's "secret ingredient" is not the software they put into their hardware, and it's not the hardware they put their software on, it's the quality of the combination of the two. They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a little-known fact, but the infamous Reality Distortion Field is produced when Apple software and hardware interact at close distances. It's why Hackintoshes don't have it, and nor do Macs booted into Windows.
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:5, Interesting)
My two cents: Apple, as a general principle, aren't going to be too happy with third-aparty devices that sync as seamlessly as an iPod/iPhone to itunes, as it erodes one of USPs of the iPod and means that you can get the same experience by buying a non-Apple music player. This implies less hardware sales for Apple.
From Palm's point of view, I think this is a shot-across-the-bows. Both from an anticompetitive point of view - it'd be easy for Apple to be mired in some antitrust allegations, which they obviously don't want, and also Palm hold a shedload of patents that may or may not be able to similarly tie up Apple in legal knots for quite some time. To be fair, Apple also own a lot of patents in this space, but the thing you realise if you talk to an IP lawyer is that getting into this sort of dick-swinging match is mutually assured destruction.
I think Palm are banking that they could persuade Apple to quietly ignore this feature for fear of the backlash if they blocked it, and it's not paid off. I also think that the fact they did it, regardless of the obvious risk that this might happen, probably doesn't hurt their image as a slightly cooler, more enthusiast-friendly platform. We're talking about it and saying "Go Palm!", aren't we?
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:4, Interesting)
They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.
Nonsense. Go to any mainstream computer company or store, and you will get sold "a system", no different to any Mac you buy. Same as if you buy a phone, mp3 player, stereo system, TV, car or whatever else from any other company.
Indeed, all just about all companies that sell to the end users will sell systems, so I'm not sure what you are basing your claim on? The only exception would be users who build their own PCs, which is an optional advantage you get with PCs, but it's probably the minority these days.
If you're going to quibble that PCs are sold with an OS made by Microsoft, that's about as relevant as saying that Macs come with chips made by Intel. The days when hardware companys made all their own custom hardware are long gone, and Apple certainly are not in that game.
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPod was more than popular before the music store, so it's obviously the other way around in that case: buy an iPod, and you're pretty much locked to iTunes, with the iTMS built-in. The iPod is used to guide people to the music store. In fact, you wouldn't find your way to the music store without iTunes, and it's a pretty obnoxious piece of software you'd best avoid if you don't need it specifically to use an iPod or the iTMS.
So it's like this: The iPod sells itself by being fashionable and shiny, which leads people to use iTunes, which is used to sell music. No one in their right mind would say: I want to buy music online, and from the iTMS, so I'd better start using the pig monster called iTunes which only syncs properly with the iPod. They say: I want an mp3 player. I want that flashy iPhone.
The iTMS isn't even particularly cool.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obnoxious? Sounds like holy war talk. It's a program that stores and plays music. What's "obnoxious" about it?
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:4, Informative)
What's ages? It'll take a fraction of a second per file. But it is scanning the file to set a normal playback level. If you want you can switch that off, and it;l be the same speed as your other app that doesn't have that feature.
Nonsense. Of course it refreshes. Perhaps you are trying to drop a file into it's directory structure and imagine it'll notice. That's not the way it works. You drag songs directly into the app.
Ah, you must be a Windows user. It appears you're talking about an early Windows version. It now uses all the usual WIndows widgets.
You mean it displays the name of the song from the ID3 tag, rather than the name of the song. Yes, it does if the ID3 tag is there, otherwise it'll parse the filename for the song title. So YES it can cope with files that aren't yet tagged.
That's iTunes.
Re:Sometimes Apple still thinks too much like a... (Score:5, Informative)
I tend to take URLs that have a /pr/ in them with a spoonful of salt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
70MiB. That's like the size of 2 albums worth of songs. How small is you disk that the difference betweenthe size of that an an alternative player makes a significant difference to your choice of music player? The 1990s have rung. They want their argument back.
Transfer to another player? Of course you can. They are stored as ordinary files in ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/Artist/Album Do what you like with the files and another music player.
It doesn't rename music files, nor the ID3 tags (unless you edit
Frist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frist (Score:5, Funny)
Frist psoError: Device type "palm" not authorised!"
And here I thought Apple was an American outfit.
Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:5, Insightful)
I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better. Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.
So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.
Shame on you, Apple. Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you.
Apple should erect some walls between its business units, so that the desire to do well in the mobile arena doesn't mean that their systems software unit makes changes to aid that, directly harming consumers.
Yeah, sure, Apple provide XML files in iTunes for third party applications to use for custom sync. But why not just publish a media sync protocol and be done with it.
