Slashdot Mirror
Apple Update Means Palm Pre Can No Longer Sync With iTunes
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.'"
Palm: "Oh no you didn't!"
Apple: "Oh yes iDid."
Frist psoError: Device type "palm" not authorised!"
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yeah, you tell 'em! those Samba guys should be ashamed of trying to steal Windows SMB technology too!
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).
Really, what would be the benefit for doing this? For one, not many people really -like- iTunes, it just happens to be the easiest way of syncing your iPod, if you could do the same thing in VLC, WMP, etc most people would. This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits. Apple had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this, so in the end what does it get them?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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?
-Scott Hutton
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.
I'm not surprised, and I don't think that Apple should be forbidden to do what they have done; but my interpretation of the situation is exactly the opposite of yours.
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?
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.
I reckon this is some very nice humour.
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.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
You could always use DVD Jon's DoubleTwist to sync the Palm Pre.
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.
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.
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).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I really hope it's meant to be.
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.
What DRM laden music?
Bull pucky .29 cents per song and made over 570 million dollars in 2008!
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/apple-apparentl/
From this Apple makes
So unless you are a member of the royal family your statement about not making any significant money is just false.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
small companies want open standards and interoperability. large companies want to hold their customers hostage, because they have a shot at absolute monopoly. apple has recently made a rare transition from the first to second category, and their incentives and policies have changed accordingly. that's all.
weinersmith
Ipod is most certainly NOT at the monopoly stage. There are literally HUNDREDS of competing products, and since Itunes is DRM free, your argument falls completely flat. There is no lock-in, and the marketplace is robust. Now, I do agree its a dick move, but they are completely within their rights and shouting 'monopoly' is not going to change that. 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.
Good-bye
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
While working at another company we discovered we were infringing on a certain patent from palm from 1998 (I think).
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 money from Apple just for the kicks.
Ok you are going to have to spell this out quite clearly because you obviously don't understand any of the syllables in the definition of a monopoly.
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.
Why bother
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.
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.
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.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
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?
iTunes sucks, but many people are using it and have used it for years. Being able to sync with iTunes makes the Pre or any device a drop-in replacement for the iPhone/iPods, and that is what Apple is scared of. They want the same type of lock-in damned if you do, damned if you don't control that Microsoft had for oh-so-long in this industry. Think Different, as long as its the Same.
So let me get this straight: Apple spends several years carefully building an ecosystem for it's hardware and software, and it is nice enought to give away aan excellent free program specifically to gain market share and to leverage hardware sales. It is a closed ecosystem, which is what you pay for being able to use a nice free state-of-the-art music management program.
Enter Pre, a direct competitor of Apple in one of the most strategic lines of Apple's business. How do you think Apple should react when Pre starts (ab)using iTunes, thus gaining more ground and cannibalizing iPhone/iPod in process? I'm surprised they were nice enough to let it stay for a while instead of forcing a mandatory update down everyone's throat and making an incompatible change to the iTunes Store protocol (which would be justified given the shamelessness of Pre strategy).
Maybe Palm should consider making it's own compelling software instead of weaseling it's way through and piggybacking the success of Apple. Or, as a more open (yet inferior) alternative, use Microsoft Media Player as it's music software
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.
Yeah I mean here's the skinny on this. You spend years making a name for yourself and writing software that people use to handle their hardware. You give it away for free to everyone because it has some general use. But you put your store in it and then add a hardware sync function. Now you've spent millions of dollars in developer time and advertising to make this work. Along comes a direct competitor and shoves his nose into a crack in the fence and starts cannibalizing your customers with your own software. and you fix the fence and everyone else screams? Give me a break. The whiners here are pathetic and wrong. If you don't like Apple don't use their products, go away and shut the f*** up. Or alternatively offer correct and useful intelligent conversation not this whiny "how dare they" crap. Like a bunch of foxes complaining about how sour those grapes probably are.
Why bother
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 actually requested Apple to be able to inter operate with iTunes?
What I would love to see is a decent iTunes alternative that support stores other than iTunes and devices other than the iPod, simply so we can give Apple a run for their money.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
[...] and let's not forget the Zune.
no... seriously... lets
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
Yes but it is not the monopoly itself that is illegal, it is using that monopoly to keep competitors from competing by coercion. MS used their monopoly power to set the price of and force the installation of their OS and no other. Dell, HP and Compaq all started that particular anti-trust action when they complained to the states attorney general that MS was doing this. When Ma Bell got so big that no other phone system or company could offer competing services because all the lines were owned by AT&T (Ma Bell) and AT&T set the prices for all transport to the customer, the Anti-trust laws kicked in.
Why bother
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.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm sorry, but where does it say that Apple must support every player on the market with iTunes? It is designed to work with an iPod, an iPod Touch, or an iPhone. If Palm wants to write their own software, they are perfectly capable of doing so. There are also numerous free open source apps that do the same thing on http://sourceforge.net/
Perhaps if Palm hadn't claimed it was an 'iPod' when syncing, they wouldn't have gotten their hand slapped? Why should Apple allow someone else to use the iPod brand (the Palm does show up as an iPod in iTunes) without any control over content or quality with the experience? It's trivial to read and write to the XML files for the iTunes library.
Palm is just being lazy.
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.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What in the world are you smoking, and where can I get some?
.ogg files onto their iPods? Those who are know better than to get an iPod.
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, quality control, or expectation of reliability. If I wanted to gamble, I'd go down to the race track, not throw my money at shoddy electronics.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
You don't think the Palm presenting itself as an 'iPod' device in iTunes is hijacking Apple's tech? If the experience isn't up to Apple's standards, then it just makes the 'iPod' brand look bad.
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.
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.
@de_machina
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
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I really don't understand this. I mean, all you have to do is plug it in. That's it. Nothing more.
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
Physicists get Hadrons!
"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.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
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.
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.
So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players, and they're using their monopoly to harm their competitors. Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.
Apple is evil, and I can't understand why geeks like them so much. They're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.
I don't see how.
It would be one thing if Apple said "The Pre cannot sync with iTunes," but that's not what happened here.
They're saying "Aha! The Pre is pretending to be an iPod so we're going to stop that." If you read even the early part of the article you'd see that Palm was trying to trick iTunes into giving it access.
There's nothing stopping Palm from using the established methods for it to access content via the XML data Apple provides.
If you resort to trickery, you shouldn't be surprised when a parent company cuts you off. Especially when there are approved methods of doing something.