Slashdot Mirror
Palm Pre "iTunes Hack" Detailed By DVD Jon
CNETNate writes "As the reviews of the Palm Pre start to roll in, DVD Jon expands on previous coverage of the Pre showing up in iTunes as some sort of an iPod, by publishing the offending code Palm has used to enabled the feature. As suspected, in regular USB mode, the phone addresses itself as a standard peripheral. But in 'Media Sync' mode, it claims to be an iPod ... from a vendor known as Apple."
Inevitably Apple will move to block this, making the next model of iPods that much harder to use with open source software.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
I can't imagine a major competitor to the Apple iPhone will be allowed to do this without a lawsuit smacking them in the face. Then again, perhaps Palm wants a lawsuit to bring additional media attention to their device.
Seems like a risky move by Palm, their entire future most likely rests on this device. Without it succeeding the risk of Palm going under are pretty high. Might as well shoot for the fences I guess.
If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
Apple could sue, and Palm could counter-sue with antitrust claims. After all, Apple does control most of the music market via iTunes.
I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes (Apple won), but I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court.
Silly Apple, if it only identifies its devices via a USB identifier, but interacts with them in standard, easily emulated ways, all the while going for the exclusivity angle.
Silly Palm, for thinking Apple will take this lying down. But kudos for the balls to do it anyway.
Two points:
1) This is impossible for Apple to block. If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish? They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.
Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.
2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue. What legality is there around USB identifiers? Nothing. The only hook there is the Apple string in the ID, but I don't think it's enough to put a case around. Why bother with the expense of a suit.
It's a clever idea from Palm and I applaud them for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These types of hacks used to be common. Everybody had their own proprietary protocols and did everything they could to lock customers into their own high-priced peripherals. Companies constantly hacked other companies' protocols and interfaces so they could offer alternatives.
These days this is rare because now the industry knows the value of standards, open when possible. In hindsight I think Palm has the right idea in trying to interface with iTunes for media syncing.
Is it time for an open standard for media syncing?
*If* this is the only way to get data from iTunes, then spoofing the model and vendor should be like the Game Boy requesting an image of the Nintendo logo at bootup. There was a court ruling back in the 90s (Sega vs Galoob, I think) that said the image was treated as a password to go through the BIOS bootup, therefore, anybody could put it in their games. This is probably a completely different ball game, though.
This device has some seriously personality issues -- either that or everyone wants to be like the Woz.
"i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
Silly Apple, if it only identifies its devices via a USB identifier, but interacts with them in standard, easily emulated ways, all the while going for the exclusivity angle.
If it's only identifying devices in a standard, easily enumerated way - then they obviously are not going for the exclusivity angle. That part is your assertion but actual technical details seem to prove your assertion wrong.
Silly Palm, for thinking Apple will take this lying down.
I honestly don't think Apple will care much. It leads to more people buying things from iTunes after all and cements the dominance of iTunes for managing media. Perhaps they even did this in conjuction with Palm... if you think about it they would have been smart to do so.
But kudos for the balls to do it anyway.
Can't argue with that. Palm is an amazing company to come back the way they have, makes me think of the Palm of old...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But Palm wont be able to certify their device as USB unless the hack is an aftermarket hack.
Why not? When you hit "Mount as Storage", the device acts as a bog standard USB mass storage device.
When you hit media sync, it acts totally differently. But why should a special mode of using USB stop certification when it does offer a standard mode...
Offering different options when plugging into USB is sheer genius.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Two points:
1) This is impossible for Apple to block. If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish? They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.
From TFA:
However, it is only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod. The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above). This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.
Their trick, in other words...
Pre: "Knock knock"
Windows: "Whoâ(TM)s there?"
Pre: "iPod."
Windows: "Cool, come in. Hey iTunes, Iâ(TM)ve got an iPod for you."
iTunes: "You donâ(TM)t look like an iPod but if Windows says you are, thatâ(TM)s good enough for me. Smoke some of this music."