I personally don't think that Apple have the balls (insert tasteless joke about radiotherapy and cancer here) to actually compete on a level playing field instead of pulling a Microsoft and leveraging their media player monopoly (arguably) to negatively affect a competitor in a different business unit.
On the other hand, Palm should have written their own synchronisation application that tied in with iTunes/WMP/WinAmp/Files + Outlook/iCal/Thunderbird/etc. However the Pre is all cloud-like and probably only needs to get media files on with desktop sync.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nokia already syncs with iTunes, contacts and such. http://europe.nokia.com/get-support-and-software/download-software/nokia-multimedia-transfer and in some cases it is much better than iTunes. No need to connect any wires it will sync with bluetooth..... You can browse the files, change memory cards, thansfer file with bluetooth, full mp3 as ringtone unlike iphone which has a limit of ~40 seconds and needs to have the file renamed .m4r...
The only problem with Nokia is that they continue to allow the phone
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:4, Insightful)
How can one say Apple is *NOT* leveraging their software to sell hardware? I'm not saying that practice in and of itself is wrong, but its wrong when you leverage it so that it can only sell your own hardware and not anyone else's. Though, I'm not surprised as Apple has been doing this shady and unethical practice for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Pre had used established methods (ie. writing software to parse the iTunes XML catalog and syncing with the files on the HD) you'd have a point. However, the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod. Ignoring trademark violations, that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself. In any case it's really hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.
I have littl
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think this is likely to be a concern anyway. There's a clear parallel with Nintendo's case where reproducing their logo was necessary for interoperability, and although it's never gone to court, the same applies to browser vendors' user-agent strings, including Apple's. Apple's Safari browser claims to be Mozilla in its user-agent string for interoperability purposes. It's hard to see how that differs from what Palm are doing.
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:4, Informative)
No, safari says its a mozilla compatible browser called Safari. And IE does roughly the same thing.
They don't say 'Hey, I am mozilla the browser' the say 'hey, I'm a mozilla compatible browser called: Safari version 4.0.112512, using WebKit 1.0.x' or whatever version it happens to be at the time.
The pre on the other hand says 'Hey, I'm an iPod!'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a silly argument. Apple is not a music distributor. The ONLY reason they run the iTunes Music Store, which is a very low-margin business for them, is so they can sell more iPods and iPhones, where the real profits are made. iTunes is not a product in its own right, it's a part of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem of products, and as such, there will never be a wall erected between iPod and iTunes business units. The iPod sales are what make the iTunes Music Store worth running in the first place.
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:5, Insightful)
By choosing not to play ball with the public api, Palm screwed themselves and their customers. That is all.
Simon
Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (Score:4, Interesting)
No there isn't. Not only is access to the database on the iPod undocumented, Apple periodically changes the way it's stored, for instance adding various forms of encryption, specifically to prevent third-party clients from syncing with iPods.
Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.
I don't care how pretty Apple's products are. If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour. Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.
Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.
Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm i can run anything i want on my mac, even windows if i was so inclined..
My ipod has never touched an apple formated file.
Just 2 simple examples.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's not exactly friendly to interoperability, but initially it was just a nuisance.
Then, on all recent iPods, Apple started using cryptographic techniques to lock out third-party software. That's not just not caring about interoperability, it's actively going out of their way to prevent it. The only way to reverse engineer it is to take a debugger to some highly obfuscated and protected code within iTunes itself - their new lockout has the same level of security as the actual iTunes DRM! (Plus, the i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I care, but I know that what I do won't make a difference. The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining. Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a (strictly temporary) government role in the formation of said means.
Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, my dear, most people don't give a damn. They want it to be easy and work, even if it comes at a premium over other brands. Apple has done that. I deal with enough technical problems at work all day. Last thing I want to do is come home and monkey around with making X work with Y. I used to like that when I was younger and not worrying about careers and other real world problems. And now that I'm making a little money, I don't mind paying the Apple Premium to do it.
Underhanded vs underhanded (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.
True, but in this case Apple never designed iTunes to support third-party players, so it was likely to break at some point. The underhanded thing is making it break on purpose, on the other hand Palm was also underhanded in pretending their device was an iPod. Maybe they just want Palm to actually ask (pay) to be able to inter operate with iTunes? Does anyone know whether Palm
Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think it would be in the interest of Apple's customers if Apple were instead to shut down the iTunes Music Store, because the margins on that aren't high enough, and they no longer have the iPod margins keeping it all afloat? You can't separate Apple's iPod business from their iTMS business, as one is necessary for the other to be worth it for them.
Doubletwist? (Score:5, Informative)
It reads iTunes libraries (including those irritatingly hidden away on iPods/Phones) and syncs to lots of devices quite nicely.
It's not exactly full-featured enough yet to use as your main media player, but it's really useful for moving stuff between devices.
Songbird is the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Palm should go with Songbird. Songbird is not 100% stable and bug free (I have been testing it lately), but if they offer a bit of assistance to the SF-based team, they could make it work for them just fine.
And in the process, maybe they would be able to open the doors for more smartphones/players who are in need of a capable mp3 organizer.
I doubt this will stop Palm for long. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is entering a losing battle with this change. Next up, I imagine either:
a) firmware update on the Palm Pre that more thoroughly disguises the way the device advertises itself
b) app you can run from your Palm Pre that shims iTunes.
Monopoly? So what. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly is. And in this case Apple doesn't have anything like a monopoly.
As much as people love/hate iTunes there are clearly competitors to it. Perhaps Palm should have chosen one of them to provide sync services for their new phone. But that wouldn't have served their purposes--they wanted to ride Apple's market leading coat tails to commercial success. Not by doing it in the accepted way (say, licensing iTunes or paying a fee to Apple to provide support) but by exploiting a bug in the software. Is it any surprise that Apple decided to fix this bug and prevent a potential competitor from benefiting from their work?
It's true that Apple probably wouldn't license iTunes to anyone, but given that Palm is run by former Apple employees they probably had as good a shot as anyone of getting this done. They didn't try--and worse, they advertised iTunes compatibility--so they very well can't complain now that they've been shot down. The truly amazing thing to me is that people still blame Apple for doing this. Why?
Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTunes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously think about this for a minute. You've got a device manufacturer that creates a direct competitor to Apple's products, openly advertising that they are piggybacking onto Apple's software functionality without negotiating some kind of licensing agreement and without Apple's consent. Then Apple closes the loophole that enables this unsupported functionality. But nobody wants to blame poor underdog Palm for having done this in the first place. Your average consumer, who either is too ignorant or too self-centered to think two steps ahead, buys into the advertised functionality and then blames Apple when they decide to break it?
That's not how the game is played, folks. If Palm wants to compete, then let them create their own service and interface rather than leveraging another company's successful work. You say that's unfair because Apple has created a heavily lopsided playing field, and now it's impossible to compete with the massive popularity of iTunes. But you have to ask yourself, where were these same competitors five years ago? What where they doing? They were twiddling their thumbs and milking the consumer for all they were worth while making incremental improvements in their devices. Then Apple came along and blew the whole mobile device market away with the iPhone and NOW they want to complain about the playing field not being level? Fuck that bullshit.
Make no mistake, I don't particularly approve that Apple did what they did, but if you bought a Palm Pre and couldn't see this coming you are not only blind but you're an idiot. Palm, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony--all the handset makers, not to mention the telecoms who still continue to nickel-and-dime consumers with exorbitant rates on SMS (for no other reason except that they can), are not, and never were, your friends just because now they're the underdogs. Same thing with the MP3 player market. These companies want you to think that slapping on features like they were afterthoughts is "technological progress." They never had the vision to rethink the whole device and the whole user experience from the bottom up. And now people have the balls to complain that Apple is a monopoly because they gave you real competition? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun (Score:5, Insightful)
If Wikipedia is correct Apple had 88% of the U.S. download market in 2006 and it passed Walmart as the #1 all around music sales leader in 2008. iTunes is a defacto monopoly now and Apple better start treading more carefully. Using tie ins to build new monopolies, which seems to be what they are doing here, is especially dangerous. An antitrust regulator might be inclined to say Apple's defacto monopoly on online music sales is giving them an unfair advantage in other markets, in this case the smartphone market. If a competitor can't bring a new smartphone to market because they can't access online music because of a monopoly Apple is begging for an antitrust complaint.
You can argue competitors just have to start their own competing MP3 service but that is a very tall order, especially since it requires inking deals with a relatively small number of recording companies that are something of cartel themselves. They are already distributing their product through iTunes and may or may not give a competing MP3 services the same terms, or may not deal with them at all which would make the iTunes monopoly very pronounced and entrenched.
Re:Who got a Pre thinking it'd always sync w/ iTun (Score:5, Insightful)
iTunes is a defacto monopoly now and Apple better start treading more carefully.
Why? The iTunes Store enables media acquisition, desktop playback, library organization, and is written to sync with Apple devices. All your downloads are sitting pretty, right there on your hard drive, fully available for you to use as you please. Anything you downloaded with DRM you got with the known caveat that it would only work with Apple products.
Using tie ins to build new monopolies, which seems to be what they are doing here, is especially dangerous.
If by build new monopolies, you mean not supporting syncing of third-party devices on their unpublished, internal protocol, then sure. But that's an uphill battle to convince anyone that that is an unlawful monopoly.
An antitrust regulator might be inclined to say Apple's defacto monopoly on online music sales is giving them an unfair advantage in other markets, in this case the smartphone market.
Not really. It gives them an advantage in the internal syncing department, but as a natural effect of them making both products.
If Palm wants to access the iTunes library XML file and use that to load information in its own sync software, the file's sitting right there for them to use. Failing that, it can read the file/folder structure and metadata directly and compile its own library.
The Pre isn't disabled. Palm tried to piggyback on iTunes using an undocumented and unsupported hack to capture a competitor's market with zero effort. Talk about unfair advantage.
If a competitor can't bring a new smartphone to market because they can't access online music because of a monopoly
Where can't they? 1. Buy music from Amazon, iTunes, Walmart, Microsoft, whatever. 2. Transfer files to Pre. 3. Profit.
You can argue competitors just have to start their own competing MP3 service
Like the rest of your comment, it's entirely off base and out of scope. Palm doesn't need an MP3 service. All they have to do, and all they had to do from the start, was put a modicum of effort into writing their own synchronization software. There's nothing particularly special about the media storage of iTunes (files and folders) or the library database (XML).
Palm just noticed that there was a way they could get plug-and-chug support for free, and leave Apple holding the bag of dog crap when future versions of iTunes no longer worked with whatever hacked-together code was stuffed onto the Pre. Suddenly "iTunes broke my Pre!" would ring out all across the Internet.
that is a very tall order, especially since it requires inking deals with a relatively small number of recording companies that are something of cartel themselves.
Apple did it, and did it before the lucrative nature of the setup had empirical evidence. If anything, it should be easier to compete now.
Get real. The iTunes Store has almost nothing to do with this. The iTunes client software, developed by Apple, supports syncing Apple devices. They're not, nor in any rational world would they be, required to support third party data transfer.
If you want to put all smartphone manufacturers in a room and tell them to come up with an open standard for data synchronization, fine, but until that's the case, get real.
You're babbling about nothing. Palm never had any right or reasonable expectation to be able to use Apple's unpublished protocols and expect it to work in a production environment. No one's stopping Palm from syncing the media or selling their smartphones.
What Palm is doing is skanky (Score:5, Insightful)
A device masquerading as another device by using the same USB manufacturer/device ID is not the way to build interoperability. It's just inviting all sorts of unintended consequences and bugs. How did this ever pass muster at Palm?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what the USB ID issuing body thinks about designing your device to use ids you don't own.
Re:What Palm is doing is skanky (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing that might have crossed Palm's mind is this is a pretty vivid way to illustrate to consumers and government antitrust regulators that Apple is building some pretty powerful mutually supporting monopolies between iTunes, iPod and iPhone and Apple is using one monopoly to build new monopolies. As best I recall antitrust regulators frown on using tie ins with existing monopolies to create new ones.
Palm was faced with three options:
- try to compete against iPhone without iTunes support which put them at a competitive disadvantage
- hack their way in to iTunes, and hope that either Apple plays it cool and does nothing in which case they get the iTunes support they needed, or Apple hammers them and Apple suddenly become a substantially bigger antitrust target and they make Apple's customers feel a little more apprehensive about being locked in to the Apple ecosystem.
- it would be interesting to know if Palm tried to negotiate a license for iTunes access and Apple rebuffed them because of the competitive threat either denying it outright or making it prohibitively expensive. If Palm tried and Apple rebuffed that could come back on Apple in the eyes of antitrust regulators.
What ever happens with Palm infringing on Apple's multitouch patents anyway? I haven't been following and I thought this was a pretty serious problem for Pre with Apple too. Everyone demands multitouch now and if Apple has it locked up in patents that will further cement a pretty potent monopoly on multitouch smart phones.
One thing about the iPhone is it would be quite as big an antitrust target if it wasn't locked in to ATT in the U.S. ATT doesn't even provide service in big swaths of rural America so people in those areas, can't buy iPhones at all and it appears can't get iTunes on their phones either. People in cities wont care but iPhone exclusivity was already starting to cause antitrust attention to be brought to bear on Apple.
Sour grapes (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a nice move, but not illegal either (Score:3, Interesting)
First. Apple does in no way have a monopoly on Music sales.
This should be obvious. There are lots of music resellers, both electronic and old-fashioned. All the old-fashioned ones sell music which will work on iPods or other music players after ripping. There are also big electronic competitors, such as Amazon, which sell music which will work on iPods and other music players.
Second. Apple does not have a monopoly on Portable Music Players.
While Apple may well have a 90% (?) market share on portable music players, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying a competitor, which are available in any electronics store.
You may ask: but Microsoft has a 90% market share on operating systems, why do they constitute a monopoly while Apple is not?
Unlike MS Windows, the iPod or iPhone is not (*) a crucial business tool that most businesses require in order to run the software they need. People can't just go ahead and purchase a product from a competitor of Microsoft, since their costly business software probably depends on Windows. But people absolutely can (and do) purchase a competitor of the iPod or iPhone.
Third. As long as Apple does not have a monopoly on either Music sales or Portable Music Players, there is legal boundaries stopping them from tying these together in an exclusive fashion. If you don't like the lock-in, don't buy Apple products.
(*) Watch this space, the iPhone is also a platform. This means that it is unlikely as long as good competitors exist, Apple could conceivably in the future become a monopoly on smart phones if they are big enough that third party software developers only develop for the iPhone. In this case, they would need to start playing by different rules.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Microsoft put the work in, why should anyone else be able to run software on windows?
2. Meh, I don't own anything apple or palm, and I do prefer jsut using files. I just dislike idiocy (your post).
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
And perhaps you ought to try to understand what a monopoly is and how making blanket statements about what apple are entitled to do with their stuff is stupid.
They are able to o this precisely until they are found to be a monopoly in either market, at which point locking hardware (iPod is definitely at monopoly stage) and software (iTunes must have over half the music download market) is abusive behaviour.
Specifically killing interop with other products is verging on illegal behavious and certainly makes them arseholes.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are able to do this precisely until they are found to be a monopoly in either market, at which point locking hardware (iPod is definitely at monopoly stage) and software (iTunes must have over half the music download market) is abusive behaviour.
Except they do no such locking at this point. iTunes music is now DRM-free and can be played on any device including Palm Pre. iTunes music library is an XML file with straightforward schema and there are various SDKs for accessing it even more easily. All Palm has to do is develop a separate preference panel to specify what gets synced.
What Apple is trying to prevent is people connecting a Palm and getting a tab in iTunes that has multiple occurrences of the word "iPod". This can be seen as a subtle case of trademark dilution.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Interesting)
What Apple is trying to prevent is people connecting a Palm and getting a tab in iTunes that has multiple occurrences of the word "iPod". This can be seen as a subtle case of trademark dilution.
What Apple is trying to do is not let a non-Apple device sync with iTunes, isn't it? Without, I presume, some form of licensing or fee or something from the manufacturer. If that's not what they are doing, if all they really want to do is protect the trademark "iPod," then there is a major communication breakdown between Palm and Apple.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
s/interesting/boring
That's the biggest load of BS I've ever seen. If Apple really cared about brand dilution rather than breaking interoperability, they would have made iTunes detect the Pre and sync it under a properly labeled tab rather than just break syncing, it wouldn't require appreciably more code than what they did, and it wouldn't be a ridiculous dick move either... or completely futile as this is likely to prove when Palm works around it in under a week.
Apple is being petty and obnoxious to their own PAYING CUSTOMERS simply because some people made the cardinal sin of buying a semi-related product they didn't make. I can only imagine what the people honestly trying to defend that would say if Microsoft did this instead of Apple, or even if Google did this instead of Apple.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey, I can't sync my iPod with Windows Media Player! MICROSOFT MONOPOLY ABUSE!"
Probably, yes. Was that supposed to be inflammatory or shocking? Microsoft are assholes, and so are Apple, what's your point?
"Apple has no obligation whatsoever to let anyone else sync with iTunes, just like any other playlist/sync app has no obligation to let other software sync with theirs. There is nothing stopping Palm from making their own software or getting a plugin for something like WinAmp. In addition, unless you have DRM'ed iTunes music, you can pull all of that music right out and sync it with any other software that supports the Pre. Anyone who didn't see this coming a mile away is obviously not thinking very clearly."
No, nor does Microsoft have any obligation to not break iTunes on Windows. Palm isn't forcing users to download iTunes, the users are doing it for themselves because they like the Pre and they like iTunes. You're right about one thing though, anyone who didn't see this coming from a mile away probably aren't thinking clearly: Apple pull this kind of douchebaggery all the time. What I don't get is how you or anyone else can actually rationalize this as a fair and reasonable thing to do.
"Your argument is little more than petty Apple-bashing and holds no water. Apple isn't keeping people from using their music on the Pre. They're keeping people from using iTunes to sync with their Pre, which is very different. Like someone else said, it would be pretty simple for Palm to make an app that reads the iTunes XML file and syncs your music from there instead of within iTunes. There are a hundred different ways Palm can sync their device. Piggybacking on iTunes was one of the dumbest."
NONE OF WHICH ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES APPLE INTENTIONALLY, SPECIFICALLY, AND MALICIOUSLY PREVENTING THE PRE FROM SYNCING WITH ITUNES. Read your statement, then read that sentence one more time and let it sink in. Apple went out of their way to do this simply for the sake of doing it, they stand to gain absolutely nothing from it, the only possible explanation is that they are upset that people are buying the Pre instead of iPhones, and criticizing them for it is "little more than petty Apple-bashing that holds no water." Wow. I don't care if there are a thousand ways to put music on a Pre, and I don't care if syncing it with iTunes is somehow pointless or stupid or inferior, because that still isn't a good reason for Apple to do that. They could have improved their software to make it work better and marketed it as a feature, they could have fixed the incorrect identification of the Pre as an iPod, or they could have done nothing at all, but instead they chose to reduce functionality out of spite. Seriously.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:4, Insightful)
You also don't understand that a monopoly is not a bad thing for a business. I don't quite understand why you think that interoperability is a right and therefore bad that Apple doesn't make it possible but they actually do except for the crappy DRM forced on them by the Music industry. I also fail to see how a company that is one of a minimum of 3 count 'em 3 markets for online music sales is a monopoly simply because it is the preferred market. The iPod is hardly a monopoly as I see quite a few MP3 players in the stores and I see many 3rd party software packages for Windows and Macs that will happily manage the music on them besides iTunes. Thirdly there is nothing stopping someone from putting new operating systems on their Apple hardware not even Apple cares just don't ask Apple to support it any more than expecting Microsoft to support Linux on Windows capable Hardware. As far as I can see Apple is a progressive dynamic company making butt loads of money. They make smart business decisions and maintain dominance in their markets despite competition. This is after all what a company is SUPPOSED to do.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's boorish.
It makes Apple look so very close to Microsoft in attitude that I'm apalled. Embrace-and-extend doesn't mean spank your customers.
No matter whether you like iTunes or iPhone, they ought to be able to work with other stuff, as you mention, as in interoperability. Purposeful disenfranchisement is the mark of a child. Take your toys and go home.
Mod me -1 as in ashamed of Apple.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes Apple look so very close to Microsoft in attitude that I'm apalled.
You must be new here.
I mean, think about it. The iPhone is a more locked-down platform than anything Microsoft has done in the mobile space, or on the desktop. And Apple is rejecting apps for fairly arbitrary reasons.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire computer industry is based on interoperability. When I buy a Mac, or an iPod, and get iTunes--> I expect it to work. If I buy something else, I expect that Apple doesn't purposefully thwart the use of that device to control their sales.
That 'slap' you cite is in your face, and the face of many people that expect and demand interoperability without being thwarted. Apple doesn't write a spec called iTunes. If they were half an organization, they'd do just that and stop looking like small children.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:4, Informative)
Until Ipod holds a 90% or larger share and they use that to illegally force people out of ANOTHER marketplace, you really dont know what you are talking about.
Um, the iPod has been hovering above and below that number for a while. Kinda Legitimate Proof [pcmag.com].
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Funny)
Apple's devices are also virtually 100% secure, just like OS X. Having a device that has an unproven security record lie and say it is an iPhone or iPod (which neither of which has had a malware issue since their inception) is a disservice to Apple's users, so it's completely understandable why Apple would put the kibosh on the matter for good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope it's meant to be.
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the power of modern computer systems is in the useful interaction between components. For Vendor B to build a product that interacts in a desirable way with Vendor A's product is exactly what should happen, and is about as "classy" as anything a corporate person is going to do. For vendor A to turn around and break that interaction is a middle finger in the eye for the customers. A middle finger they are permitted to insert; but the notion of praising them for it is absurd.
Should your browser have an "invite" to work with a web server from a different vendor? Do makers of aftermarket parts lack class? Why praise a company's self interested attempt to improve its fortunes at your expense?
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have to agree. I liken this to the old saying Windows isn't done until 1-2-3 won't run. Why should a vendor be allowed to deliberately modify software so that another vendors product will not run. I do not believe that the I-tunes UELA says that I have to have an Apple device to use the software.
think different (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like Apple can't learn from Microsoft's mistakes.
Maybe Palm can buy/license doubleTwist and try to convert customers to syncing iPods and PREs with that instead of iTunes. A long shot I suppose, but it appears to work with a lot of devices(including many digital cameras too).
Re:Just deserts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits.
How so? They have no obligation to allow other devices that they don't want to to work with iTunes.
Re:What does this get them? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel were sued for illegal business practices. They used their virtual CPU monopoly to bully or 'bribe' system builders into not stocking AMD.
I'm loving how many USians are getting their panties in a twist about it though, so don't let me stop you. ;)
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving a rebate for not stocking a competitor? That sounds pretty much exactly like a bribe to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Americans brought the English language to the continent. They coined the terms North America and South America. Seems fair to me that they appropriated the word American for themselves. I have a lot of friends from Central and South America. They don't want to be called Americans. They want to be called Brazilians, or Salvadorians, or Mexicans, or otherwise associated with their country. It's really similar to the way that people from America like being called Americans. Go figure.
Are you just bitter
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Informative)
People of European descent who live or lived in what's now called the United States of America have been calling themselves Americans since long before there was a United States thereof and were widely known as such in Europe. They saw no reason to change that after they defeated what was then the most powerful military state in the world largely because:
1. They were used to referring to themselves as Americans.
2. "United Statesians" didn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Any other conjecture, theory or wild-assed guess relating to residents of the United States "appropriating" the term American is utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not AMD? Let me tell ya.
I have worked on hardware for 30 years.
Computers for the last 18 years. In all that time I have spent more time on frustrating wierd problems on 8 AMD systems than I have on all of the thousands of Intel systems maintained at the same time. I would never spec an AMD for anyone.
This includes latest AMD systems.
As I am responsible for purchasing AMD is out og the question.
Corporates dont have time to stuff around with crap chipsets. It is the AMD chipsets that universally suck ass,
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Insightful)
So when hackers used to take advantage of RPC vulnerabilities in Windows XP, and then Microsoft patched it so they couldn't, the hackers had a right to be mad that this functionality was removed?
You're comparing a person's ability to use his own copy of iTunes to sync his own music library with his own Palm Pre to a hacker's ability to remotely exploit other people's Windows boxes without their consent? Sorry, try again.
Your comment implies that syncing a Palm Pre with iTunes was a function fully intended and provided by Apple, and it wasn't.
No, it doesn't. It only implies that syncing a Palm Pre with iTunes was useful and valuable, and Apple has destroyed that value by disabling it.
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until such time as it's shown that they have a monopoly in online music distribution, at which point courts in various places will start to look seriously at why interoperativity isn't there.
And if/when they see behaviour like this, specifically designed to limit it, they'll likely make rulings about it.
I see the motivation for Apple - they are basically the only game in town when it comes to mp3, unless you're a geek - and they could see this as diluting their hold on the market.
Doesn't make them any less dickish for doing it though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until such time as it's shown that they have a monopoly in online music distribution [...] I see the motivation for Apple - they are basically the only game in town when it comes to mp3
Wow - that was quick! Apparently they went from "until it's proven" to "it's proven" before you finished writing your post!
Seriously though, if Apple were smart, they wouldn't wait for the courts to do something about it - they'd allow Palm (and others) to access itunes. This would do two things:
1.) Increase the sales (and thus usage) of Itunes.
2.) pre-emptively cut off any government interference with their business.
Doesn't make them any less dickish
Also doesn't make them any less stupid.
Re:What does this get them? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is apple doing to stifle mp3 player manufacturers? What is apple doing to stifle online music stores?
There are tons of other players out there, and tons of other online music stores. Apple designed a wildly successful product with supporting software and services. Amazon mp3's work on iPods, and the itunes-plus music (which is most of the catalog) will play on any player that supports AAC. I only buy the Plus stuff already because it's higher quality, but I get most of my music from amazon.
Here is a partial list of devices that support AAC:
PS3
PSP
sony walkman and sony phones from ericsson
nseries phones from nokia
Android-based phones
Wii
Nintendo DSi
Here is a partial list of online music vendors that are compatible with ipods:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/free-music-for-your-ipod [ilounge.com]
rhapsody
amazon
lala.com
Wii controllers don't work with PS3s. Garmin gps units don't work with tomtom software. canon printer software won't run epson printers. Do I need to go on?
People seem to conflate "trying to make a buck" with anti-competitive practices. We have to draw the line somewhere. The ITMS/iPod franchise is not in itself anti-competitive any more than an auto dealership is- you can buy more than one make of car from one and you can have your car worked on by other mechanics.
-b
Re:Qualifier (Score:5, Funny)
[...] and let's not forget the Zune.
no... seriously... lets
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're trying to say that the "iPod/iTunes/iPhone lock-in" is a problem for the vast majority of users? People use iPods because they're great looking with a great interface. iTunes is simple and easy: Buy your songs through the program for convenience, or load your own on. What, do you think people are trying to load
As for the chinese knockoffs, wtf? No support, qual
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you for real? This is the same shit that MS did with Windows. If we allow this type of behavior in a very short time we will see vehicles which can only be refueled at specific gas stations. Appliances which can only be repaired by authorized vendors. etc...
They have no obligation to support but a deliberate attempt to disable a feature should be illegal.
I for one will NEVER purchase a product that I can't do with as I please for my personal use. If you deliberately break the product then I guarantee you will not see one red penny from me ever again. It's the main reason I don't purchase from iTunes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't purchase iTunes. It's free.
You don't buy music from the iTunes store why? MP3s don't play in enough places for you?
Re:What does this get them? (Score:4, Insightful)
iTunes is free.
Apple give it away for nothing, zero, nada, nil, zilch.
Forgive me if I don't find it surprising that a feature built into an app they give you for free that is designed to sell iPods and iPhones is disabled for your competitor's device, in direct competition with the cash cow that is keeping your shareholders happy.
You think it should seriously be illegal to make and sell a product that is incompatible with your competitor's product? At what stage of development? If you release to market and your widget has a square hole, and your competitor makes a foo that goes into that hole, is it now illegal for you to release a new version with a triangular hole?
Palm can sue Apple for patent infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
Palm has an interesting patent from the days where Palm's could sync with internet content over com port or USB with a PC in the middle. This is exactly what iTunes and its Music store does to an iPod. If I was Palm AND Apple did not license this patent, I would sue Apple left, right and center. At the very least settle for Palm to inter-operate with Apple technology + get a huge sum of mon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. Apple doesn't want to have to support Palm.
If the Pre had NEVER worked with iTunes, there wouldn't be a problem. Because Apple was slow to modify things so it didn't work, they're going to take some flak. If they'd let things go for a year or two or whatever until they changed something in iTunes, for other reasons, that broke Pre compatibility, they'd be in even bigger trouble.
^ This! A million times this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as an ex-Support person, if you ever support one thing, once, implictly customers will whinge when you break it through no fault of your own.
They will also bitch if you explicitly say we don't support it before giving a hand with their unsupported problem anyway because you're a decent human being.
Apple was 100% right. It's not a published standard. If they broke shit accidentally later on there'd be hell to pay. Nip it in the bud now.
One sentence, three clauses, all wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
For one, not many people really -like- iTunes,
[citation needed]
it just happens to be the easiest way of syncing your iPod,
...If by "just happens," you mean "was designed for the express purpose of."
if you could do the same thing in VLC, WMP, etc most people would.
No, most people don't know what those are. Also, they blow in comparison. Also, last I checked, WinAmp also could sync iPods, as can DoubleTwist, and probably some others. People don't use them. I know about them and know how to work them and I don't use them.
Your idea of "most people" is way too influenced by reading the crusty geeks on Slashdot.
Syncing using iTunes is difficult ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
As I type this I've just picked up the iPhone and docked it. I get a 'Sync in progress' message on the phone, and then it goes away. All done. Total time about 13 seconds.
How much easier can it be ?
Simon
Re:What does this get them? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people hated iTunes as much as you think, the iPod wouldn't be the #1 MP3 player. People would buy a Zune instead, so they didn't have to use iTunes. Think about it--all the functionality of an iPod, and it's cheaper, and they'd be able to use WMP instead of iTunes. If people didn't like iTunes, they'd leap at that.
And before the Zune there were plenty of other MP3 players, using other software (or no special software) to load 'em up. They all died away, because the average person likes iTunes just fine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why does it need to be any more complex than artist->album?
I've never understood the need for genre's (apostrophe FAIL)(especially seeing as they're pretty vague and meaningless). Why the hell would I care about years?
Why care about year of release? Because a lot of folks like to sort their albums, by each artist, in the order in which they were released.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Apple only runs the iTunes Music Store to move iPods and now iPhones/AppleTVs. They make marginal profit on the store itself. If they can flip a bit and make using the Pre that much less of a positive experience for consumers, while maintaining an advantage that the iPhone has over its competitors, then it's a no-brainer.
Re:I couldn't care less (Score:5, Insightful)
What DRM laden music?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not $0.29 profit, that's $0.29 net income after they've paid the record label. Apple still has to pay for bandwidth, storage, server hardware, system administration, software development, QA testing, customer service, and don't forget the Visa/Mastercard merchant fees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many people are saying that a company is required to support a competitor (the exceptions would be those maintaining that Apple has a monopoly). But Apple is deliberately making its software less useful in order to maintain its market position. They have a perfect right to do that, but we also have a right to think it marks Apple as a user-hostile company whose products should be avoided.
Re:Use doubleTwist instead. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can still listen to ITMS music on your pre. You can still listen to amazon mp3's on your ipod.
The only thing broken now is that iTunes won't recognize the pre as an ipod (oh, maybe because the pre isn't an ipod) meaning that itunes won't automatically sync calendars, contacts, new music, etc. You can still do those things manually just like with every other phone, every other phone that no one ever talks about because NO ONE writes software for their phone/device that explicitly supports their COMPETITOR's products.
I'm halfway through the comments in here and I think I'm done reading. It's like walking down the corridor of a mental asylum- paranoia, delusions of grandeur, dogmatism, and the guy bashing his head into the wall. Yeah, brother, you show apple who's boss by buying a Palm instead of an iPhone! Yeah! Ok now let's see how well iPhones work with Palm software...
-b