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."
Morally, it's wrong of Apple to deny other media device manufacturers access to iTunes and ITMS.
Morally? There's nothing immoral about it so far as I can see. With apologies to the authors on wikipedia I just don't see how morality comes into the picture here.
There is no authoritative code of conduct here other than our laws and the bylaws. You personally may feel they are behaving immorally but there are plenty who will disagree with you so your personal morals can't be argued in any sort of universal authoritative sense. You might make an open source style argument but you're on shaky ground there too. Neither ITMS nor iTunes is open source software. You know that up front. You also probably know that there are free (as in speech) and/or legal alternatives to both. If you don't like what Apple offers you don't have to use their software and services. Apple is not under any moral or legal obligation to cater to your every whim.
There also is no ideal code of conduct here that we can all agree on. Apple worked hard to create their combination of products and services. Should they not reap the benefits, especially when it has no detrimental effect on you? You may not like Apple not letting it's competitors be free riders but I see nothing morally wrong with them preventing the competition from capitalizing on their work. ITunes is not some piece of public infrastructure and there is no compelling argument that it represents a market failure. The entire reason we have copyrights and patents is precisely to advance the public interest in the face of the free rider problem. There is no compelling public interest to making iTunes or ITMS the equivalent of a common carrier at this time. Neither the software nor the service is a monopoly - both are merely popular in comparison to the alternatives available.
Legally, it's likely also wrong.
I suspect you are not a lawyer and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to back that assertion. I'm pretty aware of the issues involved and I cannot think of any reasonably legal argument whereby Apple is doing anything against the law. Happy to be proven wrong but I doubt you can prove me wrong.
Think about what you just did: you posted on Slashdot.
You used a web browser, which sent a few HTTP requests, represented as TCP/IP packets over an ethernet cable, which then traveled to an internet router, possibly via DSL or DOCSIS, got routed via OSPF and BGP, to a server running Apache and Perl.
Every step of that journey involved one or more open, freely-available standards-based protocols that have been embraced by hundreds if not thousands of vendors so they could all communicate with each other. Without all those open protocols, you would be stuck on a Microsoft internet, or an Apple internet, or maybe even a boring conservative IBM internet, and they would all be walled gardens, completely blocked off from each other.
You just made a good argument against what Palm did. With all these standards, if companies didn't follow them, there could be problems. Palm didn't follow USB standards and tricked iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Not every protocol has to be an open standard. If Apple doesn't want to allow everyone to sync with iTunes, they don't have to. Also, openness does not benefit everyone. It benefits some, and could potentially benefit everyone, but doesn't always. When Apple allowed Mac clones to be made, most people thought it would bring Mac OS to a wider market and make Apple more money. Apple still made the OS, and even got licensing fees from the clone manufacturers. All it ended up doing was bite into Apple's revenue. Mac OS market share didn't grow, and Apple was just losing sales to the clones. Even if the average iPod user buys 100 songs over the life of the iPod, Apple still makes more money from the iPod sale than from the music. Why would they want to cut into their iPod sales just to potentially increase the money they get from the iTunes store?
Apple did not gain their popularity with the iPod by anti-competitive practices and stifling innovation by buying up all the competitors like MS did with their OS'. For me that is the big difference. Apple got the lock down on MP3 players because we like theirs the best.
It would be rather trivial for Palm to write their own sync app that, through Apple's own published public APIs, could sync with an iTunes library through software. Palm just wants a free ride. Apple are well within their rights to stick it to them.
iTunes SDK for Windows
Apple Script for OS X
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Unless you buy DRMed Fairplay, that is not a monopoly. DRMed Fairplay (unfortunately all DRMed music) might be legal monopolies. No case has ever been decided about that per se but the general consensus is that Apple can keep others from using Fairplay. Also Apple's agreement with the music companies might even require it. If you bought nonDRMed AAC from iTunes, you can play that on any player that is capable of playing AAC. That means the Sony PSP, the MS Zune, the Sansa etc.
Also other competitors are free to create their own music stores. In fact other have. Most of them went bankrupt before and after iTunes existed. Amazon today sells MP3s and MS Zune Marketplace sells music online as well. Anyone is free to create a music store (as long as they have agreements with the music creators).
Also you limited the argument to one mode of distribution. You can get music without ever going to an online store from both legal and illegal sources. I have bought some music online but most of my music was ripped from CDs. Some people use P2P to get their music illegally.
My recollection is different than MS simply including a browser in their OS and trying to integrate it. I remember them threatening and strong-arming OEMs not to include Netscape as a browser on installs. They could include Netscape but their OEM prices would be affected. Also MS behavior was not limited to browsers. Intel wanted to develop a compiler for this new language called Java. MS hinted that they might favor AMD in any future Window development for x86 if they did.Sun licensed Java to MS with the written agreement that MS maintained compatibility with Sun standards. MS version of Java had 2 commands that were not in standard Java. Those kind of tactics were being exposed in the trial.
Wasn't the point of contention in your original argument about the music store and not the app store? Palm can't access iTunes software. However Palm could access nonDRMed music as well as iTunes metadata had (1) they written their own app or (2) written their own iTunes plugin (There is a public Apple API for this). Considering the amount of freeware plugins you can get for iTunes, it does not appear that to be a barrier for Palm to do. Some plugins even allow you to sync iTunes to another player.
But about the app store: These application only run in OS X on the iPhone. Apple as no obligation to create an app store for a competitor. Nothing prevents their competitors from creating their own stores. They just can't use Apple's iTunes software to do it as point of integration.
Had Apple acted like MS what they would be doing is threatening Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, etc. not to do business with Palm. They would also be pressuing MS not to support Palm in Windows, trying to persuade Linux developers not to develop Palm software. That would be more akin to what MS did.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The Sherman Act says actions meant to preserve market dominance are illegal when they destroy competition itself.
No, it doesn't actually say that. Read the act and the subsequent legislation including the Clayton Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. Market dominance by definition means that you have destroyed competition. What anti-trust law guards against is elimination of competition to the detriment of consumers. That is a MUCH harder case to make.
Apple isn't disabling the Pre's syncing because of worry about consumer, they do so because letting the Pre sync could damage their iPod sales. Despite a variety of alternatives, iPod's still command a healthy share of the mobile audio players market.
Apple is in the business of selling hardware - iPods and more importantly iPhones. So is Palm in the business of making and selling phones but NOT MP3 players. Apple has created software and a download service that helps create a market for their devices. These services have been quite successful. Palm has (to my knowledge) not created their own iTunes equivalent but instead has chosen to free ride on Apple's investment, knowing they will sell phones at Apple's expense. People who buy a Pre are probably not going to buy an iPhone as well. So what reasonably argument can we make that Apple should be supportive of this? I certainly can't think of one.
A case also could be made that Apple's disabling the Pre's ability to sync as a native iPod is illegal product tying - i.e. requiring the purchase of one product to complete purchase or use of another.
Tying is not generally held to be illegal unless there is no relationship between the goods offered for sale or some sort of price discrimination. There is no compelling argument for tying here because each part of the service is independent (you don't HAVE to use iTunes or ITMS with an iPod).
An MP3 player by itself isn't especially useful without software to load the files on to the device but you don't have to use Apple's software to do it. ITunes is merely one of many ways to manage a music library and interface with an MP3 player. Even iPods don't require iTunes to work nor does iTunes require an iPod to be useful - you can play music from iTunes without even owning an iPod. Furthermore iTunes is free so no one is required to pay anything to use it.
ITMS is a service and the product it provides (MP3 files) can be obtained easily elsewhere for similar if not lesser cost.
Morally? Doesn't it seem a bit greedy of Apple to stop the Pre from syncing just because Palm wanted to make life easier for users and making it a PITA to use a Pre might get some people to buy iPods?
Palm isn't selling MP3 players. Palm sells phones. Palm is trying to be a free rider on the work of Apple. Apple is in the business of selling handsets like Palm. If someone buys a handset from Palm they don't buy one from Apple. It's a zero sum game. Why should Apple pay to support Palm when it is perfectly legal for Palm to set up their own version of iTunes and ITMS?
However, none have the breadth that ITMS has as far as selection. It's much like how WalMart isn't a monopoly because other companies sell lots of the same stuff-they just happen to be hundreds of times bigger than your average supermarket chain
That's a fairly good analogy and illustrative. Apple is for the moment the 800lb gorilla in the MP3 music market. Like Walmart however they are no where close to being a monopoly. Dominant? Yes. Influential? Certainly. Monopoly? Nope. A monopoly that is detrimental to consumers? No way. Sorry but you haven't convince me that Apple's actions are in any way illegal.