Pre: "Kickass."
They are pretending to be an Apple device. I don't think that's legal.
What's the charge? "Impersonating an Apple Device"? What law is that exactly...
As I noted, the only hook is that the USB id has the word Apple which could be a trademark violation... but all the car adaptors looking for iPods have the word "Apple" embedded in order to look for said iPods. There's a strong case to be made that the string is there for the purpose of interoperability.
I don't even think it's grey enough an area to be worth a lawsuit. Did you hear of a suit filed today? Apple has known exactly how this mimicing would work for a few weeks now, you would have heard something either before or around launch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why would Apple sue over this? On what grounds? There's no copy protection being circumvented, no cryptography being broken, it's a plaintext response. Also remember when that when Apple suggested legal trouble for Palm, Palm suggested that they wouldn't hesitate to strike back with their own patent portfolio. I can't see either party taking anything to court.
Well, if you read the article you would see that "the root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre", therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this.
That's Palm being kind.
But that's a simple adjustment for Palm though if needed. Again, in the end this approach cannot be blocked without blocking legacy iPods if Palm is serious about keeping it. I don't think Apple will make much of an attempt, if any, to block it... an iTunes version was just pushed and that didn't block anything after all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1.)Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre.
2.)Release new firmware for existing iPods to ensure they work with the new version of iTunes.
You just lost me at step 2.
The fact is that firmware upgrades for older iPods are unlikely to be installed by users for some time. It could take a year or more for that to propagate.... not to mention that whatever change you make to the older iPods can more easily be mimicked by Palm than it is to put together for Apple at this point! Apple would have to dust off development kits for retired iPods of all stripes, whereas Palm just has to tweak new code with the few things that change...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At the end of the day, I guess I'm missing why everyone thinks Apple would care?
The Pre isn't sold by AT&T, and in the US everyone is basically tied to long term carrier based contracts to get smart phones. So if you own a Pre, you're not going to be getting an iPhone for at least a year or two at best.
So why would you want to block the device from working with your music store at that point? There's no lost hardware sale, but if you play nice you'll keep getting music sales. Maybe if you do a good enough job with your software/interface etc. you can get a Pre user to look at an iPhone in year's time.
Ugh, the text encoding in Windows is terrible.
Dumping the USB registers: cool.
Commentator confusing USB registers with code: not cool.
Mod DVD Jon +1
Mod Slashdot -1
It's not like the USB certification is required to sell anything. It's just a way to put a logo on a box, a logo Palm does not really need. Everyone knows it connects via USB and the cable is standard...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A vendor known as Apple, eh? Sounds kinda fruity.
{cue the Apple users are/aren't gay jokes}
Well,
All Apple has to do is ROT-13 their handshakes. Then, if Palm does the same? It's now a DMCA violation.
On a less frivolous note, perhaps this is the case that will cause the DMCA to crumble, as a possible court battle that pitches anti-competitive practice against technological copyright enforcement.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Is it time? Yes. Will you get one? Not while DRM is still a consideration
But DRM is not a consideration for Music any longer. Video doesn't matter, music alone is worthwhile enough to make such a standard (though include video for when companies come to their senses).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, there is a standard for media syncing, but it's developed by Microsoft and apparently not followed. Especially by Microsoft with their Zune, as they decided to ignore the standards they had created and sold to third-party developers in favor of something that only works with their software.
Mass storage mode still seems to work better. Again, Microsoft will allow watching a video on the Xbox 360 from a mass storage device but not a MTP device.
How could Palm know how the iPod and iTunes communicate?
Wouldn't that require some "reverse engineering" (even if it is easy to do)?
