Slashdot Mirror
USB-IF Slaps Palm In iTunes Spat
An anonymous reader writes "The USB Implementers Forum has finally responded to Palm's complaints that Apple is violating its USB-IF Membership Agreement by preventing the Pre from syncing with iTunes. It's found in favor of Apple. Worse, it's accused Palm itself of violating the Membership Agreement by using Apple's Vendor ID number to disguise the Pre as an Apple device."
Seriously can we keep business politics out of this? You may not like Apple but a lot of people from day one called into question Palms legality on their faking out iTunes from this very reason all the way down to the very fact that nothing said Palm even had to use iTunes as they could have used a third party player, a plugin for iTunes like Blackberry and WinMobile users use without any complaints from Apple, or made their own software . Just because you dont like the outcome does it in any way mean that the outcome wasn't the right one.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Since the main selling point of the Pre was unauthorized iTunes sync.
Serves them right.
To all those people who think "What is the big deal about faking yourself as Apple?". The point is that these are reserved identifiers in the same way as barcodes are reserved identifiers.
Would it be right for Palm to use the iPhone barcode for the Pre? Clearly not.
So here is another case where there is a specific rule around reserved identifiers and Palm broke the rules. Their alternative is to opt-out of the USB group and do it themselves without its blessing or just suck it up.
Complaining about the rules of a game after joining the table and playing a few hands is just dumb.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Apple isn't doing anything to extend USB in a proprietary fashion; it's using an existing feature to differentiate between devices. It's blocking some of them deliberately from working with its software, but it's doing so in a USB-compatible way. Even if they were denied this access, wouldn't it be possible for them to create a challenge-response between the software and their authorized devices that didn't involve the USB Vendor ID?
On the other hand, faking a Vendor ID for your USB device is bound to irritate and annoy the standards group responsible for issuing and tracking Vendor IDs -- even if it's done for the noblest of compatibility purposes.
This iTunes lockout is really lame, but the USB-IF shouldn't have to be involved in it. And instead of fighting that battle, couldn't Palm channel its energy into developing an alternative to iTunes and partnering with a decent DRM-free music provider such as Amazon? If their alternative is solid enough, perhaps it could be licensed to other device manufacturers for extra benefit?
Palm claimed Apple was violating the spirit of the agreement by using their vendor ID to lock iTunes to their products.
Palm used this to justify breaking the actual letter of the agreement by using Apple's vendor ID to trick iTunes into thinking Palm devices were iPods.
So, guess who got in trouble? The guy who actually violated the agreement, of course.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
For a sins what Palm did was 7 and what Apple did was a 4.
If you hacked you Palm to do what Palm did then that would be a sin of 1. But the fact that the company created such actions intentionally against Apples will (3) marketed it (4) to the general public.
If you did it with your own Palm then it is only a 1, perhaps a 3 if you made it public. As you have already purchased the product and what you are doing is actually a favor to Apple as you buying their songs and using their product...
However by the corporation doing the same thing, they are hurting apple as they are making a product that is directly competing with their product, and not working with your competitor for compatibility.
Why is it worse for a company to do something then it is for an individual?
Well first it is scale, The individual usually has limited influence as they don't have the resources to make a large influence, at best the hack would give you some geek credits and only the brave geeks who could afford to brick their phone to do it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That's completely retarded. DRM is out of the picture on iTunes store and if you insist on purchasing there, nothing keeps you from syncing your music library to whatever device you have.
There was no requirement for Palm to highjack Apple's ID just so that they can benefit from cheap engineering. RIM made the right decision and that is to not rely on software they dont control for their syncing.
What Palm did is sell a device to their customers and provided no guarantee as to the usability of the product, because they hack another company's software solution.
Obviously, the USB-IF is going to take a dim view of spoofing vendor IDs. They were considered important enough to have in the spec, for whatever reason, so faking them isn't going to go over well. I don't really know what outcome Palm was expecting.
However, that said, I can't see tying attempts between products(above and beyond the natural tying effects that the complexity of software interaction naturally produces) as being even a remotely good thing for users, competition, or technological development generally.
Imagine if, back in the day, the "Well, they should just write their own iTunes-like application" had been applied to Compaq and the IBM-compatible clone kiddies. "Well, they can just write their own OS and set of applications..." Even back then, with the fairly minimal legacy effects, that would have retarded the development of cheap, standard, supports-the-software-you-want-to-run computers. It is basically demanding that anybody who wants to make anything must have a complete vertically integrated product range, to which they must induce customers to switch.
Very rarely in the history of technology has that ever worked particularly well. Most of the time, development consists of a few standards, formal or de-facto, and the surrounding ecosystems of add-ons, compatible widgets, clones, extensions, and software, authorized and unauthorized. And, frankly, that has worked pretty well. Modern technology is competitive, fast, ubiquitous, and impressively cheap.
If, in the future, we move away from the annoying-but-largely-useless forms of tying involving monkeying with pinouts every generation, and obfuscating stuff, and move to effective forms of tying based on crypto challenge-response, signing, vendor IDs, and the like(along with a fair bit of force of law, thanks to Mr. DMCA) I fear we will see a much less rich period of technological development.
Few companies are large enough, or smart enough, to maintain a fully integrated product line. Fewer customers actually want to use every one of a company's products, and none of their competitor's products. They want things to work together. Obviously, some degree of imperfection in interface is to be expected, interconnection of complex systems is Hard and writing wholly unambiguous specs is Very Hard. Deliberate breakage, though, is insult to injury.
I doubt Palm can do squat on this issue. They violated their USB license by using another vendor ID.
They might actually have to pay a penalty on that.
And because they went beyond their USB manufacturer agreement, they don't have a case in court.
Apple is the Microsoft of MP3 players.
Not even close. You can step entirely outside the Apple ipod/iTunes ecosystem and still get a full range of music. If you step outside the MS ecosystem there are significant programs (games and important business software) you cannot run and significant pieces of hardware you cannot use or cannot use fully.
Or (now the DRM is gone) you even buy any tracks from the iTunes store and import them into another music manager which fully supports your not-Apple AAC music player.
In other words, the consumer makes potential sacrifices to stay away from MS, but suffers no pain staying away from Apple.
But then I expect you know all this being a probable MS shill (I apologize if you are not, in that case you're just an idiot).
Why bring the DMCA into this? Apple hasn't sued Palm, nor have they brought in the law in any way. This is purely a technical fight between the two.
The Pre is lying and Apple is calling Palm on it. I fail to see how Apple is wrong.
And just because someone says MP3 or music and you hear "Apple" doesn't mean that Apple has any kind of (legally defined) monopoly.
In short, you're an idiot.
I can't stand these folks who insist that they have a right to infringe on others intellectual property. Apple spent millions of dollars on R&D to create this device that has revolutionized the online music industry. Apple the iPod helped Apple stay out of the commodity PC business and boost them back into a great growth company that they were back in the 1980s. Then these parasites come around, use Apples IP to piggy back on its hard work and money. Thank God someone has the good sense to finally value IP.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Apple uses lube where MS doesn't.
Emulating another device to provide compatibility is perfectly acceptable
Except when you have signed a contract saying you wouldn't. The problem is that Palm decided to use Apple's USB Vendor-ID to identify the Palm-Pre, which is something Palm promised not to do in their contract with the USB-IF (Who hands out USB Vendor IDs). Palm violated existing contracts while attempting to emulate Apple's devices and Apple called them on it.
I don't think there is any reasonable argument for forcing Apple to let the Palm-Pre use their software.
I agree - the usual point is that the rules are different for Microsoft because they're a monopoly, but in the market of portable music players, Apple are a monopoly. And how is Itunes not using their monopoly in one market, to try to influence another?
I love how the comments immediately blame Apple for all of this. How is this any of Apple's fault?
PALM complained about APPLE to the USB-IF. Apple re-tweaked iTunes, their own software, to verify the devices claiming to be ipods were really ipods. They didn't claim copyright infringement, they didn't issue DMCA notices, they didn't make patent infringement claims, they just changed their software to make sure devices they support were actually devices they were modifying. Palm makes it's computer connections lie, and it's Apple's fault. Awesome.
Apple is not the most open company around, but if openess is what you want then don't buy Apple, it's not like you're forced to.
I'm not really sure why people whine about the iPod not being open. It doesn't lock you in to the iTunes store, or DRM stuff, even on video. I buy most of my music from EMusic then Amazon MP3 store then finally iTunes. It'll accept music from peer-to-peer networks as well.
90% of my videos are ripped from DVD and have no DRM. Works fine on my iPod and Apple TV.
Darwin is "open source" as long as no one tries to make a competing distro. Just look at the history of projects such as OpenDarwin.
"Grand Central" already had existing OSS alternatives such as Intel Threaded Building Blocks.
XQuartz sounds like something just so they can get more apps. Nice for them and their users.
Two issues:
1. The USB license issue -- Is it okay to use another vendor's ID? No, probably not. Is it okay to use the vendor ID to work with your software to the exclusion of others? That's an interesting question. Is the use of a vendor ID an acceptable means of keeping others out of your marketplace? That is a question worth exploring since Apple is using its music hardware to leverage its position in the sync software arena and the two are also being used to leverage its position in the digital music selling business. There is a legal term for using one market leading position to leverage another... now what was that word? Anti-something? This second question, however is not a matter for the courts at this point. It is a question for the USB people and at the moment, they say "Apple good, Palm bad."
2. Is Apple entitled to lock out other hardware makers from using the software it has published and distributed? Here is where that Anti-word might get raised. The digital music player market and the digital music market are "connected" but they are not the same market. Apple is presently a leader in that market and is blocking access to that market to competing hardware vendors thereby harming the competitor to Apple's own hardware by using its position in another market. Smells of Anti-.... Anti-.... what's that word again?
So tell me.
If you think it is a good thing for Palm to use iTunes, then why the hell didn't Palm use iTunes, you know like all those other 3rd party players that work perfectly well with iTunes using the proper methods, like blackberry and windows mobile?
Apple did not 'lock out' Palm. Palm designed a broken (defined as broken by the USB spec) device, and purposely designed the Pre so it was impossible for their device to identify itself to the computer as a Pre.
Palm purposely made the choice to design a product which is physically impossible to design any software for at all.
This isn't Apples fault any more than it is personally your fault.
Palm's agreements with USB-IF don't have squat to do with whether Apple is abusing monopoly power. One would be a civil case (or, more likely, mandatory arbitration) between Palm and the USB-IF licensing body. The other would be a criminal case -- United States v. Apple.
No, no they're not.
They're not even a monopoly in the cell phone market.
All Apple is refusing to do for Palm is let them integrate Pre into the main iTunes application. That would require Apple to publish and maintain a plug-in API for iTunes which would cost Apple money. Why should they?
Um, no it wouldn't. Palm made their device compatible with iTunes. Apple didn't have to do a thing. Instead, they deliberately broke the compatibility.
You want to know what cost Apple money? Paying someone to re-write the iTunes sync so it wouldn't work with other vendors' products. If they'd done nothing, Palm's device would have continued to work fine with no effort from Apple.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The difference is this: Microsoft was using their monopoly* with Windows (software) to push another piece of software (Internet Explorer). The reason I have to side with Apple on this is because they aren't using their monopoly* on iPods (hardware) to push another piece of hardware. And the Zune software won't sync my iPod... so should I sue Microsoft, for not allowing their software to work with my hardware? Because that's all that Apple is doing. They're not allowing their software to work with the Palm hardware. *Let's not be pedantic about my use of the word "monopoly" -k-?
You couldn't figure out how to make your iPhone play mp3s?
Box it up and return your computer to the store. You are too stupid to own a computer. Or a troll. Pick one.
And the Zune software won't sync my iPod... so should I sue Microsoft, for not allowing their software to work with my hardware?
If you make a "Zune-compatibility" mode for your iPod, where it claims it's a Zune, will you have to spoof Microsoft's vendor ID to get it to sync? Or will the software say "you say you're a Zune made by Apple? okay, as long as you know how to act like a Zune, we can talk".
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
then you forget that there store is so heavily used. Of the top of my head I cant even think of any other music store but itunes. This tells me that the average person is probably in the same place. giving them a virtual market over the music store. They only want people using the ipod with there music store because they need to recoup part the costs of making those loss leader ipods. if they sit on a shelf they make 0% back
Apple can't break compatibility with existing iPods. If the Pre acts just like an iPod, there's no reason for the sync to not work no matter how many times it's updated.
Now, if the Pre isn't emulating an iPod correctly, then yes, compatibility might break on iTunes updates, but that's Palm's problem, and they will fix it.
However, making it impossible to "correctly" emulate an iPod without also reporting an Apple vendor ID was considered a low blow by Palm. There's a device ID and a vendor ID; if the device claims to be an iPod manufactured by Palm, it should act exactly the same as an iPod manufactured by Apple. Not syncing with it just because it's made by Palm only serves to maintain an Apple monopoly. There's no real explanation for it aside from that.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Every step of that journey involved one or more open, freely-available standards-based protocols that have been embraced by hundreds if not thousands of vendors so they could all communicate with each other.
Exactly why the iTunes library stores data in bog standard XML, and the store files (for audio) are pretty much all standard AAC files.
So your complain that Apple does not follow standards, except they do, and third parties can easily make use of them to provide the same abilities iTunes has to peruse the libraries.
It's pretty funny as the other poster pointed out you are so hot to attack Apple when Palm is the one deviating from official low-level standards. Guess it goes to show the lengths some people will go to in order to attack someone they hate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
how about because they purposely locked down itunes so that the only way another device can sync with it now is to pretend to be it. Dont forget apple recently tried to make a deal with palm in regards to the illegal practice of not hiring each others employees.
Palm should not have violated the USB-IF however its anti competitive to alter your program to purposefully lock out your competitor. That is what Palm wold be filing a complaint with the US gov about.
people are obviously turn to Apple for support if iTunes doesn't sync right with their Palm. That will cost Apple money. After all, iTunes is an Apple product. Telling people, "It's the other guy's problem" never goes over well.
If you make round plugs and round holes, and somebody complains that their square plug doesn't quite fit correctly, tell them it's not your problem. If they're not a complete retard, they'll take their problem where it belongs.
If they bought some "round" plugs from someone else that are supposedly compatible with your round holes and it turns out they're slightly flattened so the fit isn't perfect, it's still not your problem.
However, if the other guy's plugs fit perfectly in your round hole, and you install a camera so that theirs wont work anymore (theirs are red and yours are blue, and the hole won't open for blue plugs), claiming "someone else made them, they might not fit" doesn't counter my claim "they did fit just fine, until you modified your round hole to not accept them".
Sorry for the awful analogy, it's the first thing that popped into my mind and I ran with it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
how about because they purposely locked down itunes so that the only way another device can sync with it now is to pretend to be it.
Microsoft locked down Word so that it only uses Word dictionaries. Firefox only uses Firefox plugins. Palm Desktop only syncs with Palm products. I'm not sure you understand the requirements of the definitions of anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior.
Dont forget apple recently tried to make a deal with palm in regards to the illegal practice of not hiring each others employees.
... so if a company does one thing wrong, everything they do must be wrong? I saw a guy speeding, should we also convict him for murder?
Palm should not have violated the USB-IF however its anti competitive to alter your program to purposefully lock out your competitor.
No, that's not how "anti-competitive" works. See, for example, the fact that Palm Desktop only syncs with Palm devices. It "locks out" iPhones. So?
Furthermore, it's not anti-competitive to make your software follow industry-wide open, free guidelines... locking out those who don't follow the standards. Say someone started making their own HTML tags - <bork> or <glub>... Would it be anti-competitive for Firefox to refuse to render the data between those tags? Not at all.
That is what Palm wold be filing a complaint with the US gov about.
And they would be rightly laughed out of the US Attorney's office.
Highest markeshare != monopoly. There are a number of criteria to be met before something can be constituted as a monopoly especially in the legal sense. The first one is the dominant player in a market. Apple with over 70% of the market qualifies to be the dominant player. Another criteria is that there must be significant barriers to entry in that market for competitors. Judging by the dozens of competing players you can find at a local Best Buy alone, that criteria does not seem to be satisfied. Even if Apple has a monopoly, that in itself is not illegal. There exist legal monopolies today. Here is where the comparison with MS doesn't work. MS was found to have a monopoly and used illegal tactics to maintain that monopoly.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple had already written the support for various iPod models at various firmware releases. The functionality specific to a model and firmware version isn't going to change, because in order to change it Apple would need to change the iPod side of things as well.
If, for some reason, Apple decided to update the communication protocol on whatever older iPod hardware the Pre happened to be emulating, Palm would have to figure out the new protocol and support it eventually. But the old protocol would still be out there.
Apple can't change the protocol on iTunes without also changing it on the iPods. Which means the old protocol has to stay out there during the transition (possibly with an automatic notification that an upgrade is available). So the signature each iPod uses would change from (for example) "iPod Touch Gen 1 Firmware 1.2.5" to "iPod Touch Gen 1 Firmware 1.4.1". If a G1/1.2.5 unit tries to talk to iTunes, iTunes HAS to speak back to it in its native tongue, and anything claiming to be a G1/1.2.5 will be talked to in the same manner.
Otherwise, they'd have to upgrade the entire product line at the exact same time, or they'd be breaking compatibility with their own devices. This has nothing to do with maintaining Pre compatibility, it is all about maintaining genuine iPod compatibility.
So iTunes will talk to the Pre until Apple specifically stops supporting that model and firmware version of the genuine iPod, and at that point both a genuine (but not upgraded) iPod *and* the Pre will both get a "product not supported, firmware upgrade required" error.
The difference, of course, being that the genuine iPod can get a (probably free) firmware update from Apple and still work with iTunes. The Pre would need intervention from Palm, who would have to upgrade their compatibility to a model that iTunes still does support, with all the protocol changes that implies.
I agree that Palm *should* just go their own way and not be dependent upon Apple, but the Pre is zero effort on Apple's part. It's "unsupported" hardware.
Adding the "Vendor ID" to the signature WAS effort on Apple's part. Fortunately for them, it was only on the iTunes side, since the iPods were already sending Vendor ID anyway. And the only reason to do that is to intentionally break compatibility with non-Apple devices, because it didn't add a darned thing to the protocol for any device (or the devices would need an upgrade at the same time to support whatever the new feature is).
Which is within Apple's rights, but is more effort than just allowing Palm to get away it. Not a HUGE effort, true, but an effort.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
It doesn't even matter if they're a monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't inherently wrong. Abusing the power of being a monopoly is wrong, and I have yet to see convincing arguments that Apple has done that. An example would be when Microsoft punished OEMs with increased license fees if they offered computers without Windows.
You don't understand the arugment[sic]. Does Apple have a monopoly on DRM Fairplay media?
That's not a relevant market with regard to antitrust law, the only aspect of law that makes Apple's actions potentially illegal.
The term is "significant barrier" to entry in the marketplace. The fact that others can and have created other online stores negates your arugment[sic] that Apple has a monopoly.
That's not how monopolies are defined.
Amazon has quite a successful online store.
Amazon and all other competitors combined are half the size of Apple alone. That's not particularly successful in terms of markets. This means Apple has a lot of influence on music buyers. If, for example, they were to blacklist an artist that would be a serious threat to that artist's ability to make money distributing music (not that the RIAA isn't already the same.
You can load nonDRMed AAC onto a Palm Pre.
You can run Windows programs in WINE. That does not negate the possibility that the digital music market is being leveraged. It doesn't have to be impossible to be a breach, it just has to make it harder for people who don't use Apple's product in a separate market.
Other OS's exist for the PC however none of them have been able to gain anything in the marketplace. Some of this was to due to tactics by MS.
This is actually irrelevant to antitrust law as it applies here because it is perfectly legal to gain a monopoly via several methods. Apple isn't being accused of illegally maintaining a monopoly, just leveraging the monopoly into another market.
Huh? Palm is free to write an iTunes plugin to sync up with their Palm devices.
They are, but not with the same APIs Apple uses and without the same level of functionality. Don't you think if Palm could get the same level of functionality using a plug-in they would have done it? Do you think they'd be risking censure from the USB committee if they had an easy way to compete evenly with the iPhone? The point is, right now iTunes the program is the interface to iTunes the store and plugging in in iPhone and plugging in any other device results in different functionality within iTunes. If iTunes constitutes a monopoly, which it well could, that is clearly tying.
You said: Apple is potentially leveraging their influence in the online digital music sales market to gain a competitive advantage in the smartphone market.
The fundamental complaint here is both Apple and Palm are competing in the smartphone market. Both want to deal with digital music and Apple is dominant in the digital music market. To compete fairly palm needs to be able to have the same access to the iTunes store as the iPhone does and they claim that is impossible given what Apple has presented as public APIs so they hacked a work around. The illegality of Apple's actions hinges on two things:
From where I'm sitting the first is probable in some jurisdiction and about 50/50 proposition in the US. The second seems fairly certain or either Apple or Palm would have used the third party interface and solved all potential issues like this.
Explain how you are forced by Apple to use only the one store for your music purchases.
Let me repeat the part that *you* missed. iTunes is there to manage the iPod and iPhone. The fact that you can use it without any other Apple product is irrelevant. You can take the music you download and use it with any other media player that supports the format. How exactly is that anticompetitive? They have plenty of competitors both in terms of the hardware and music store. The fact is, Apple are successful. If iTunes somehow prevented you from using your third party music player at all, that would be anticompetitive. If they prevented you from using another music store, that would be anticompetitive. If they converted all your mp3s to DRM'd AAC that can only be played on an apple device, that would be competitive. Providing, for zero cost, to anybody in the world, software designed to manage the music on music players manufactured by Apple that also has significant additional functionality that does not require you to purchase their hardware is NOT anticompetitive. Deal with it.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves