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?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
Palm was rather sleazy in trying to hijack Apple's software to do things that Apple doesn't want to support. On the other hand, I more than halfway expect Palm to now file an anti-trust complaint against Apple for abusive vertical integration on the basis that Apple has a practical monopoly in some of the areas here. It would be a somewhat weak claim -- there are other digital music stores, and other ways to synchronize music between devices, but Apple has a pretty commanding share of those markets plus the digital music player market. iTunes's nature as a loss leader seems like it could cut either for or against Apple.
WebKit, Grand Central, Darwin Streaming Server, LaunchD (some Linux please pick this up...), Bonjour (Yes ZeroConf, but I think they're the first to make it popular), Even XQuartz so that OSS stuff that uses X11 can run under OS X looking like OS X. They even have a cute little website with the word 'forge' in it: http://macosforge.org/
Hell they even have Darwin, the base of OS X. Lets see Microsoft release an OSS version of XP minus some GUI bits.
Yes, Apple is protective of quite a bit of stuff. But they're released a ton more OSS that I've found than MS.
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.
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.
Don't kid yourself, Apples intentions have never been to share anything with anyone. The way it is now is because people objected to the insane enviroment that Apple tried to push. Tell me how the user benefits from being forced to use iTunes with iPod for example? Isn't it merely just another way to screw the consumer over by exposing him to only one store, thus killing competition without providing anything better? I'm speaking from my own experiences, and I used to own an iPod mini, back in the days. There is nothing I regret more to have purchased in my entire life, and after having iTunes "synchronizing" my device (aka wiping it if it's plugged to another PC) numerous times I had enough. Instead I bought a sony player that acts as a removable disc. Sure, it's Apples every right to bundle the players with iTunes and it's my every right to tell people how it causes nothing but trouble. If iTunes was superior I would have chosen it. But yes, Palm was in it for a free ride and they had no right to do so, but that doesn't make Apple less consumer unfriendly.
I am the lawn!
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).
Apple has said that iTunes "breaks even".
Difference number 2: MS was hated by many geeks, and by geek sites such as Slashdot, or at least criticised for these actions. Apple on the other hand are loved, even by geeks, with these actions twisted around to be good things, and with sites given no end of free advertising and hype ("You can read this webpage On Your Iphone" as we once had, or witness yesterday's non-story of "Someone releases a second application for the Iphone"...)
If Apple actually did become big - e.g., the hype around the Iphone becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and in 10 years time, mobile computer is dominated by a monopoly that completely locks down the platform, locks out competitors, and where Apple need to give permission for you to run a 3rd party application on the mobile computer you've bought - will this attitude changed?
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'd like to think that it was less USB-IF being beholden to Apple, and more USB-IF being beholden to their own rules, which Palm agreed to when they joined... but that would be far too sensible. :(
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
If you step outside the MS ecosystem there are significant programs (games and important business software) you cannot run
Step outside of Microsoft and lose games? I don't understand. There are plenty of games for PlayStation 2, PLAYSTATION 3, and Wii.
Apple uses lube where MS doesn't.
Faking the vendor ID is just stupid and illegal, Palm should do their own thing.
If I were a judge I would dismiss the Palm disguising itself as an iPod as a reasonable engineering solution caused by an UNreasonable company using monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. I would then require Apple to open its Istore and Itunes software to any and all MP3 or MP4 devices, or else face massive fines under U.S. law.
Also to consider the USB-IF as the ultimate arbiters of all legal questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under an oligarchy. The members of the USB-IF are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. (paraphrased from Jefferson) Their opinion is only that - their opinion - and not the final word on the matter.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/ itunes9 is already out. it has been out for a few weeks.
stephen
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.
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 may have worked out nicely for people who want cheap Chinese hardware, but how did that work out for IBM in the profit area? They sure are a powerhouse in PCs now, aren't they?
However, the contracts that their members are signatory to are still binding.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Why is it so fucking hard for you assholes to understand that Apple is NOT taking a legal stance on this issue?
Apple doesn't want devices to lie. Palm wants to lie. This is fairly simple.
It's so discouraging to see that it's OK to lie as long as your lying to a company that you don't like.
My interest in IBM's margins on one of their product lines is vastly less than my interest in the entire IBM-compatible x86 market.
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?
Difference number 2: MS was hated by many geeks, and by geek sites such as Slashdot, or at least criticised for these actions. Apple on the other hand are loved, even by geeks, with these actions twisted around to be good things, and with sites given no end of free advertising and hype ("You can read this webpage On Your Iphone" as we once had, or witness yesterday's non-story of "Someone releases a second application for the Iphone"...)
I disagree a bit here. Among a good subset of geeks Apple is hated too. I am definately one of them, and wouldn't touch an Apple product to save my life. The difference is, Apple beats MS in user interface design and implementation, which is why it's probably hyped and loved by many. This of course doesn't change their horrible lock-in policies, and extreme secrecy, instead of openness, if they have a chance. So I dislike the company, and won't buy their products, even if the products themselves might be nice
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.
Apple: you want this shiny little music player? Huh? You want it? Huh? Well then you have to change everything you own to Apples version
Reality check:
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?
Well, maybe someday a court will decide that Apple have a dominant position in the media player market, and further deiced that the "openness" described above is not sufficient to satisfy anti-trust laws. Then, and only then, will Apple be obliged to help others compete with their products.
Also bear in mind that what anti-trust regulators are really concerned about is using a dominant position in one market to strong arm your way into another. Apple has built the iPod/iTunes/iTMS tripod up from scratch, popularising the pocket MP3 player and virtually inventing the legal music download market, not by leveraging an existing monopoly. The only aspect that's even worth debating in that context is whether they're using iPod/iTunes/iTMS to strongarm their way in to the Phone market. Looks to me like the main reason for the iPhone's success is that previous smartphones (esp. WM) were pants - and if you think their harming the market ask yourself what the Palm Pre, Android or the various 3rd party WM skins would have looked like - or whether they would exist - without the iPhone shaking things up.
(*I should qualify that: HTC provide a calendar/contacts sync application for windows only - same story with firmware updates. Android is fairly hardware-agnostic, provided you're happy to use Google for calendar/contacts).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
They also own CUPS, which is probably one of the largest contributions next to WebKit.
I don't understand why you attach a moral dimension to this "lie". When designing a device to interoperate with another system, you make the device send and receive whatever signals the other system is expecting, both in physical and logical terms. If you want to interact with a system, you must operate in a manner similar to the device that the system is expecting to interact with.
This has always been the case with interoperable systems. In this particular instance, one of the signals that iTunes expects is a USB vendor ID of 0x05AC. If you want to natively interoperate with iTunes, you have to emit that signal(aside from a few legacy players in the mac iTunes client from its pre Apple days). The fact that, in addition to being an expected signal, "USB vendor ID: 0x05AC" can also mean "Apple device" doesn't seem ethically relevant.
Do you get upset when Opera "lies" about its browser ID in order to induce webservers to send it the same page that they would send IE?
Ok, maybe I've completely missed the boat her but...I still don't understand the whole iTunes hystaria... Why pay for proprietary formats of music that you can only play on certain devices? My Palm Pre plays MP3s, why would I want to go out of my way to make it sync up with something that requires me to pay for music? I had the iPhone for a while, I never used the iTunes thing. I never saw any reason, and I could never figure out how to get it to play MP3s. The Palm Pre you just hook up to the computer and drag your MP3s over to the music folder. Plus you can ssh into your Palm Pre and manipulate the Linux files. The only thing I miss from the iPhone is the ease of use of the voicemail. I also get a buttload of free apps on the Pre.
if Palm really want there rights, they will push it... truth shall prevail http://www.techandgizmo.com/
Look here: http://gtk-osx.sourceforge.net/
Get a web developer
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?
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.
Maybe, but unless you care about one of these pieces, it doesn't matter. Most business software does run on OSX (i.e. SAP GUI, most Oracle tools, MSOffice, and Firefox).
the consumer makes potential sacrifices to stay away from MS, but suffers no pain staying away from Apple.
Except having to scavenge for their music/podcasts/lectures and pay higher prices... The iTunes store is extremely convenient and cheap.
A loss leader is a product that is sold to consumers for less than it costs the seller, with the expectation that consumers will buy other products as part of the deal. Unless there are a lot of people who pay for iTunes rather than use the free download (or get it bundled with other Apple products), it is a loss leader, and advertising revenues from the iTunes Store -- or any other B2B revenues that Apple sees from iTunes -- don't change that.
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.
but in the market of portable music players, Apple are a monopoly.
Care to paste a URL to the court case that was decided in?
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.
And because they went beyond their USB manufacturer agreement, they don't have a case in court.
They don't have to be certified by the USB-IF to manufacture USB devices. They just won't be able to put the logo on their products that says the USB-IF attests to their quality and compatibility.
It's sort of like being UL-certified or BBB-approved. Whether or not Palm could get away with dissing the USB-IF is the question. Kodak certainly hasn't suffered from losing their BBB accreditation, for example. Will people still buy Palm products if they aren't able to sport the USB-IF certification logo? (Likely, but then, competitors will also be able to use this to their advantage.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If Microsoft based XP on BSD and just added some GUI bits, then I'm sure they would release the source (as they would be legally required to do).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
No, no they're not.
They're not even a monopoly in the cell phone market.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/01/24/apple-cents-and-advertising
Apple makes money off of each song and video sold...therefore by definition it is not a loss leader.
Does Apple have a 95% share of the portable music player market? I don't think so, a quick Google shows it to be between 70 and 80%. That's not a monopoly.
Does Apple have a 95% share in the legal music download market? I doubt it. Again it looks like about 70%.
Apple is not a monopoly, merely the dominant vendor.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
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.
10 Print "Palm spoofed the id's. What's wrong with that"
20 Print "You can't spoof ID's in a standard like that"
30 Print "Apple created a closed system yet claims it's open. Those Bastards"
40 Print "It is open, there are lots of hooks in"
50 Print "Then why won't they let Palm Play ball?"
60 Goto 10
So... the worst that can happen would be USB-IF revokes Palm's vendor ID. However, it's not illegal to make USB devices without the USB-IF's certification, and it's similarly not illegal to use whatever vendor ID you want. Palm can, legally, continue making USB products, using their present vendor ID to identify them (if they so choose), without any blessing from the USB-IF whatsoever.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
In a healthy market those things are not a significant problem. Tying products in general is a net negative for users so they tend to move to other products and the vendor doing the tying goes out of business or changes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with selling bleach and floor wax in the same package in a bottle with two reservoirs and nozzles. Legally and economically this hurts no one. It may result in the seller making fewer sales.
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..."
The problem comes in when you're dealing with a company that has overwhelming influence on one of the markets involved. At that point the company has too much power over customers in one market and leverages that to gain an advantage in another market. If, in our theoretical example above, only one company sold household bleach, it would be destroying the market for floor wax to tie it to bleach. It would not matter if another company sold better or cheaper floor wax, because everyone would be forced to buy their competitor's in order to get bleach. And while theoretically people could throw away that floor wax and pay a second time to get a different brand, realistically that is not how the economics work out. For that reason tying products when there is a monopoly in one market is both illegal and economically destructive. it undermines the drive for lower costs and innovation that fair competition bring about by leveraging financial self interest.
So looking to your example, IBM had monopoly influence at the time IBM compatible clones were appearing. IBM did try to stop them but the courts properly intervened. So where does this leave us? Does Apple have monopoly influence on the market in which iTunes (the application) operates or in the markets it's tying to iTunes (the application) in this case. There are plenty of music jukebox software packages and iTunes (the application) is not even the most common one. In this instance Apple is giving preferential interaction with its own iPhone product, but the iPhone does not dominate the smartphone or cell phone market, so that too is not harming the market. If people are inconvenienced by Apple's choice to tie the two they can and will buy a different phone and a different music playing application.
Then we get into the two iffy areas. Apple ties their iTunes store (service) to their iTunes application. iTunes (service) sells 69% of online digital music in the US and that is about where the courts have traditionally started to consider a company to have monopoly influence. Moreover, Apple gives preference in connecting to ITunes (application) to iPods and iPods make up about 73% of digital music players, excluding cell phones. You'll notice the last caveat. The EU said Apple doesn't have monopoly influence in that market because cell phones are considered options by average users buying mp3 players. That may be different in the US where phones are locked to cell providers. So on both counts, Apple could be guilty of antitrust action. On the first count, the antitrust action could be seen as damaging Palm by using one level of indirection to leverage Apple's dominance in online music sales to win more market for smartphones, when in a free market Palm would otherwise win more share. This is concerning because it could be holding back innovation and hurting the progress of technology.
Now before we rush off on an antitrust campaign against Apple, however, I feel it pertinent to mention the rest of the equation. When the courts took effective action agai
I suspect he means "on your PC." Consoles have mostly caught up, and the PC games market has diminished, but for a long time if you wanted to play the "coolest" games, you needed a PC, and you needed Windows.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Why the hell would Apple not want other devices syncing with their software? That could open up a whole new line of devices for which to sell apps and music from their iTunes store to. Don't get me wrong...I'm not a fanboy, but iTunes is a pretty nice model for downloading single tracks or even entire albums, quick and cheap. Apple gets a cut of this sale, right? Not everyone owns an i so why not expand your sales demographic to other devices?
Loading...
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-?
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.
It was. Plenty of IBM clones were sued into oblivion when they dumped IBM's BIOS code and burned it verbatim onto their own ROMs.
Compaq survived because it wrote its own BIOS instead of copying IBMs. Phoenix Technologies made millions licensing its BIOS as a replacement for IBM's. IBM's copyright on its BIOS code did not stifle innovation in the market; it only tripped up a few cheap imitators that were trying to make a quick buck.
Palm Desktop used to have a pretty decent sync engine. It used to have lots of connectors for lots of third-party applications. Why Palm didn't just add an iTunes connector and clean up the interface is beyond me. It certainly would have required less effort than fighting Apple to use Apple's sync software.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, though frankly I don't think it is in Apple's best interests to block the Pre. The more people using Apple iTunes, the more potential revenue they have in song downloads, and get more people using iTunes with more of that good old face time with Apple's legendary user interfaces, meaning they might just convert a few people to Apple if they are suitably impressed by iTunes (not many, but probably a few).
But, regardless, it's Apples program and they get to decide how they want to write it.
However, from your post:
>>>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?
This isn't technically true. Apple doesn't have to write squat. Palm already did it for them, by programming the Pre to mimic an iPod/iPhone well enough to be recognized by iTunes. Apple didn't need to lift a finger.
Apple would have to (and has) has put effort into PREVENTING it, which has cost them money and effort.
I could see some really good press in this for Apple: "Our software is so good, even our COMPETITORS choose it for their devices! Aren't we shiny!"
Instead, Apple is spending money to prevent it, preventing Palm Pre users from seeing all the shiny goodness their UI designs have to offer, and getting bad press amongst non-Apple users. The Apple Faithful feel that this is good and righteous, but they'd also be able to feel good and righteous about iTunes being the choice of software for a competitor, so they wouldn't lose any smug points whatsoever.
I agree 100% that Apple has the absolute and utter right to block it, and Palm should have backed off when Apple asked them to stop. Palm should simply write a plugin for WinAmp or a much better music management app than iTunes, then moved on to support Linux and Mac through a plugin, or just enabled mass-media support and called it a day, because EVERYTHING can write to a mass-media USB drive.
Palm was stupid to build a dependency on iTunes, and kinda scummy for continuing it even when Apple asked them to stop.
But Apple put time, effort, and money into blocking it, and I fail to see any benefit whatsoever in their doing so.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
No, they're not...
They have a large marketshare and are well known, but they are not a monopoly... The vast majority of people i know have non apple mp3 players (or non apple phones with mp3 playing support), and acquire their music from non apple sources (mostly illegal ones).
And now that itunes music is mostly drm free, there is nothing to stop you downloading music from itunes and putting it on another device, just because such devices don't integrate so easily with itunes doesn't mean it can't be done. Look at the zune music store, which sells drm encumbered music that really is tied to a single vendor's products, or it's predecessor the msn music store where all their customers just got cut off from their drm encumbered purchases overnight.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
It would be hard to bring an antitrust case against Apple for complying with a published industry standard that all major manufacturers use... except for Palm, who willfully violates the terms of their membership agreement and misuses the standard. Seriously - "Apple, we're charging you with antitrust violations for complying with a published standard that you didn't even write to operate with your free software, but locking out the one vendor who abuses the standard." Not gonna fly.
And because they went beyond their USB manufacturer agreement, they don't have a case in court.
They don't have to be certified by the USB-IF to manufacture USB devices. They just won't be able to put the logo on their products that says the USB-IF attests to their quality and compatibility.
It's sort of like being UL-certified or BBB-approved. Whether or not Palm could get away with dissing the USB-IF is the question. Kodak certainly hasn't suffered from losing their BBB accreditation, for example. Will people still buy Palm products if they aren't able to sport the USB-IF certification logo? (Likely, but then, competitors will also be able to use this to their advantage.)
I think the USB logo means a lot less now than it used to... I mean, it's taken for granted now that just about anything that has to connect to the computer will use USB and be fairly straightforward. It's a big difference from the early days of USB when people were still using RS-232 and parallel ports for peripherals, and a peripheral with USB was actually a distinguishing feature...
Of course, this may change again as USB 3.0 is rolled out, and people start to care whether the device is regular USB or a faster-than-full-speed, faster-than-high-speed USB 3.0 device...
Bow-ties are cool.
If I were a judge I would dismiss the Palm disguising itself as an iPod as a reasonable engineering solution caused by an UNreasonable company using monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.
VendorIDs are monopolistic and anti-competitive? Because that's all Apple is doing - checking that a device has a valid and not misreported VendorID. Plus, how are you going to make a case that a company complying with an industry-wide free published standard, not of their own creation, is acting in an anti-competitive way, rather than the company purposely abusing the standard?
Apple doesn't want devices to lie. Palm wants to lie. This is fairly simple.
Palm doesn't want to lie. They want to interoperate with Apple's software and use the same features as Apple's hardware does. Lying, is the method by which Palm attempted to do this.
It's so discouraging to see that it's OK to lie as long as your[sic] lying to a company that you don't like.
So you think it is immoral to do things like change the User Agent string in your browser in order to view a Web page that filters non-IE browsers? That's lying to the Website operator, but is certainly not objected to by the average Slashdot reader and Apple themselves make it easy to do in Safari.
So, what this is saying is that I can't slap a ford logo on my toyota and expect ford to warranty it for me? And when they refuse, I shouldn't complain to the DOT?
Like I said... likely it won't be a factor in most people's mind when they go out to buy something. However, if Palm's competitors are able to get the "Palm must be crappy, because they weren't able to get USB-IF certification" idea impressed into consumers' minds, it might hurt Palm.
Of course, that's not how they'd market it... they'd simply point out "We're USB-IF certified! Look, Palm's devices aren't. That means we're more trustworthy."
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
At worst, they might be sued for violating the "membership agreement", they didn't exactly commit a crime. Whats more likely is that they will be fined some arbitrary amount or be dropped as members. Even more likely is that the accusation will lead to an update by Pre to conform to the standards and some bad publicity. IANAL, etc.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Palm was right. Apple is wrong.
Its not about iTunes, its about the tons of 3rd party things out there (like my new Camaro) which only supports iPod or Zune.
Palm could write a syncing program. Hell, its just a file system, you could use rsync.
The summary is very misleading, all Palm did was state in a letter that they planned to use the Apple's Vendor ID in order to synch. It doesn't appear that they've actually done it yet.
The songs and videos sold are the "other products" from the grandparent post which Apple hopes to sell people.
Are you confusing iTunes with the iTunes Music Store? The former is software that lets you manage media collections, as well as purchase media from the latter.
I see the delusional Mac fanboys have crawled out of the woodwork in great numbers today, and they're even wielding mod points.
He never said such a thing, and saying "fuck" and calling him an asshole doesn't make you any more right.
Sure, it sounds like Palm is being a big meanie :((((( if you phrase it that way. That's because you're horribly over simplifying the situation to make Apple look better. Here, let me fix that for you:
That's a bit more accurate, and unsurprisingly doesn't paint Apple as the perfect divine goddeveloper handed down authority from the heavens themselves like you'd like them to be.
Palm isn't "lying" to Apple, they're lying to Apple's software. Don't worry, I don't think its feelings will be hurt. And the point the GP was making and all you iDroids seem to be missing is that yes, it is very okay to lie to get your stuff to work with their stuff. I don't think most people here approve of printer makers preventing your from using whatever cartridges you want with your hardware, music companies preventing you from using whatever software or hardware you want to play your music, or so on, but in spite of that they're gladly bending over for Apple because OMG SO SHINY!
You say "How dare Palm! What right do they have to so brazenly lie to Apple's glorious software!", but I ask, why not? Though Palm complaining to the USB-IF was kinda stupid (did they seriously think this wouldn't happen?), if Microsoft or anyone else tried to pull this sort of shit, the comments would be in the hundreds within seconds and you people would be eating them alive, and don't try to pretend you wouldn't.
I don't think that Palm is necessarily in the right here, but why on earth would the fact that Palm has leached onto iTunes mean that Apple has to publish and maintain a plug-in API? There's a difference between someone making assumptions about your software and then later versions of your software break the integration, and deliberately breaking it just so that the integration fails. I don't think Palm has the right to demand that iTunes make changes or publish APIs that make their job easier, but deliberately black-flagging Pre devices and making the synch fail is completely different.
Thank you. I was thinking the EXACT same thing. More things connecting equals sales on iTunes.
What's up with all the people bashing Palm over an ID to connect to iTunes? One of the reasons they did this was to have the option to buy music there.
If this was Microsoft (instead of Apple) then we would be seeing very different arguments here.
Apple ditched their old OS for BSD because it was a piece of shit. They release the source because if you don't release your proprietary modifications, it only serves to suggest that you're hiding what a disgusting mess your hacks are. That's different from open-sourcing your piece of shit because everyone already uses it.
The songs and videos sold are the "other products" from the grandparent post which Apple hopes to sell people.
Are you confusing iTunes with the iTunes Music Store? The former is software that lets you manage media collections, as well as purchase media from the latter.
In that case you would have to refer to all software that comes bundled with hardware to let the user manage hardware a "loss leader". This would include the software that comes with printers, cameras, Blackberrys, etc.
Plam could also work with a different media player that accepts plug-ins and distribute it with the phone. That's got to be a lot easier than rolling your own song library app. iTunes could use a little competition.
Like I said... likely it won't be a factor in most people's mind when they go out to buy something. However, if Palm's competitors are able to get the "Palm must be crappy, because they weren't able to get USB-IF certification" idea impressed into consumers' minds, it might hurt Palm.
Of course, that's not how they'd market it... they'd simply point out "We're USB-IF certified! Look, Palm's devices aren't. That means we're more trustworthy."
At this point I don't think users would care. It seems like a very uninteresting bit of information on which to distinguish one's products...
Bow-ties are cool.
I didn't get any software bundled with my iPhone.
Just to play devils advocate, how do you know this? Apple could very well be updating the protocol with every release and since they rightly assume it only needs to work with their players it could be breaking the Pre as a side effect. If Apple were truly to support other players in iTunes again they would have to publish and maintain the API or be blamed when an update breaks the other players.
For record, I think the whole fight is stupid to begin with.
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.
That's like saying a shopping mall is a loss leader. You can go there, look at the items displayed in the shops, use the restrooms, drop your candy wrapper in their trash can, and leave without ever buying anything from mall's vendors.
The iTunes store is part of iTunes. Just because you don't have to use it doesn't mean iTunes is a loss leader. It just means that certain functionality is a loss leader (using it without buying anything) just like the bathrooms and trash cans in a mall are loss leaders. They cost money to maintain but don't generate income.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Apple provides legitimate methods to connect a device to iTunes via a public API and/or Toolkit. This lets them support things easier by making sure the public API works after changes.
I am an ADC member, and I am not able to find the API you are talking about. At the cost of my mod points here, could you please give a link, or name I can use to find the API?
Probably not. Like I said, Kodak doesn't seem to have suffered greatly from withdrawing themselves from the BBB, and that's an even more serious taint on their trustworthiness IMHO than not being USB-IF certified. Especially compared to also knowing why Palm is losing USB-IF certification: not because of defects or unreliability, but because of some silly rules which they broke in order to make their products work better. (Hypothetically assuming Palm loses their USB-IF certification over this, I mean.)
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
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 offers no "proper" method for bidirectional sync.
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.
The Pre identifies as an Apple device only when the user selects the iTunes compatibility mode.
When did being a market leader mean being a monopoly?
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.
I can use any iPod on Windows with iTunes, and obviously macs for that matter.
Zune barely worked with XP much less Vista.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
not saying because they have large market share that there a monopoly... but same as any company with the largest market share they need to be watched like a hawk for anti competitive business practices. Remember being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing the monopoly is
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
Probably very little effort and cost involved on Apple's part. On the other hand, if Apple permits Palm to make use of Apple's software to sync the Palm with the Mac (even though Apple supports other ways of doing this without hijacking iTunes, 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 Apple does not at least try to keep Palm out, it could be perceived as implicit agreement to support Pre.
If Pre really wants to sync with users' iTunes libraries, they can do it; it will just take a bit more work. Apple provides the tools required, and other manufacturers already do it. They just don't get to piggyback on Apple's iTunes software.
Do you have a reference for your sin system?
What is the maximum sin value? Is it stored as a long or an int or byte?
Can non-agents be attributed sin numbers? For example, what is the sin for a mosquito biting me?
Thanks.
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.
>>>What exactly is Palm attempting to recover from Apple?
Same thing Netscape and Google tried to recover when they sued Microsoft - a lost market caused by a company monopolizing the market via anticompetitive practices (which is illegal in both the U.S. and the EU).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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?
Allow me to present some potential answers. If Apple has sufficient influence in the online digital music market such that it constitutes overwhelming influence on customers, then legally and economically several things are important. iTunes is the only interface to the iTMS. That ties the two products legally and economically. Interfaces to iTunes, therefore, are also interfaces to iTMS. At that point Apple is legally obligated to provide competitors to their products in other markets with the exact same access Apple themselves have with Apple products. That is to say, if an iPod connects to iTunes in a particular way, that method has to be available to other music players. If other music players, including smartphones have to access iTunes via plug-in which does not allow them to manage it within iTunes, then Apple's own iPhone must use the same plug-in architecture without using anything not available to other implementors. This is similar to how MS (having a monopoly on desktop OS's) was found guilty of using one set of APIs for IE and presenting a less capable set to competing browsers like Netscape.
Now even if all those things are true (and Apple's share of the relevant market is borderline) Apple doesn't have to maintain a plug-in API for iTunes. They have numerous options for alleviating the problem, including untying iTunes and the iTunes store by connecting them with a published API and allowing other stores to plug-in to iTunes the application and other applications to plug into the store. That neatly bypasses any problems with iTunes the application, although it does open the way for companies like Microsoft to integrate the iTMS into WMP, thereby greatly lessening installs of iTunes while nat addressing their own illegal tying.
First time on slashdot that I've heard un-crippling technology described as despicable. Comes a day for everything, I suppose.
The iTunes technology is not crippled. It uses standard XML to store data. Anyone can read it. Anyone can use the standard AAC to play music files (the Zune can, for example). Anyone can thus transfer it to a device however they please, using whatever software they write.
What is crippling is throwing standards right out the window and having a free-for-all with USB device ID's.
First time on Slashdot I've seen people champion crippling an entire low level technology just out of hate for one company. Disturbing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is the Microsoft of MP3 players.
You mean, using dirty tricks to corner the market? Using despicable buyout tactics to remove competitors? Strong arming retail and other vendors into not carrying their products in the market place?
(Slick marketing and having a cool, usable product isn't a dirty trick. Unless you consider competent marketing and hardware/software design to be a dirty trick. Which case I'd think you were working for Palm or the WinMo group at MS.)
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
because palm and apple have been going back and forth a few cycles. Apple patches how palm is hooking in. palm patches to allow its device to work with it again. Apple then patches to validate the vendor id. Palm with no other choice if they want it to work with itunes patches there vendor id to apples.
You've got the concept right--one thing is a loss leader for Apple. But that is the Store. They barely make enough to cover the servers and bandwidth; the majority goes to the labels, with a few pennies to the artists and what's left to Apple. The Store is a loss leader for iPod sales, where Apple makes their traditional high margins.
:q!
who would have seen that coming? -- there is a unique field for manufacturer and one for type. the field is used to determine how to deal with the data. the field is used to limit how data is used. and palm figures the rules are for everybody else, do they? you know, they're probably two weeks receipts from financial ruin, and that's 12 years of screwups in the making. bring it on, they've got it coming.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Linux may not be officially supported, but RhythmBox for Linux AFAIK can sync with any iDevice except the iPhone.
And there are existing third-party devices that can sync in iTunes, but they licensed the ability from Apple. Why Palm didn't go that route, I'll never know....unless of course Palm decided to be greedy.
Palm was basically doing the equivalent of using a fake ID to get into a club, and the USB-IF smacked them down for it just as the law smacks down the owners of fake IDs who get caught. Palm, however, showed their stupidity when they basically went to the cops to complain the club wasn't taking their fake ID.
Apple is not supporting other companies' phones in iTunes as well as it is supporting the iPhone.
Ergo, Apple is potentially leveraging dominance in online digital music sales to win smartphone sales over Palm
There's a world of difference between "as well as" and "not at all".
At 69% there's no definition that would even label Apple a monopoly, much less there being any grounds to do so given that the phone can use music from any other store now that DRM is gone from the scene.
I'm just explaining how this is (potentially) Apple's fault legally and in terms of economics.
But "Fault" implies Apple has done something wrong. Apple has done everything right in terms of law and frankly even ethically. Even if Apple were a monopoly it would not be Apple's "Fault" or illegal behavior to follow standards.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Microsoft didn't start with 90%. In fact it used to be in second place behind Atari (1978-82) and Commodore (1983-86), but by 1990 MS controlled about 60% of the market, and by 2000 that had risen to 95%. It appears that Apple is heading in the same direction with 75% of all players and 90% of the online music sales.
So if Apple can update Itunes in such a way that it won't work with third-party players, they can use their 90% software dominance with the Istore/Itunes virtual monopoly to boost Ipod share higher.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
Actually, the worst would be that the USB-IF decides to make an example of Palm. Palm is in breach of contract, so the USB-IF might be able to confiscate or get an injunction against anything developed using documentation obtained under the contract. At the very least Palm would need to strip all the USB logos from all of their products.
It's hard to say what all licenses/contracts Palm has violated. The USB-IF membership only has one big clause: "Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited." The advantages of being a member are getting access to technology(other licenses/contracts) and branding. http://www.usb.org/developers/USBIF_Member_Agreement_03122009.pdf
It really depends on how the USB-IF felt about Palm preemptively filing a grievance against Apple.
As a matter of fact, until itunes and the iphone came about, it was nearly impossible for Mac users to sync to most smart phones or to use most online music services.
As far as syncing goes, you had to fall back on third party vendors who were always playing catch up with MS, and were frequently too late to the party. The fact of the matter is that the ipod and itunes were developed (initially) primarily for the Mac market. If it weren't for the runaway success of the iPod, (which was originally delivered with Music Match Jukebox for windows users) there never would have been an itunes store, and you would still be tied in to any one of the crappy drm solutions MS and the music industry was trying desperately to establish.
It used to be funny watching windows users bitch and moan about having the tables turned on them, but now I'm just sick of it. At least you even have access.
Now if Apple were to turn around and pull an Active Sync type lockout on y'all...
Apple can't update the protocol on the iTunes (server) side without updating the protocol on the iPod (client) side as well, which would be a pretty significant undertaking. Palm probably chose an older iPod model to emulate. That way, Apple couldn't realistically change the protocol on them without pushing a firmware update to every iPod of that specific model. Apple added Vendor ID verification.
Before the update, iTunes was asking "What kind of device are you?" and the Pre was responding "I'm an iPod model XYZ, built by Palm." iTunes would then talk with it, because compatibility just meant compatibility and the version ID told iTunes what features were supported in that specific model.
Now, iTunes is asking "What kind of device are you?" and getting the same response, except iTunes is now validating the Vendor ID. So the "built by Palm" bit now gets a fail, because iTunes is now looking specifically for "I'm an iPod model XYZ, built by Apple" instead of just "I'm an iPod model XYZ".
For the record, I think it's well within Apple's rights to do this. I don't think it's a particularly smart move, but it's their software and their right. But they did do this, and it was obviously specifically to address the "Pre problem", since they warned that their updates might break compatibility with unsupported hardware just days before releasing, surprise surprise, an update that broke compatibility with unsupported hardware.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Wrong. There is absolutely nothing preventing Palm from syncing their device, using the plain text XML library that is freely available to pretty much anyone. Palm was just lazy and totally in the wrong on this.
At the very least Palm would need to strip all the USB logos from all of their products.
That's probably all they can do, actually.
The USB-IF membership only has one big clause: "Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited."
For members. Can they prevent non-members from doing whatever they want? Not really... there's no legal authority for them to do so.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
That may be true, but look at what happened with Firewire. Nobody wanted to pay for the name, so we were left with all sorts of devices with port names like i.Link, IEEE1394, and Lynx. Yeah, IEEE1394 is the "free" name with no trademark attached. But try and expect a consumer to remember what that is. Every time they hear anything starting with IEEE they'd think it means "camera port."
And it's quite practical to base it on VendorID. You don't want iTunes trying to sync with your mouse. But That list ideally could be editable or extensible. You don't get that? Make your own awesome music management software. iTunes is getting bloated, and I don't run Linux on my desktop. I want a new lean MP3 Library program.
Apple is not a monopoly, merely the dominant vendor.
In both the US and the EU, a market in which the dominant firm has around a 40% share is considered highly concentrated. (The definition used in the US is a Herfindahl-Hirschman index above 1800, which is unavoidable if a single firm controls 42.5% of the market.)
Apple is the Microsoft of MP3 players.
Well, except that MS got to the top because of (sometimes questionable) business skills, rather than by making a product that people actually like.
Emulating another device to provide compatibility is perfectly acceptable, even under the DMCA.
Perhaps if it's the only way to provide compatibility. But in this case it's not.
I think Apple are in the right here. They already provide a way to sync with iTunes. Palm decided to go with a cheap hack over a proper solution in a commercial product and expected Apple to do the support for it.
Yes it sucks for the Pre users, but Palm should never have advertised iTunes syncing in the first place if they knew it was based on a hack that could easily cause problems for their users.
I think Palm should have waited a bit longer (or spent more money) and done things properly. But I guess since they were so late in trying to get their act together with the Pre, that they felt it was wise to rush it to market. Apple, of course, goes with the philosophy of leaving it out until it's finished.
Given your nick is "DNS-and-BIND", I suppose you loved SiteFinder and similar "helpful" changes to DNS behavior. Oh, you don't, because it was out of specification and could break other programs? Yeah, it does suck when people take shortcuts and break standards for their own selfish gain.
And yet you don't apply that same stance to the USB specification.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Good point. All this talk about Vendor ID's has made me completely forget about Device ID's. Silly after all.
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.
For members. Can they prevent non-members from doing whatever they want? Not really... there's no legal authority for them to do so.
The problem for Palm is that they were/are a member and now they can't claim any clean-room development. For example, It's likely that Palm used the sample drivers obtained by being a member to write their device drivers for the Palm(and other devices). If severing ties with the USB-IF means starting from scratch on new device drivers, then it could be very painful.
Thank you.
It's mimicry, not "lying".
And there are existing third-party devices that can sync in iTunes, but they licensed the ability from Apple.
According to Wikipedia and this only some ancient Nomad-era devices from before the iPod was king. External software that accesses playlists via .xml or DAAP streaming is another matter.
Why Palm didn't go that route, I'll never know....
Even if the option does exist, I doubt that Apple would license such a direct iPhone competitor. And why should they?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
Why should Apple have to support another manufacture's device when they already spent the time and effort on a proper way to make non-iPod devices compatible with iTunes? I think such hacks like Palm's should to be avoided if you actually charge for your product.
If Apple didn't put their foot down now, then more manufacturers might follow a bad example. That's more devices that don't belong to Apple to support, and more users to alienate should they ever decide to stop support, damage to their brand, etc. As an Apple customer, I'd prefer Apple to spend their time improving other parts of their software, rather than waste it supporting a whole lot of devices made by slack manufactures that I don't have.
However, having somebody take the time to tell them "it's not my problem" over the phone or at the Apple store will still cost Apple money--and probably a certain amount of customer goodwill.
Your last point actually probably illustrates exactly what Apple is thinking: "What if we let Palm go on doing this, and then we make a change for another reason, and it accidentally breaks Pre synchronization? The longer we let it go so that the Pre seems to be compatible, the more people will feel entitled to compatibility and the more they will be upset if it breaks. We'll end up having to check every update for Pre compatibility. It would be better for it to break at every iTunes update, so that everybody will be on notice that it is Palm that must make the Pre work with each iTunes update, not Apple that must maintain Pre compatibility. And it will encourage Palm to write their own sync software like everybody else does, instead of trying to co-opt ours."
I don't like the way Apple make you use their software to buy music, i would rather be able to download mp3 files using any browser, so i don't use itunes.
Apple don't make you use their software to buy music, you can download music in mp3 or AAC format from any source and import into iTunes. iTunes is just a convenient way to manage the music on your iPod, if you happen to like the interface. I do, so that's fine with me. The Amazon music store is doing a great job of undercutting Apple, and have provided a nice downloader app that will manage the downloads and automatically add to iTunes. I have no brand loyalty so if a track's cheaper on Amazon I'll get it there.
Just because Apple sells more USB devices than Palm doesn't mean that this decision is any less correct or that Palm is any less guilty. Vendor IDs as defined in the USB specification were being misused by Palm.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This isn't technically true. Apple doesn't have to write squat. Palm already did it for them, by programming the Pre to mimic an iPod/iPhone well enough to be recognized by iTunes. Apple didn't need to lift a finger.
They would have to lift their fingers if they wanted to make certain changes to the way their software works. By having the Pre as an iPod, they basically have another device to support that isn't even theirs. They already wrote stuff so that devices like the Pre could work with iTunes, but Palm decided to ignore that in favor of a quick hack.
Meh. I don't really expect Apple to bend over backward to make sure they stay compatible. However, I do expect them not to bend over backward in attempts to deliberately break compatibility.
I don't think I'm a terribly unique consumer in that regard.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Palm does not have 'no other choice'. Lots of portable music players can sync with iTunes, they just have to use a separate application that interacts with the iTunes data on the hard drive. This is how iTunes Sync works. The difference here is that Palm want their users to be able to plug their device in and have it interact with iTunes in exactly the same way that an iPod would interact. To me that would seem to be the same as HP emulating Epson protocols because Epson made a better scanner frontend and then getting upset when Epson changed their software to verify if the attached device was indeed and Epson scanner.
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
It's far more than a technical fight -- it's an underlying policy fight. Apple is not wrong for calling Palm out for masquerading as their device. It's wrong for putting a bunch of engineering effort into blocking people from using the devices they own with software it has been designed to be compatible with. Palm devices only started masquerading as Apple devices after they were intentionally blocked.
Regardless if that change is a violation of the USB license, I'm not interested in paying money to a company who's spending that money making my other devices not work. If Palm made their phones not offer USB disk access when connected the the Mac, I'd drop them, as well.
-puk
Does Apple have a 95% share of the portable music player market? I don't think so, a quick Google shows it to be between 70 and 80%. That's not a monopoly.
Legally speaking, you actions are likely restricted by antitrust law if you have a significant portion of a market, with 70% being the rule of thumb used by investigators and influence on customers being the determining factor. So in terms of law, yes 90% is almost certainly a monopoly and actions taken by a company that has 90% of a market had bloody well better be in compliant with antitrust law if they don't want to be charged with a crime.
Highest markeshare != monopoly.
True.
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.
That's not even the relevant market in this discussion. The relevant market would be online digital music sales. i.e iTunes Music Store.
Even if Apple has a monopoly, that in itself is not illegal.
True.
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.
False. MS was convicted of using their monopoly one one market to gain market share without competing in other, separate markets, notably: web browsers, media players, and server OS's. MS did settle numerous lawsuits with regard to illegally stifling competitors in their primary market and in office suites as well, but have not been convicted that I know of.
Apple is potentially leveraging their influence in the online digital music sales market to gain a competitive advantage in the smartphone market. A comparison with MS, who used their desktop OS market to gain an unfair advantage in the web browser market, for example, is a pretty reasonable one in many ways.
Wow, either an over eager troll or the biggest dolt in the thread, which are you?
People choose to buy an Apple product. The choose to not buy an Apple product.
If it was so very very bad for Apple's customers, why do people still buy Apple?
Are you really suck a prick as decide what a person can or cannot do with regard to the items they buy? The other question begs, why the hell do you f*&^ing care what MP3 player someone uses?
Are you that petty?
I'm not perfectly clear on the details, but I read the article, and I think Palm merely stated that they *plan* to use Apple's vendor ID, not that they already have.
Apple does not know that Palm's device will 'act exactly the same as an iPod manufactured by Apple'. It's perfectly possible that there are bugs in Palm's implementation that break the protocol and could somehow cause issues with the Mac/PC that iTunes is running on. I would hope that when Apple release a new version of iTunes they would do full regression testing with at least their current range of iPods and iPhones. There is the possibility that they could suddenly be inundated with support issues if a subtle bug in iTunes or the Palm device causes an issue. When a separate program has to be used to Sync, users understand that the sync program could be at fault. In this instance, if there is a fault, only iTunes could be to blame. To put it another way, no software company wants to release flagship software that may behave unpredictably. I'm sure these aren't the bottom lines for Apple, but I think they should at least be taken into consideration when criticising them.
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.
What the hell? Citation needed. Palm is welcome to use any device ID they want in order to identify their product. The only catch is, if it says "iPod", it damn well better act like one, or it's not going to work right.
The vendor ID, which is totally different, still said "Palm". That is, a Palm device that acts like an iPod. Until iTunes started checking that, and saying "I don't care if you think you can be an iPod, you weren't made by Apple so I'm not speaking to you".
Now it's impossible to tell, but only after Apple tried to stifle competition by making their software not sync with "iPod-compatible" devices unless they actually claimed to be made by Apple.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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?
To be fair, really the opposite is true. Palm will spend all the needed money to develop a product which works with Apple's *unpublished* API, and all Apple has to do is ... nothing. I think the entire beef is that Apple is spending money specifically to exclude Palm, not that Palm is somehow asking Apple to spend money.
So I am going to side with Palm on this one, not legally but ethically. Apple should do nothing. It should go on with its business of selling iPods and iPhones and apps and music and computers, and not go out of its way to lock out competitors. The competitors would be charged with the difficult task of keeping up with Apple's unpublished interfaces and changes. I say that as a consumer, because I think that Apple's inaction would benefit the marketplace, and me.
This is an interesting dispute. (Disclosure - I own an iPod, a couple of Macs, and I use iTunes. I don't use the iTunes Music Store except for finding podcasts. I also use iPhoto, iCal, and Address Book).
The two issues being thrown together are orthogonal to each other. First, did Palm violate the USB standard? Apparently so, as indicated by the keepers of the standard. Second, is Apple doing something illegal or at least "wrong" by blocking other vendors devices from interfacing with iTunes as if they were Apple devices? Perhaps - but this issue should be taken through the proper venue to be resolved. In other words, the ends don't justify the means. Palm attempting to right a perceived "wrong" by clearly violating its agreements isn't right. [And please, please, please, lets leave Rosa Parks, civil rights, etc. out of the discussion. I don't think whether Palm can let the their device pretend to be an Apple device to synch with iTunes is anywhere near the level of moral wrong addressed by a human refusing to be treated as subhuman by other humans.]
There are some arguments in favor of Apple's position... perhaps if they don't defend their exclusive use of the "iPod/iPhone interface" they could lose exclusivity here, and ultimately be forced to support other vendors products, or at the least have their hand tied with respect to the flexibility of changes to their interface? If Palm fails to completely and totally emulate the iPhone/iPod, will Apple suffer harm from consumers calling about the iTunes problem when its really a Palm problem? iTunes doesn't just sync music with the iPod, it syncs movies, podcasts, calendars, contacts, photos, games, and music. Did the Palm support all of those, and if not, was it clear to users that the lack of support was Palm's issue and not Apple's? Doesn't Apple have a right to a competitive advantage that they spent many many $$s creating specifically so that they would sell more of their product?
There is an interesting argument against Apple's position: iPhoto works with a wide variety of cameras, not just one or two brands. Apple works hard to make it as compatible as possible with as many different cameras as possible. Apple doesn't make a camera - would they be so generous with iPhoto if they did? (Yes, you can argue that since iPhoto only comes with iLife, which you pay for, while iTunes can be downloaded free its not the same thing, but I would argue back that iPhoto is almost free since it comes free with any Mac you buy.)
Of course, iTunes does work without an iPod. I used it for several years before I bought an iPod. Other vendors figured out how to interface to iTunes without pretending to be an iPod. SlimDevices made the SlimServer capable of integrating with iTunes but didn't "fake out" iTunes. Why couldn't Palm do something like that? Was violating the USB standard the only way they could interface with iTunes?
In the end, as long as Apple isn't breaking any laws, I think they should be free to do as they choose, whether its creating some sort of cozy relationship between iTunes/iPods/iPhones, or making iTunes/iTunes Music Store open and usable with multiple competing music players. If they pick a bad strategy, they will suffer the consequences. If they pick a good strategy, they will benefit from the consequences. And if Palm thinks Apple has created an illegal tie-in, there are venues within which Palm can air that complaint and see if they can get a legal authority with appropriate jurisdiction to agree with them.
You know, I think you are on to something. Since I have somewhat dinged credit, I will just use someone else's identity because the UNreasonable company refuses to give me a loan. It doesn't matter if it breaks the rules, rules are meant to bend.
Yeah, I'll show them!
Eeeeh, yeah maybe. First, not all contracts are binding, though this one probably is. Contracts cannot, for instance, be unconscionable, or remove inalienable rights. This contract probably doesn't meet those standards, but it's not far off.
However, this contract does stifle interoperability, which is a market behavior protected in some ways by law. Furthermore, there is certainly a "reasonable argument" to require a company to allow others to interoperate with its de facto standard hardware, the way we forced AT&T to let other telcos use their phone lines, or the way we are in the process of forcing car makers to share their computer codes.
I wouldn't predict that Palm will win a legal battle here, but it is certainly not an open/shut case like you present 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."
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
Wait wait, explain how a Palm Pre competes with the iTunes Music Store? Because those are the two products in question here. You seem to refer to iPods, which are a different product.
Okay, so Apple should face restrictions on what it can do because you're ignorant?
I just typed "online music store" into Google. The first entry was Amazon's store. iTunes was near the bottom of the page. There were also entries for Napster and Rhapsody.
Apple's got a large market share, but there is significant competition, and the barriers to entry aren't all that great.
You're wrong on the loss leader aspect also. Apple makes money on iPods, rather than iTunes. For a company that prides itself on its software and interfaces and data supply, it's actually pretty bad at making money at it. Apple makes its money selling physical stuff.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I wasn't aware that Apple is preventing Palm from writing their own sync software? Did I miss that in TFA?
As much as the Apple haters might not want to acknowledge, the ability to sync with iTunes is fully open. Anyone with even a tiny bit of XML knowledge can write software to sync with iTunes. iTunes is not an OS. They never promised support for every mp3 player on the market. Palm broke the rules by using Apple's device ID. There is absolutely nothing preventing Palm from writing it's own sync software. You can find tons of Open Source software packages that do the same for Mac, PC, and Linux for that matter.
There is also nothing preventing someone from using iTunes to purchase music. All it does is place it on your local PC. Any sync software can pick it up from there.
Do you have a reference for your sin system?
The unit circle.
What is the maximum sin value? Is it stored as a long or an int or byte?
1, float
Can non-agents be attributed sin numbers? For example, what is the sin for a mosquito biting me?
I suppose, and sin 98.6 degrees = 0.98875638
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I wasn't aware that Apple is preventing Palm from writing their own sync software? Did I miss that in TFA?
I wasn't aware MS was preventing Netscape from writing a browser for Windows. I must have missed that article too when MS was convicted.
As much as the Apple haters might not want to acknowledge, the ability to sync with iTunes is fully open.
Apple haters? Nice ad hominem. I writing this from Safari in OS X. The more capable method Apple uses for interaction with the iPhone is not open. MS used their own, more capable API's with IE and let Netscape use less capable ones. That's enough to be antitrust abuse if there is actually a monopoly in one of the markets.
There is also nothing preventing someone from using iTunes to purchase music.
And there's nothing preventing you from downloading Linux and running netscape on it. There was nothing preventing you from downloading files with IE and then using Netscape to look at them. That does nothing to alleviate the tying or potential antitrust ramifications.
Are you seeing why MS's antitrust abuse makes for a fairly reasonable comparison?
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.
There are other ways to interface to iTunes. The only advantage to the way Palm tried to integrate with iTunes is that you don't have to load extra software alongside iTunes. The biggest problem with Palm's setup is that iTunes will happily send DRMed songs to your Pre which it can't play. I wonder how many tech support incidents Apple is getting about Pre/iTunes problems.
Blackberry has much more logical iTunes integration
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/media/mediasync.jsp
The Pre, Blackberry, and WinCE phones are second-class citizens when used with iTunes, but I don't think that amounts to anticompetitive behavior.
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.
My interest in IBM's margins on one of their product lines is vastly less than my interest in the entire IBM-compatible x86 market.
I'm sure your interest is. My point is that letting the genie out of the bottle was not a good strategy for IBM and it's not a good strategy for Apple/iTunes. If you think any company is in it for the good of the people, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.
monopolies are not in and of themselves ilegal!
MS's monopoly was aquired by breaking the law, thus it is ilegal. Also, they then used their monopoly to try and stifle competition in another market which is also ilegal.
Apple did not, to my knowledge break any laws to acheive its market position, nor to inhibit competition in another market. What they are doing is preventing Palm from profiting off of the money and time that Apple spent developing the itunes experience.
Apple never licensed their app (iTunes) for use with other media players, and AFAIK Palm never offered to pay them for the use of their software.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I think there is an adage that goes something like: there no such thing as bad publicity. I think both palm and apple are benefiting from this "quarrel."
-- How many sigs are as useless as this one?
Frankly, I don't think they have the right to deliberately handicap the stuff I paid for, without me getting a say in it. The changes to itunes were designed to make it do less. They were not accidental. No company has the right to retroactively and deliberately decide that the products they sold me should do less than they did when I bought them, even if that functionality was not one they intended originally. Macs are expensive enough as it is without apple going around sabotaging their feature set.
Also, LLVM.
And the released the source for GCD because? What about launchd? Darwin Streaming Server? Bonjour?
That's not even the relevant market in this discussion. The relevant market would be online digital music sales. i.e iTunes Music Store.
Unless you buy DRMed Fairplay, that is not a monopoly.
Monopolies are defined by influence on the market, but market share is usually the largest determining factor. Apple has about 69% of the online digital music market as it is usually defined. Many regulators use 70% as a rule of thumb to determine if a single player is sufficiently dominant. Some restrictions in some jurisdictions take effect when a company becomes the single, largest player or has 40% or more. For all intents and purposes, Apple is restricted in behavior by at least some antitrust laws at this point and the courts could easily rule them to have monopoly influence. Or the courts could rule the other way. In any case, it is a close decision, and arbitrarily stating they aren't one based upon if they have DRM shows you don't understand how such determinations are made.
Also other competitors are free to create their own music stores.
Other companies are free to create desktop OS's. That doesn't do anything to mitigate MS's legal antitrust responsibilities with regard to their monopoly on desktop OS's
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.
This is referred to as a "market definition" and is one of the most important aspects of an antitrust case. For example, the EU does not consider Apple to have a monopoly on portable, digital music players (their market definition) based upon the fact that they include media playing cell phones in that market definition. Previous court cases, however, make it likely the market definition is going to be limited to online sales of digital music files for complete songs and will not include CDs. That's not a certainty, but it is likely.
Some people use P2P to get their music illegally.
This is a good example of something that won't be included as part of the market for music in competition to Apple.
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.
There were many aspects to the case, but simply bundling the two products alone would have been sufficient legally. The rest is just determining the extent of guilt and damage and liability. You can look to the more recent EU case, where there is no evidence of such action, but the courts are certainly going to convict MS for simply bundling IE and Windows.
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...
My argument is about the music store not the app store. Palm cannot integrate with the music store on a level playing field with Apple because Apple uses one method to integrate with the iPod and iPhone, allowing users to manage them from within iTunes which is the interface for the store. They provide a separate method, with lesser functionality for third parties who are using devices and who also want to buy from the store. If Apple wants this problem to go away, one solution is to use the same method of access for the iPhone that they provide to Palm for the Pre. That's a level playing field.
But about the app store:
I don't see why you bring the App store up. I never mentioned it. It integrates with the iPhone and iPod touch, but as far as I know there are no antitrust concerns with the App store at all.
Had Apple acted like MS...
But Apple has taken an action directly ak
"if you want to sync with iTunes, stop spoofing our USB ID and write your own plugin using the published API for iTunes sync".
I think the real question here is: Is Apple providing a level playing ground so that independent companies can provide equivalent functionality?
It's just like Microsoft and their (alleged) undocumented Windows APIs used by their Office suite for better performance. If Apple is providing an equivalent playground for Palm and other companies so that they can create the same kind of syncing software provided by Apple to the iPhone and iPod hardware, and if Apple's public interfaces are the same as the ones used by Apple's own hardware/software, then Palm should just use that route.
My hunch is that Apple is not revealing all of their APIs. Perhaps they're leaving some undocumented, or they've set up the interfaces such that Apple handheld devices get a better syncing interface. Perhaps by using Apple's USB id Palm can save a lot of development work by using an interface that Apple has decided not to make available to 3rd party developers.
Think about it: Why in the world would Palm want to make their device look like one of Apple's devices if they could get the same, easy-to-use sync from iTunes while indicating that the handheld device was a Palm Pre? There's no good reason. No good reason, that is, unless somehow the Pre pretending to be a piece of Apple hardware was giving Pre users a better experience than announcing themselves openly as Palm hardware.
It sounds like Palm broke some contract with the Grand High Council of USB Lords when they spoofed Apple's id. Okay, fine. So what if they did? I mean perhaps the rules of the USB consortium allow no leeway in these cases, but this situation is just discrimination, plain and simple. There's one interface for Apple, and a separate one for everyone else. Kind of like having one drinking fountain for white people, and one for black people. Sure, Palm pretended to be an iPhone, but that's because they had no other choice.
Let's say that in 2 years someone realizes that some super-popular application they wrote in 2009 was compiled with the wrong flags and will only talk to USB vendor ids in a static list compiled into the binary. Is the USB Council of Poo-Bahs going to try to tell us that Palm, or Apple, or Joe's Open Hardware Hackitorium may not pretend to be one of the USB vendors in the static list in a hack to make it possible to interoperate with said application? That's just f*cking insane!
coding is life
1st, Apple does not meet the legal definitions of a monopoly, they are not the sole commercial source or vendor of the hardware, software, or licensing.
Next, "digital music" is not a defined market. "music media" as a whole might be defined that way. So long as people can acquire media in other forms, OR use Apple's media on other devices, regardless of the complexity, OR use other media ON Apple's devices, they have no market control, even in that undefined market.
Further, being a monopoly is NOT illegal, only exerting the power of a monopoly to ACTIVELY prevent otehr competitors from entering the market (again, iTunes is NOT a market, it's a product), is illegal.
Only if apple created exclusive contracts with large numebrs of distributors, preventing their music distribution though other chanels, and further blocked all non-apple distributed files from playing on their device, and even then only if they held 90+% of the market would this ever be a case.
FURTHER STILL, other devices CAN work with iTunes and MP3/AAC files (except the DRM ones, which can be converted to non-DRM, including through FREE and legal methods like rip to CD then back to MP3), it simply takes writing a script to integrate with the iTunes XML data file, and browse the file tree for the files. There are NO proprietary controlls preventing that access, it can be done noninvasively even while iTunes is running, and is FULLY SUPPOERTED through pple;s EULA. They in NO WAY preevent other companies from using (and even MODIFYING) data in the iTunes XML database.
All Apple is doing is saying THEIR software, that they wrote to manage THEIR DEVICES and THEIR STORE, can only be used WITYH thos devices NATIVLY, in such a way as Apple might be responsible for supporting the application, or effects/errors within the application due to 3rd party devices. If Palm wanted in, Aplle OFFERED (for a quite reasonable fee) to integrate a syncing system for Palm, they refused to pay and refused to play and backdoored their way in. Apple responded, and now so has the USB-IF.
btw: The USB IF does have the power to deny further use of the USB spec to Palm under breech of license, such that future Palm devices could not use USB connectivity, should the USB-IF feel Palm will not continue to avoid future license issues.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
The iTunes store is already available for use with an MP4-capable device. It is fundamentally incompatible with MP3-only devices, as they do not sell MP3 data files. When DRM was required (primarily by suppliers) you might have had a point with the iTMS, but that is no longer the case, and there's nothing stopping you from buying MP4s from the iTMS and loading them on whatever MP4 player you like.
While I agree it would be nice if iTunes was more tolerant of non-Apple devices -- particularly if those devices make an effort to work like an iPod -- I don't understand why it's so hard for another device manufacturer to provide their own syncing, or why Apple should be forced to do it for them. Even if you want to use iTunes as a front-end so your users don't have to switch, Apples provides APIs suitable to allow third-party programs to use the iTunes library for synchronization. It's trivial to get play list and file paths out of iTunes; why would you bother trying to simulate an iPod rather than just writing a stub that sits between iTunes and your device?
Obviously Apple is all about exploiting their dominant market position and controlling the ways in which people use their products. But I don't see why that means they should have to support third-party hardware -- are we going to require that GM support Ford engines in all their cars?
btw: The USB IF does have the power to deny further use of the USB spec to Palm under breech of license, such that future Palm devices could not use USB connectivity, should the USB-IF feel Palm will not continue to avoid future license issues.
Citation? My understanding is that the USB spec itself is open and the USB-IF is merely a certification agency which vets USB devices and attests to their quality and interoperability.
http://www.usb.org/about:
https://www.usb.org/members_landing:
If you're not tested and certified by the USB-IF, you can't use the USB logo, but AFAIK they can't keep you from making USB-compatible devices.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Wrong. Palm's inclusion of the device causes issues for Apple's software. It's not just an icon in the left pane, and some syncing to a USB disk folder. That icon is dynamic, controls firmware detection and loading, controls device storage assignment, opens mul;tiple web panes that control what is and is not synced, and what applications interact with iTunes for syncing in various formats.
Connecting a Palm device to iTunes causes NUMEROUS errors to be logged, errors which Apple has to account for in code, and ensure their app does not crash on error and provide poor user experiences. iTunes is trying to collect and push multiple types of data to the device, including even managing the charge state of it, and failing to collect data or receive the proper respnse is somehting APPLE is forced to deal with, at their own expense.
This is the equvalent of asking HP's printer drivers to accept input from a cannon scanner, just because Cannon backdoored HP's driver and made their printer work with it. No, canon's not asking HP to print to it, just integrate with the TWAIN system natively, and accept scans and maybe even take pictures off the memory card reader, simply because cannon identified it as an HP late model printer the driver also supported. HP would sue, and win...
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
until the USB-IF revokes their ID and assigns it to a new company to use on future devices...
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Connecting a Palm device to iTunes causes NUMEROUS errors to be logged, errors which Apple has to account for in code
You sound like you know what you're talking about. Then again, you could just be bullshitting your way around it. Citation needed.
ensure their app does not crash on error and provide poor user experiences. iTunes is trying to collect and push multiple types of data to the device, including even managing the charge state of it, and failing to collect data or receive the proper respnse is somehting APPLE is forced to deal with, at their own expense.
They should be doing that anyway.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Apple is really trying to tie iTunes exclusively to iPhones and iPods. If I buy music from itunes and I can only really (easily) sync music to an iPod then I will most likely purchase that.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
You don't understand the arugment. Does Apple have a monopoly on DRM Fairplay media? Yes. Is that monopoly legal? Given the nature of DRM, probably yes. No case has been decided otherwise. Does Apple have a monopoly on online music distribution? That follow in the rest of the argument:
The term is "significant barrier" to entry in the marketplace. The fact that others can and have created other online stores negates your arugment that Apple has a monopoly. Amazon has quite a successful online store. You can load Amazon music onto an iPod. You can load nonDRMed AAC onto a Palm Pre. 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.
For the US MS Antitrust case, that was not enough. MS was convicted in the US not because they had a monopoly but because they used illegal tactics in defending and maintaining that monopoly.
Huh? Palm is free to write an iTunes plugin to sync up with their Palm devices. There is freeware you can get that does this with other devices. There is a public API from Apple on how to do this. The only difference would be the user would have to press a button in iTunes to sync up the device rather than have an automatic sync when the user connects his device. Now the only music that will not sync up is DRM Fairplay music. My arguments above talks about this.
Palm did not choose this route. Instead they chose to try to trick iTunes in believing the Palm Pre was an iPod by spoofing the Vendor ID.
You said:
Apple is potentially leveraging their influence in the online digital music sales market to gain a competitive advantage in the smartphone market.
You did not say app store but I inferred it. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Of the top of my head I cant even think of any other music store but itunes.
There's a small store called Amazon, you may have heard of them. I hear they're going to make a real dent in the ebook market too.
They can revoke Palm's USB Vendor ID, refuse their use of USB logos in all advertising, documentation, and packaging, and publically chastize them.
Can they sue? likely not.
No they can't stop palm from MAKING devices, but they can stop palm from doing so easily. Further, other vendors would legally be able to say "Palms device is not USB certified, and could cause hardware or software incompatability" and Palm would have no response.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
I think the entire beef is that Apple is spending money specifically to exclude Palm,
Ye gods, I hope nobody here ever has to do a cost estimate on a development project.
Option 1: Maintain a published API for iTunes plug-ins, manage dissemination of any spec changes, manage beta testing of new iTunes releases by third party device manufactures, take responsibility for ensuring that third parties can't evade the DRM; take some of the flak when third parties don't bother to start testing against new iTunes releases until Steve is standing on the podium...
Option 2: Turn a blind eye while all and sundry produce devices which declare "yes, I am an iPod, and so is my wife"; allow a large user base of "fake" iPod users to build up an expectation that their devices will work with iTunes, then deal with support calls from users who don't let you know they're not using a kosher iPod until half an hour into the conversation; take the flak when iTunes bricks "fake" iPods by trying to update their firmware, end up (effectively) having to test all new releases of iTunes against popular iPod clones. Hope that none of the fake iPod makers find a way around the DRM and jeapordize your deal with the record companies (without which iTMS would have never got off the ground). Endanger your reputation for reliable software.
Option 3: nip the practice in the bud by, very rapidly, putting a few extra, simple checks in the code.
Which do you think is most expensive?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
First of all, they couldn't do that, because they can't get rid of existing, certified devices made by Palm which contain Palm's vendor ID. (The vendor ID is also distinct from USB-IF membership. Gaining membership entitles you to one free vendor ID, but a vendor ID can also be purchased without becoming a member. Non-members will be able to use their vendor ID, but won't be able to become certified or use the USB-certified logo. [1])
Secondly, it still wouldn't be illegal for Palm to make USB-compatible devices. They just wouldn't be certified by the USB-IF. Additionally, they could conflict with new devices made by the new company, but even so it would be in the interests of the new company to avoid this by using different device IDs. Deliberately conflicting with Palm's devices would be (while perhaps permissible, if Palm had lost its USB-IF membership) ... wait for it ... silly.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
They did, and do, but they handle it as an error, and it has to be logged. Now that they crosscheck the device ID directly, they non longer have to account for the code to handle individual errors within the software, and simply need to handle the error of "invalid device"
Apparently, the logging of errors with a Pre connected is actually quite significant. Apple began looking into more seamless error handling and to make their app respond gracefully (aka, not actually generate errors, but enter a state where it's simply known the device in invalid, and it only allows a limited set of functions to run against the device. This was a massive code effort, and part of a larger effort to eventually bring more open connectivity (though their already supported sync plug-in API), but palms actions caused Apple to react short term, and protect the customer base, and prevent in-development code from breaking the Pre's functionality much farther down the road after a much lkarger user base had accpted functionality.
By acting quickly, apple is acting like a company protecting a trademark (not a patent). Failure to react to trademark infringement when it can be proven you are aware of the infringement is akin to allowing license, and you then can't later sue or complain. By reacting wuickly, they can prevent potentially millions of Palm fans from blaming apple directly. They may yet very well bring support to 3rd party devices later, for a fee, though i bet if they do, the fee for Palm will include costing for all Apple's current development efforts and reactions.
I do know some people working at apple, and others who develop for apple. A close college knows someone fairly high up on the apple dev team for iYunes, who had personal input intop several new features, and was involved in the code changes for this issue. Apple was, lets say, unthrilled, at Palm's actions, especially since apple OFFERED to help develop a native connector but palm refused.
I don't have a citation, but I have someone here with a pre, and asked him to connect it to my iTunes 8 install on my PC. The log file grew DRAMATICALLY over a couple hours, tens of megs of errors. Every file synced generates numerous error lines.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
All quite true. Whether or not this would have any significant negative effect on Palm is anyone's guess.
My own personal example (for reasons I won't go into – let's just say I had an unsatisfactory encounter with the company): Kodak vs. the BBB. Kodak had BBB accreditation at one point, but was being investigated by the BBB because of consumer complaints (warranty and support issues primarily, IIRC). Because of this, Kodak's BBB rating was dropped to "unsatisfactory" (which was accompanied by a BBB audit of their practices). Rather than clean up their act, Kodak essentially said "screw you guys, we don't need you" – they simply left the BBB.
[1]:
Anyway, why is this relevant? Well, Kodak doesn't seem to have suffered greatly after eschewing the BBB (something businesses would have, at one point, been very hesitant to do). BBB accreditation just isn't worth that much any more.
Whether or not Palm could get away with dissing the USB-IF would be an interesting scenario to watch play out, to be sure!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The problem is that morons like you don't actually know what they're talking about.
Palm Pre identified itself as an ipod-compatible made by Palm. That's not a lie.
Apple then changed iTunes to require an Apple vendor ID... forcing Palm to file a letter with the USB-IF saying that they have no choice but to lie now.
MS was convicted not because they bundled a browser. They were convicted by trying to strong-arm their OEMs not to deal with Netscape among other tactics. In this context, people are complaining that Apple is preventing Palm Pre users from syncing with iTunes. That's not what Apple is doing. Apple is preventing Palm from using the tactic of spoofing Vendor IDs as a means to sync with Palm Pres. If Palm wants users to sync with iTunes there exists an API to write a plugin. I don't understand why Palm doesn't do this at all. Certainly they can afford programmers to write one.
To my viewpoint Apple has never tried to undermine the Palm Pre deliberately; they are merely enforcing rules on how to interface with iTunes. That's completely different.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Option 2...
The users will know what they're getting. (Trademark, etc. makes sure that nobody makes a fake iPod and tricks people into thinking it's made by Apple. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with vendor Y making an "iPod-compatible" device and reporting this via the "iPod" device ID and Y's vendor ID. Assuming, of course, Apple didn't start this business of checking the vendor ID in addition to the device ID.)
If a user plugs a non-Apple "iPod-compatible" device into their computer and something goes horribly awry, or it just acts flaky and doesn't work right, they'll know they got a shitty iPod clone. If they think that this is Apple's fault, they're idiots, because they knew full well they got a non-Apple device.
Since there's no question what they're getting, shitty clones will be known for what they are (not masquerading as authentic iPods), and the bad publicity will ensure that everyone knows not to buy them and they either fix their problems or die. Good ones, on the other hand, shouldn't have any problems syncing with iTunes caused by nothing more than their non-Apple vendor IDs.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Ugh, I hate hearing uninformed comments like yours. I suppose it will actually be necessary to shout this...
THERE IS NO SPECIAL PROTOCOL FOR ITUNES TO USE IPODS. THEY ARE HFS+ OR FAT32 USB MASS STORAGE DEVICES THAT THE OPERATING SYSTEM MOUNTS AND ITUNES PUTS FILES ONTO.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Heh. Good point. In fact, the Debian USB device database says that the kernel module used to support iPods is the generic "usb-storage" module.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Think about that: Apple should be force to support competitor's products and programs with their software? Palm could have written a plugin for iTunes but chose not to do so.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, it won't. It refuses to copy DRM-encrusted content to the Palm Pre.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
as I've seen on episodes of court tv shows, if they came into this with clean hands. aka filing suit saying apple themselves are breaking rules instead of circumventing i would be more likely to side with them and against apple (which btw, is a lame - cheap ass - underhanded way to monopolize itunes/ipod) but they didn't and they can't go home to mommy and daddy later on and whine and complain that apple isn't playing fair.
Thought so.
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.
You're missing the point. No software is without faults. In order to know that there are no faults in a piece of software, it must be tested in every possible scenario. Apple would therefore have to test their software with the Palm device in order to know that there is no fault. Therefore Apple would be spending money to check that their software works with Palm's device.
There's still a format to the data that is stored on the iPod, the playlists etc. I've often found that when a new software update for the iPhone or iTunes comes out I get the odd error message and it fails to sync, then a couple of days later a point update is released and it all starts to work again. I don't know the details of the files/protocols/whatever but empirically there is definitely scope for problems.
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.
Actually, Apple are doing nothing at all to the Pre, they are certainly not breaking it. The Pre still has all it's functionality intact. Why do you think that just because Palm violates it's license agreements with USB-IF, and tries to rip off Apple by pretending to be an iPod when they aren't that Apple should somehow then be obligated in any way to support the Palm Pre?
As soon as iTunes starts syncing with a Pre, it is not unreasonable to think that Joe Schmoe would expect that Apple will support it if something breaks. Why do you think it's OK for Palm to produce their own product, but then try to force Apple to provide sync functionality and support without so much as a reach-around or dinner first?
I'm no lover of Apple, I think a lot of what they do is mediocre and derivative, but seriously, you're lucky that all that is happening is iTunes correctly detects the Pre and refuses to sync to it. It would be easier for Apple to take no special action at all - including not bothering to make sure no damage occurs. I suppose even with an explicit statement that the Pre is not supported and should not be used with iTunes you'd still cry foul if iTunes somehow managed to damage it, wouldn't you?
Who supports Pre syncing with iTunes anyway? Is it Palm? It certainly isn't Apple. Shouldn't your nerd rage be directed at Palm for shipping an intentionally broken product that is basically guaranteed to lose major parts of it's basic functionality every time you install iTunes, even though iTunes doesn't even breathe in the direction of Palm? Though I suppose that's Apples fault too, right? Right?
To use the Slashdot car analogy, you wouldn't expect your petrol engine to work when you "plug in" diesel fuel would you? So why do you expect iTunes to work with a Pre when you plug it in? They were never designed to work together, but that's not the fault of the engine manufacturer, nor the refiners who produced the diesel. No, it's Your fault, because you used fuel that was never designed to work with your engine and you got burnt. Don't expect the Pre to work with a different engine (iTunes) and you won't get burnt. The fact that Palm has no method and so far as I can tell (I haven't checked) has no plans for a method to do their own music sync is just an indication that Palm were so desperate to get something, anything out into the market, that they figured they'd get away with ripping off Apple and saving a lot of their own money into the bargain.
Stop demanding that Apple make iTunes work with any random third party music player, and stop expecting Ford or whoever to make your petrol engine work with diesel.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
You're missing the point. iTunes isn't a generic, one size fits all, everyone's welcome music organising tool with a bit of sync functionality bolted on so that everyone can use it, where they just happen to be excluding Palm.
iTunes is the specific and only approved management tool for their entire range of music players and mobile phones. Does Apple manufacture the Palm Pre? No? Then why should they support it?
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
I certainly don't.
I mean, how can they make it ANY easier? I plug in the Pre to a USB port, I copy over music files to any directory I want, I sync/unplug the Pre. Done! It doesn't require or need iTunes. Besides, iTunes doesn't run on Linux or BSD, but using usbstorage to copy over the files works on *EVERYTHING*. No cost, nothing to download, nothing to install, nothing to configure, no "end user license agreements", no Internet required, no registration, no spyware, no special accounts, no magic daemons running.
Guess what? You can do the same thing for pictures and videos, too. It is simple, fast, easy.
As a Pre user, I find the waste of time and energy on this iTunes compatibility thing frustrating when there are plenty of other, BETTER uses of Palm's development time and energy.
At the very least Palm would need to strip all the USB logos from all of their products.
That's probably all they can do, actually.
And it would be a real pain in the ass for Palm to do. They'd have to re-design their packaging and promotional materials to get rid of the USB logo, they may even need to edit the copy to remove some references to USB compatibility. This costs money and takes time. Then they have to recall all their product in the sales channel and all the promotional material. This costs Palm more time and money and it also costs time and money for their channel partners.
You think Sprint is going to be happy to round up and ship out all the Pre boxes, flyers, endcaps, and other materials in every single on of their retail locations and warehouses ? No they will not, they'll probably send Palm a bill for it.
How about Verizon or any other carrier working on bringing Palm WebOS devices to market ? They have to stop, destroy or return materials and make new versions of *everything* Palm related. If there's a "will be available" clause in the contracts, the new carriers might be in a position to re-negotiate and get a better deal for themselves.
Worse even than damaging the relationship with the cell carriers who are essential to Palm's survival is the period of time in which the Pre (or Pixie or whatever else is coming) is simply unavailable to buy. Let's start with the fact that some people will simply delay replacing a Treo for a while, but people simply shopping for "a smartphone" will buy something else; be honest now, who here would think "we'll buy something next month, Palm is just doing a minor product recall".
Let's say it takes a month to repackage everything without the USB logo. That's a whole month with *no* revenue from WebOS devices. US$0.00. That probably won't put Palm out of business by itself, but it will hurt. Businesses NEED to make payroll, they need to pay their bills (every line item for "late fee" is money they just pissed away) and missing loan payments not only adds late fees but can make it harder or more expensive to obtain credit. And the stock price is usually not directly tied to line-of-business operations, but missing a month's revenue and thereby a quarterly earnings estimate will hit a lot of people in the pocketbook.
Prediction: Palm will cave, they're in too precarious a position to take on the huge load of shit removing the USB logo from their packaging would be.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Assuming, of course, Apple didn't start this business of checking the vendor ID in addition to the device ID.)
Wasn't that what they did the first time the Pre started reporting itself as an iPod?
If they think that this is Apple's fault, they're idiots, because they knew full well they got a non-Apple device.
So, you've never done your time on Helldesk, then?
(Have you done anything unusual? No. Did you do anything unusual just before this problem started? No. Are you sure you didn't do anything unusual before this started? Er... no. Really sure? Er... I did delete some files in a folder called "Library" - but that couldn't have done it, could it?
Apple makes good money selling to people who call any portable music player an iPod, and certainly can't judge whether something is a software or hardware problem.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Explain how you are forced by Apple to use only the one store for your music purchases.
Yeah, fucking Apple, I can't even play MP3s on this iPod thing. Oh wait, yes I can
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?
That is not the issue. Palm does not touch Apple's API in any way. The Pre doesn't touch any iTunes file at all! Instead the Pre tells iTunes that it is an older iPod. iTunes copies over the files and the Pre reads them. Simple, clean, and no extra installation for the user! Is Apple really going to break the DB files on all their old iPods? That would require them to re-fresh all the firmware across their entire line of iPods.
I hope you never, ever have used a program that imports songs from an iPod. That program is doing basically the same thing the Pre is doing internally. I bet quite a few people would be pissed if their 3rd party iPod management program that has been working since forever broke because Apple is trying to prove something with Palm.
The only reason they had to use the Vendor ID is because Apple changed iTunes so that it doesn't accept the DeviceID anymore.
Actually, I believe that would be called competitive behavior, not anti-competitive. Are you seriously trying to imply that iTunes in the only avenue to get music online?
Results 1 - 10 of about 234,000,000 for buy music online
Note that there are 234 Million results.
Nuff said...
And the best bit is that using AppleScript on a quad-core Mac you might even find you have time to finish War and Peace before it's finished processing half a dozen files.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Palm's device would have continued to work fine with no effort from Apple.
Exactly! And Palm wouldn't have had to spoof the Vendor ID, just the Device ID.
Another whiney mac fanbot bleating about MS shills because someone doesnt like their precious gayboy companies policies.
Of course all the other gaymacfanboys with mod points join in.
You don't need sync software for the Pre. Copying files to it works just fine – same as you would any other removable USB storage device.
Making it iTunes-compatible is just a bonus. I still expect Apple to not bend over backward to break compatibility.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
US case law would disagree with you. One of the criteria that the US looks in a every monopoly case is what constitutes a monopoly. Being the dominant player is only one criteria. Are there significant barriers to competition is another criteria. If barriers exist, why do these barriers exist? Are these barriers artificial? If you had the only grocery store within a hundred square miles because the store is in a remote location, probably no one could sue for anti-trust. There exists significant barriers to competition in this market, but that barrier due to geography. If your store was the only store because you colluded with all the delivery companies not to deliver to any competing stores, that's another story. If there are no significant barriers to entry then the dominant company cannot be considered a monopoly. From US v Microsoft, III.B.:
Before you mention how the MS case was overturned: In the end, MS was convicted of monopoly abuse; the punishment was overturned and reduced.
Vogue magazine for the most part influences fashion in many parts of the world. Vogue can make or break designers and labels in a single issue. But no one would consider Vogue to have monopoly power in fashion magazines. In your example, yes Apple can blacklist an artist and they would be less successful. But that's not monopoly power. That's influence. If Apple were to turn to Amazon or Wal-mart and say "Don't sell this artist or we will stop supplying you with iPods" that would be considered illegal in many regards. But an artist today has options in the online market; they can even setup their own store for their own music and get it on consumer's iPods. The fact that an artist could easily sell music without iTunes weakens your argument that Apple has monopoly power.
Considering freeware plugins have been able to sync up 3rd party devices, there is a high probability that they could.
The USB committee has no opinion on competition between Apple and Palm and this letter was never about that. The USB committee (at the request of Palm) ruled that Apple's use of the Vendor ID was according to specifications as they had written it. Palm's use violates the specification.
iTunes written by Apple to work with Apple products works well with Apple products. Apple does not support other devices directly. Other devices must use an API to interface. The resulting functionality will be different due to a number factors one of which is these 3rd party devices function differently*. So you
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Near all of those formats are called "industry standard" for some reason: They are DESIGNED by AV industry themselves, completely documented and just because they are patented, it doesn't make them proprietary. They proprietary only on Wikipedia which seems to love that word, rest of the industry loves them as "vendor neutral" formats, ages ahead of anything comparative.
If MS video took off, they would see what proprietary is. They should be thankful to AV industry and Apple who kept up with true standards. There was nothing stopping Apple from tweaking AAC (which is part of mpeg4) a bit and coming up with .APL and suing everyone who dares to implement it. Of course, these industry outsiders loving to use the word proprietary but can't differentiate between extension and format are still calling AAC as some Apple format. No, it is part of MPEG4, Apple did a favour to you to keep up with MPEG STANDARDS and hell yes, multiple billions of dollars spent on the mpeg standards with millions of engineering hours, they will have patents on them just like $150M Hollywood production will have copyright.
Please, please for God's sake... If someone idiot enough to ship a product with Microsoft USB vendor id and suggested/advertised the product can be used with Microsoft software, we would have an example in hand.
Every single keyboard conforms to HID profile, keyboards part is supported by every OS conforming to USB standards. It has nothing to do with iPod or a freaking Microsoft OS. I guess Linux having good USB support made people forgot how USB really works, what vendor ID is, what model ID is. Once upon a time, we even memorised hex vendor IDs.
Want another example? Logitech, Swiss guys spend millions to have extra software giving extra,bonus features. Now, my Chinese A4Tech keyboard will act like a Logitech device and I will demand Logitech to support it, with their software. Man is it WebOS or the abused brand "Palm" making people act like this? Do you know how low Palm got by acting like an iPod? I have never, ever heard a USB device acting like another from any vendor. Perhaps those counterfeit stuff could be doing it, not a real&known brand.
If I was a mobile developer (which is hell harder than desktop), I would stay away from a platform made by a company acting like that. "We can't sync with iTunes?", hell yes you can. Just download some damn software from Nokia and Blackberry and learn how to do it. Especially Nokia's multimedia sync which easily surpasses iTunes own syncing with wireless support should give a clue how it is done.
If Apple didn't say a word about it and iTunes 9.2 somehow wiped out your entire library of family photos because of a glitch, you and the company going low enough to act like another vendor wouldn't have a WORD to say. Wanna bet? iTunes doesn't have to sync with anything else than Apple products reliably and even if you have an Apple product, it has tendency to make paranoid backups just in case if something goes wrong.
Do you know how stupid it is to act like one of the World's most advanced multimedia/smart devices fooling a media/file sync application hoping nothing would happen? Palm doesn't value their customers data at first place. First issue (if that joke continued) would be the "case insensitive" variant of HFS+J used versus ext2 and Apple's attitude towards easily ejectable devices with the help of journaling and aggressive (fs)syncing.
Macs are expensive enough as it is without apple going around sabotaging their feature set.
Um, exactly where was it ever listed by Apple that iTunes is supported with anything other than Apple's devices? That's right. Nowhere. Apple didn't sabotage iTunes. It does everything it did before the update, that Apple said it would. If it no longer does something they never said it would, then feel free to never update iTunes. You know you have that option right? Just keep using the version of iTunes that does sync your Pre.
You might as well be complaining that you can't run System 7 on your intel based Mac.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
The US Justice Department also sued Microsoft for violating a 1994 consent decree by forcing computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software.
Didn't you first grade teacher tell you encyclopedias are not valid sources? The US DoJ doesn't sue anyone. They convict them for violating the law. When the DoJ gets involved in an antitrust lawsuit it becomes a criminal case. Aside from that, yes the DoJ went after MS for a lot of different aspects of abuse. How does that indicate that one aspect by itself is not illegal?
iTunes is not an operating system. It is an application. It can easily be deleted by dropping the iTunes.app folder in the trash.
Yeah and I can easily erase a hard drive that comes with Windows. Did you have some sort of a point? Do you think antitrust law is written about operating systems in specific and does not apply to applications as opposed to being written about markets and applying to any product in a market regardless of it is an OS or a service or oil?
I can easily use Amazon, MP3.Com, Napster, or any other number of online music sites to purchase music.
Good for you. Can you also install Linux or Solaris? Can you install OpenOffice? None of you points in any way mean Apple may not have enough influence on the market in question to qualify under the law.
No amount of whining will change that fact.
Why are you whining? Here's a better idea, actually read and understand the wikipedia link you sent so you grasp the concept.
Apache is just another web server. I'm sure someone released an open source web server before them. And Firefox! There were LOTS of open source browsers before THEY came along.
Come on. Open source is open source.
Mod up. A device ID (technically called a product ID) only seems valid within the scope of a specific vendor ID. Two different vendors could both have devices with a product ID of 3, for example. As I understand it, Palm devices had the Palm vendor ID ('til they changed it to Apple's and got slapped) but gave the Pre a product ID that — hey, what a coincidence — was the same as an iPod.
If iTunes was only looking at the product ID to determine if something was an iPhone or whatever, and not the vendor ID and product ID, it was buggy. Apple just fixed the bug. Palm was depending on that bug. Not Apple's problem.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Today,i bought a new Replica Watches. The elegant appearance and favourably accurate function of the watch appeals me.It has various collections for you to choose from and most important is the conveniet means of payment,you can recieve your Replica Watches soon after you pay it.If you have any problem,you can call online customer servise,there you can get a satisfied reply.
Damn you're an idiot.
Parse the XML file Apple puts on the hard drive.
Sync the music it describes to the Pre over USB using standard file system calls.
Problem solved, completely open.
Please allow me to correct your comment and shorten it a bit:
There! Wasn't that simpler, without all those extra words?
Explain how you are forced by Apple to use only the one store for your music purchases.
Is that what I said? I'm pretty sure I said expose. But no, you're probably right, I sure hope there was some way we could go back in time and replay the event, or if it was written down somehow.
I am the lawn!
Other devices must use an API to interface.
Ha! That's a laugh.
An XML file is not an API. (Yes, I'm aware that XML is all the rage right now. I don't care.)
Seriously. Get real.
An API is a system that lets someone else design a DLL that plugs in (hence the name, plugin) to your application. Saying "we'll write a well-documented XML file, and your application can just read it" is downright absurd, ludicrous, ... I don't even know what to say.
A translate plugin for Word should be an actual plugin. Not a separate application that opens the DOCX file, translates (Google Translate) it, and re-writes the file so Word can re-open it. That's silly.
If someone told me that their "API" consisted of their application writing a data file, which I was then free to read and modify, I'd laugh at them. That's not an API, it's an ugly hack. The fact that you want me to do it doesn't magically make it an API or any less an ugly hack.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
That's not how monopolies are defined.
US case law would disagree with you. One of the criteria that the US looks in a every monopoly case is what constitutes a monopoly. Being the dominant player is only one criteria. Are there significant barriers to competition is another criteria.
I truly don't understand how you're interpreting US case law to come to this conclusion. Monopoly determination for any case is based upon effect upon the customers, but barriers to entry are not a defined characteristic and are usually only applied in cases where there is a small market share that is segregated from the larger market. In most per se cases, barriers to entry were never even discussed in rulings. You usually only find it discussed in rule of reason cases since it speaks to motivation.
If you had the only grocery store within a hundred square miles because the store is in a remote location, probably no one could sue for anti-trust. There exists significant barriers to competition in this market, but that barrier due to geography.
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what the courts have set as precedent. The Sherman act specifically states that is does not matter why a company has monopoly power and intentionally gaining a monopoly by any means was not even illegal until the Clayton act. Because having monopolies is not illegal under either act, they speak only to the illegality of taking anticompetitive actions when you do have one. Abusing a natural monopoly is just as illegal as abusing an intentionally gained monopoly and gaining a monopoly is only illegal more recently if conducted by certain methods such as mergers.
If there are no significant barriers to entry then the dominant company cannot be considered a monopoly. From US v Microsoft, III.B.
You can't cite the random bits of the Microsoft case as though it were a normal antitrust case. It was a bizarre aberration from the start as any legal expert will tell you.
Vogue magazine for the most part influences fashion in many parts of the world. Vogue can make or break designers and labels in a single issue.
Entirely true and this actually helps make my case.
But no one would consider Vogue to have monopoly power in fashion magazines.
Of course not because Vogue does not have 70% market share for fashion magazines, nor are they a gatekeeper for people looking to sell fashion articles. If they did, the courts might well reconsider that issue.
The fact that an artist could easily sell music without iTunes weakens your argument that Apple has monopoly power.
So because I can easily buy diamonds from a canadian mining company that means DeBeers does not have monopoly influence on the diamond market? Sorry, your argument does not hold water. But keep in mind, I never, ever said Apple does have monopoly power in the online digital music market. I merely said it is reasonable to think that the courts might decide it does after gathering better data than I have, since it is a close proposition based upon case law.
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?
Considering freeware plugins have been able to sync up 3rd party devices, there is a high probability that they could.
Freeware plug-ins and plug-ins supplied by hardware makers can and do synch with iTunes. They don't do so from within the iTunes interface automatically when you're purchasing music from the store, the way iPhones do. Nor do they support all of the rest of the synching features. Most third party smartphones end up writing an alternative application to manage their phones and then use a plug-in to get music from i
Not saying they should be forced to support. Its the fact that they purposely sealed up there software after the fact to prevent the device from working. They saw a company with a competing device that was hooking into itunes so they invested resources to lock them out.
(whoosh)
Let me repeat the part you missed - Apple is using their 90% software dominance with the Istore/Itunes virtual monopoly to discourage use of _____-brand players and thereby force customers to buy Ipods so they can hear their Istore purchases. It's an antimompetitive, monopolistic practice under both U.S. and EU law.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Being a monopoly isn't inherently wrong.
Yes it is. U.S. Sherman Act - To provide remedy against "every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize...any part of the trade or commerce among the several States." Ask the record companies. When they were caught price-fixing CDs from 1990 onward, thereby forming a cartel monopoly, the United States forced them to pay about 1/2 billion dollars in refunds to any customer that asked for one. (My family got $60 back.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
Elements
A Section 1 violation has three elements:[17] An agreement
which unreasonably restrains competition
and which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[18]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
IANAL, but it looks to me as though simply having a monopoly only violates the first of 2 elements in section 2.
Besides, I don't believe that Apple has a monopoly in any important market. Sure they've got the lions share of the 'mp3' player market, but that is a smaller portion of the total mobile media player market, which includes portable CD and DVD players as well as smart phones.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
If people didn't like windows, windows would never have gained the dominant position that it has, especially when there are free alternatives.
And what is your reason for assuming that?
You accuse of Apple of being a monopoly. Before a company can abuse monopoly power, it must satisfy three tests: first the company must have monopoly power. The second prong test is whether the monopoly came about legally. If the monopoly came about illegally, then there is no need to determine if a company abused its monopoly as the existence of the monopoly is illegal. The last test is whether a monopoly has actually abused power through collusion, tying, etc. Having monopoly power is not per se illegal (Northeastern Tel. Co. v. AT & T); abusing monopoly powers is illegal.
According the Supreme Court, monopoly power is "the power to control prices or exclude competition." United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.. If a company does not have this monopoly power, it cannot abuse it. In determining monopoly power, a company must have possession of a dominant share of a market.Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co "Entry barriers" are factors. S. Pac. Communications Co. v. AT & T.
In the case of MS, the US District Court found that MS was both dominant and there were substantial entry barriers. The Appeals Court agreed with this part of the decision. Part of the substantial barrier that the US District court found was the inability for consumers to run Windows applications on other operating systems. At the time, virtualization software was not an option. In the case of Apple, it has 70% of the online music market which would qualify as dominant share. But are there substantial barriers to entry? Considering that Amazon and MS developed their stores after Apple, it would seem not. Also the music is not DRMed and the formats compatible then you can load Amazon or Zune music onto your iPod. You can load nonDRMed AAC from iTunes onto a Zune or PSP or whatever. It appears that except for DRM music, there is not a substantial barrier to keep consumers from using another online store.
It's not a random bit. It's part of determination of monopolization. However the controlling case would probably be S. Pac. Communications Co. v. AT & T unless you can cite a case where entry barrier to market should not be used as a factor in determining monopoly power.
Wrong analogy. The point isn't whether you can buy diamonds as a consumer. The problem is that you cannot easily sell diamonds as a wholesaler without feeling the influence of DeBeers who controls the supply and price.
Although you say you never said Apple monopoly power, you keep using the term "monopoly influence". If Apple does not have monopoly power, it cannot have monopoly influence and thus is not subject to conditions under monopoly laws. Apple has great influence but not monopoly influence. In fact you u
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well, that depends on whether or not Jobs is still around to maintain the Reality Distortion Field.
Really? So the Apple email program (whatever it's called) is tested with every single mail server? And they test Safari with every web and ftp server? They both refuse to work with any one that is unrecognized?
No, I didn't say that all software is tested in all scenarios, I said that in order to know that there are not faults then it must be. It's just simple logic to know that it's impossible to be completely sure that something will always work unless one tests it in every conceivable circumstance; I didn't say that is what software companies always do.
POP3/IMAP are known, well documented and quite old protocols; nevertheless I'm sure that Apple test Mail against many commonly used server packages. Problems do occur, for instance Snow Leopard supposedly supports Exchange 'out of the box', but I can crash Mail hard by pointing it at my work's Exchange server, and I have no idea why.
Of the top of my head I cant even think of any other music store but itunes.
I'm a pretty shameless Apple fan, but even I've used Amazon. Unprotected MP3s work in everything... Granted, they only sell like 10% of the music downloads sold, but I still think that the "average person" might be aware of them, if by "average person" you mean people making online music purchases.
Also, you have it backwards... the iTunes music store is the loss-leader. They make a handsome margin on the iPods.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well, you could argue that Apple is using its monopoly on the music store side (iTunes) to push its hardware (ipods and iphone). ( Not that I believe you will be succesful in arguing this position, but I think that would be the premise here)
Zune software wont sync your ipod, but Apple does not even try to make their iPod works with it, and Microsoft did not do anything to prohibit apple from doing so, whereas Palm really tried to make it work, and Apply really did something to prohibit it. So your comparison is moot.
There is a big difference i think between:
1- NOT implementing something to make it work
2- implementing something to make it NOT work
iTunes is there to manage the iPod and iPhone.
Thats totally non true. The main function of iTunes is to organize your music and buy music/videos from the store.
They have plenty of competitors both in terms of the hardware and music store.
Yet they take express measure to make sure that hardware competitors cannot access their music store in a easy way.
If iTunes somehow prevented you from using your third party music player at all
They purposedly disabled a feature of the palm pre that enable the palm pre to work with the dominant music store. You dont need to prevent then to work "at all" to be abusing your position. Disabling a feature is probably enough to qualify.
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.
You realize that the main reason they provide the iTunes Software for zero cost, is that they intend to make money on the music you buy from the store ?
And you do realize that there are no easy way to transfer music or videos from iTunes to any other devices than an Apple one ?
I'll give you the Palm only syncs with Palm devices (I've never had one so I don't know), but Firefox - actually works with Netscape plugins as well - not just Firefox plugins, also you can download and use 3rd party Word dictionaries (search google - plenty out there). Firefox also doesn't have special api's only Firefox inc. can access - unlike itunes.
Also Microsoft does have a fully documented interface to sync with Exchange/Outlook and Office - one of the reasons the iphone works so well with it ironically, because Apple certainly doesn't allow access to there tools.
The conflict seems fairly clear: Palm wants to provide the smooth iTunes experience with the Pre that you get with the iPod and iPhone. This means you don't have to install extra software, and the device to sync shows up directly inside iTunes. Apple don't want this to work; they want to make sure that for anybody that already have an iTunes library (e.g, most Mac users, prior iPod users) the experience with other players is less smooth than the experience with iPod/iPhone.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.