Is it good, or bad, to reveal Palm's trick? It only makes it easier for Apple to attack Palm's workaround and I'm not sure how that benefits the majority of the consumers.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
When has Apple prevented other devices from doing this sort of thing? Without that history, and I can't remember of such an incident, I'm guessing people are trying to hype Palm.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The anti-circumvention previsions may apply, even if the system was easy to circumvent. The DMCA says there is a "prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted material." It's clear that iTunes controls copyrighted material. Palm is doing something to circumvent what may be the intended behavior of iTunes. There may be an issue, valid or not. I was at Google I/O last week, and was surprised that Palm gave an appearance on the main stage. The I was almost overwhelmed that Apple was no where to be seen. This move by Palm really seems like something that only Google would have the balls to do. I wonder if Google is perhaps behind this.
What does this mean for Rosie and her 5 sisters?
who doesn't see this as being a plus for the Pre? iTunes has got to be one of the worst pieces of software out there (be it running on a Mac or anything else).
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
On the one hand, this seems a brilliant and gutsy move by Palm. On the other hand, I really dislike devices or applications that pretend to be a competitor's. On the third hand, I dislike even more that this is sometimes necessary to provide some reasonable amount of interoperability.
What would be hilarious is if during the trial they break open a Pre and there's a Nano inside. :-)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
My personal opinion is that there needs to be a documented, open specification for media syncing (media being audio, video, calendars, photos, notes, contacts, etc - all the standard phone/pda data).
The device can say what file formats it supports. It can provide an icon to the software to display. It can say if it supports photos, calendars, contacts, notes, etc.
It could be extensible, for custom media types, e.g., games that will only run on a particular device.
This would be implemented within many free media players quite quickly, so devices that don't come with their own media player will still have options for media syncing. And maybe Apple, with by far the biggest media management software on the market, will be forced to support it one day by a court decision.
Seriously? Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple's Intellectual Property (iTunes). I'm pretty sure there's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.
I feel this is a good thing for apple. This means that people using the Pre can go and use iTunes to buy their music. According to Palm's estimates this could mean another 600k iTunes customers in the first quarter. Why would they try to sue? Thats beyond me. They should applaud the fact that they could gain that many customers.
This is even better news for me personally, as I have an iPhone which I sync to iTunes. Now my SO, who is getting a Pre can also leverage all the music we have on our shared desktop, as well as the videos, podcasts, etc etc. Win Win for me.
All this means is that Apple will do some sort of firmware check next time around rendering itunes worthless on the Pre which will in turn piss off tons of customers causing backlash at Palm.
Okay, I have to set something straight. It doesn't look for the string "Apple." It looks for a 2 byte code which MEANS apple.
Thanks, I had not looked up that detail of what form the ID took...
Then it's even more clearly something Apple cannot sue over.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How is this any different than Opera/Firefox/whatever changing the User-Agent string?
Neither looks like anything complicated nor like anything illegal.
Acclaim and Sega had a lawsuit over Acclaim doing something to make games work on Sega's hardware, which resulted in the display of a Sega logo. The court in that case concluded that it was Sega's fault for making it impossible to interoperate any other way.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Apple will just release new ipod software and Itunes to combat this,
it would be easier than the courts,
Itunes 9 will make you do a software update and will toast the pre, lol
" oh we thought we were updating an Ipod"
It's the Razor Model, the iPOD or any other similar device is the handle, you get that free or cheap, the Music is the Blades, thats where the really cash is in the business.
I fail to understand why Apple doesn't just throw the doors open anyway, they make the best handle, I doubt any significant portion of the music buying public would stop buying the iPod. And even so Apple still makes a pile of cash from the music sales.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
All Apple has to do is ROT-13 their handshakes.
What, and break all the old iPods' ability to sync? Yeah, that'll go over real well.
In strictly financial terms, I wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing for Apple.
On the one hand exclusivity between iTunes and iPod/phone means you have to have an iPod to use iTunes. More hardware sales for Apple.
On the other hand, opening up iTunes to other popular media players (which technically they do already on a limited basis), means more iTunes Store revenue. Itunes might also be a gateway application to get people to try other Apple hardware. (Some people do actually like iTunes)
A close look at Apple's financials would tell us a lot. I don't care enough about it to go through there 10Ks and 10qs, and they might not even break out the data that you would need, but if they did... you would want to look at where they have the most sales (iPod/iPhone vs. Music/Video downloads). But you would also want to look at profit margin, and factor in growth assumptions for iTunes downloads vs ipod hardware.
There very well may be, but Palm is not the end user. it's up to the guy/girl that buys the phone not to sync it with iTunes. The EULA is for the user, not the device maker.
And here is why:
-If they sue, it will alienate the verizon customers using the pre. Those customers may be less likely then to buy whatver tablet dealio is coming to verizon soon.
-They will do nothing but gain market share. People using itunes with their phone right now are all att customers, so they only stand to gain more market share by allowing them in the door.
-They probably couldn't win anyway. Even though they have a small army of lawyers, sometimes that isnt the only deciding factor in legal victory. Apple is not any more immune to antitrust suits than microsoft or att.
Think of iTunes as a driving force between iPod sales rather than the iPod as a driving force behind iTunes sales and you'll understand why Apple may be against this.
Yes, I totally agree the intent is for iTunes to sell iPods.
The Pre supporting iTunes does not change this equation. More people using iTunes is more people that might have a reason to get an iPhone, even if at first they get a Pre.
Also, there are a lot of people that have phones but also iPods. Having a smaller iPod for running is common...
Further, iTunes Video still cannot be played so there's still some push to getting an iPod video device of some kind.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In TFA, DVD Jon says this:
Emphasis added by me.
I agree with him: all Apple has to do is add code to check the root USB node, see that the device is a Palm Pre, and refuse to accept the device as an iPod.
P.S. If Palm had just gone to Apple and said "we want to make the Palm Pre sync with iTunes", would Apple have been reasonable about it? I saw a comment on Slashdot mentioning that there are non-Apple devices that sync with iTunes, implying that Apple can be reasonable. But in this case, the Pre is competing with the iPhone! I imagine Apple would do anything they could to sandbag a competitor, including denying iTunes.
Apple won't sue Palm. But I won't be surprised if they do this check and lock the Pre out of iTunes.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Not sure if it did violate the DMCA, they are not breaking encryption but only saying "Yeah, I'm an iPod..."
I guess it's a good thing that the Palm Pre is not an iTunes user.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
They are circumventing the (very poorly conceived and implemented) technology that enforces the rule that only iPods can connect to iTunes. Circumvention = DMCA violation.
All Apple has to do is ROT-13 their handshakes.
What, and break all the old iPods' ability to sync? Yeah, that'll go over real well.
Handshaking doesn't exist in hardware, it exists in software.
There isn't an iPod made that Apple could simply release an update for with new handshaking routines (such as ROT-13).
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Reader: Knock, knock
Slashdot: Who's there?
Reader: Unicode.
Slashdot: Fuck off.
Back on topic, John Gruber has covered this pretty well here and here.
"But is it illegal? And would it be illegal for Apple to take countermeasures against it? My guess is "no" to both questions... I don't think WebOS's media sync is a mistake on Palm's part because it is wrong, I think it's a mistake because it is risky and unnecessary."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Why would anyone want to use iTunes for any device including an iPod or a PRE, how about a Hack so you DON't have to use Itunes for iPod's or any other device.
This computer is claiming to be an Apple Computer. Apple sued. Apple won.
Citation needed. This device is claiming to be a Sega Genesis game cartridge (Sega v. Accolade), a Chamberlain LiftMaster garage door opener (Chamberlain v. Skylink), or a Lexmark toner cartridge (Lexmark v. Static Control Components). Sega, Chamberlain, and Lexmark sued. Sega, Chamberlain, and Lexmark lost.
As usual people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.. BFD!
Lexmark tried this with printer cartridges and was told to bugger off.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Seriously? Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple's Intellectual Property (iTunes). I'm pretty sure there's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.
Nope.
How did this get modded insightful?
iPod firmware can be updated by iTunes. The interpretation of handshaking being done in hardware vs. software is very subjective, given that it's either hardcoded in the hardware(see: old modems) or in firmware(see: software modems).
As far as another person mentioning using ROT13 to invoke DMCA, it wouldn't work. Reverse engineering is allowable(for the moment) to allow interoperability. Palm could easily explain that their device does not enable copyright infringement any more than any other mobile media device and the fact that it needs to report itself as an Apple device to connect is just evidence of Apple's reluctance to make iTunes operate with other hardware devices.
In short, the DMCA doesn't necessarily apply.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
This is much the same. Unless the Pre had features built in to make copyright infringement easy, reverse engineering the iTunes-iPod interface for interoperability likely wouldn't be affected by the DMCA.
Given Apple's got a dominant market position in both MP3 players and online media distribution, although I'm hesitant to say a monopoly position, firing back at Palm for this could place them in the antitrust hot seat.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Could it be:
oh, look, we can't develop our own software for those features so we sneak in into something that works for people
?
One that hath name thou can not otter
iPod Firmware gets updated by iTunes. This happens already. iTunes checks updated firmware, if old handshake, iTunes then return to the top of this loop. :-)
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I thought we were trying to get ipods to sync with software other then itunes. Not getting more hardware syncing with itunes.
Doesn't just about every browser still claim to be Mozilla in the user-agent response?
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
[citation needed]
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/10/03/digital-royalty-rates-frozen-after-itunes-threatens-shutdown/
The Copyright Royalty Board has frozen the rate digital retailers must pay to artists for the next five years after a showdown with Apple. The largest digital music retailer threatened to shutter its iTunes service if it was forced to pay a higher rate.
They are circumventing the (very poorly conceived and implemented) technology that enforces the rule that only iPods can connect to iTunes
Which is not a copyright protection technology.
You can't put DRM'd files on the Palm Pre. the Pre does not crack or remove the iTunes DRM. Everything you can do wtih a Pre and iTunes you can do with an iPhone and iTunes. Ergo, Apple hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Neither will Palm if Apple just switches it -- aside from a possible monopoly claim. Really, though, "a rising tide lifts all boats." The more devices look to iTunes, the more iTunes gets used. The more iTunes gets used, the more direct revenue for Apple. and they'll sell more iPods, too.
Yeah. I'm sure Apple will approach this with all due caution, 'cos they may be psychotically obsessive control addicts but they're rather good at business and not actually stupid.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Cool. By identifying as an iPod, then it will also seemlessly synch with my linux clients - Banshee on my netbook, & Amarok on my desktop 8)
Now if they would only detail the really important sync - calendar, tasks, contacts and mail.
Um, why single out Windows? It looks the same for me on RHEL.
Thank you! That is exactly the one I had in mind. I actually did do some searching to try to find a link, but didn't stumble on the right keywords.
Palm obviously squashed that today (no Apple news on the interwebs) with this. Cause now, Apple either responds with a lawsuit or iTunes patch (looks evil) or spins it and says it's a benefit of iTunes (and since everyone thinks iTunes is bloat ware, looks like a monopoly, hence evil) and continues the Palm discussion, i.e. advertisement away from iPhone v3.
Win-win for Palm.
Now Apple can ignore all this and hit hard with the iPhone v3 specs, say tomorrow (same day as Palm's release) and it will take the steam outta Palm and set them up for a normal WWDC. Apple better do something now cause the Pre reviews have been a. totally bias-crap to pretty good, gorgeous screen device--easliy an iPhone contender.
The original Game Boy used a bitmap Nintendo logo in the cartridges that was verified by the GB before a game was allowed to execute. This was an effort to use copyright to prevent third party cartridge production as had happened with the NES. This issue went to court and the ruling was that interoperability prevailed and other companies would be allowed to produce unlicensed games. This is the same thing here. If spoofing an Apple product is what is needed for interoperability then so be it. The law sees nothing wrong with that.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Well... I've seen that the list is pretty old and the KB document says it won't be updated anymore.
But, if Palm wished to sync Mail notes, iCal events, Address Book contacts and Safari Bookmarks, it could be easily done through iSync / Sync Services.
I tried to find any documentation on how to create a plug-in for a new device to work with iTunes, but found nothing...
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/10/03/digital-royalty-rates-frozen-after-itunes-threatens-shutdown/
The Copyright Royalty Board has frozen the rate digital retailers must pay to artists for the next five years after a showdown with Apple. The largest digital music retailer threatened to shutter its iTunes service if it was forced to pay a higher rate.
The key word here is "digital retailers". The Copyright Royalty Board wanted to charge higher rates for digital media retailers than to physical media (CDs) retailers. Apple did the right thing here.
My thumb drive thinks it's a CDROM drive.
Does anyone remember the BadApple plugin that allowed iTunes to sync with any mass storage? It died a death very similar to FacebookSync.
Seems like nobody's mentioned this yet - by pretending to be an iPod the Pre won't only make itself compatible with iTunes, but also with EVERY OTHER media managing program out there that supports iPods, which is to say pretty much all of them. Smart move, you can't buy that kind of out-of-the-box compatibility for a new device.
This is a no-phone, data-contract-only option I am aware for the US:
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/cell-phone-plans-detail.aspx?tp=tb1&rateplan=T-Mobile-Total-Internet
Then you could buy any phone you wanted to use or develop for. Having been in Europe for a long time now, I don't understand the US telco contract-phone market, but I am aware T-mobile has this 'unlimited' mobile internet for $40 a month, no phone included.
I wrote this out, because I couldn't figure out why Nokia wasn't on your Dev-list, but then I figured maybe Nokia isn't offered with contracts in the US, (or maybe Nokia isn't your personal pref.). At any rate, I really like Nokia, because I develop VOIP systems, and Nokia supports the open SIP VOIP-standard really well in the OS, which draws little power compared to running an application like Fring. So obviously I try to steer my corporate clients to consider Nokia phones, but really only the ones on the always-updated list of supported SIP phones:
http://www.forum.nokia.com/main/resources/technologies/voice_over_IP/voip_support_in_nokia_devices.html
The N79 has all the features the iPhone doesn't offer to this day, for 287 euros cash (like shooting DVD quality video, A2DP bluetooth meaning speaking-headset/music support), and even negates the need to carry a Polar heart meter when cycling with site/nav-GPS which is why I want one. Note that price includes a 19% value-added tax that businesses like me (sole-proprietership developer) do not pay.
http://gsmtrack.nl/index.php?page=merken&action=toestellos&id=708&id2=1135
And Nokia is attempting great things, like their Sports social-networking site, which I hope they make more dev-friendly: http://sportstracker.nokia.com/
And as far as I am concerned, no phone short-list is complete without the Neopwn, which runs Debian, Firefox, etc., and does *much* more!
http://www.neopwn.com/
And for what's worth, on the deskphone side, I just bought a Polycom IP650, for its speaker-phone quality, and It Rocks(!!), and with a great GUI too.
Ink cartridges from the original manufacturer don't have any protection against printing plagiarized copies of works, either. Therefore, the DMCA wouldn't apply because no one reversed-engineered anything with the purpose of getting around an engineered blockade to content duplication.
Nor does Palm plan to support Apple's FairPlay brand of engineered blockade to content duplication.
Not right. DMCA allow you to circumvent for interoperation purposes.
Wow, so you are just going to ignore Apples long history of litigation...
No, I'm not going to go with that history since it only tells us what Apple will do when faced with an issue with pretty clear legality.
Instead I'm going by the real-world history of what Apple has done about Jailbreaking, which is nilch - hardly even bothering the process with updates much less litigation.
This situation is more like Jailbreaking than any lawsuit Apple has filed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley