Slashdot Mirror
Palm Ignores USB-IF Warning, Restores iTunes Sync
An anonymous reader writes "Palm's cat and mouse game with Apple continues. Ignoring the warning from the USB Implementers Forum, with its WebOS 1.2.1 release this morning Palm has restored iTunes media synchronization in its new Pre smartphone — and gone so far as to extend sync to photos. And, according to Digital Daily, it has done this, once again, by using Apple's USB vendor ID. Does the USB-IF have any recourse here? Does Apple?"
No where did you say why Apple has to force iTunes to be compatible with third party devices. Anti trust is not a reason because Apple is not a monopoly.
So two questions I have are, does Palm not have sync software of their own for the Pre, and what is the legal stance on one product impersonating another in this context. This isn't the same as a clone. This is a Pre telling a competitors service that it is an iPhone. Is that legal?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Apple, arguably, is a monopoly in the mp3 player space.
Please stop whining about what apple is doing. If you don't like it, don't use their proprietary software.
Freedom is feature, choose it.
Really ? Because last time I went into Best buy, it seemed like I could buy dozens of devices by dozens of manufacturers, and each was competing on price, features and look. And with any of those devices, it seemed like I could buy online music from dozens of sources or just buy music from Best Buy on CD which I could convert and use on those devices.
So where is Apple lacking competition in this space exactly ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Apple's concern is that the Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod and people have been calling them about problems with the Pre.
That's both a trademark violation and annoying. Imagine how pissed Microsoft would be if a device maker had their device show up as a Zune to the Zune software and they kept getting support calls about some 3rd party device.
Yeah, yeah, it is funny that Apple is getting their first taste of how irritating it is to be the big bad guy, but it's not really fair because unlike Microsoft, they go out of their way to do things like maintain a plain text XML version of their library for interoperability. Sure, a plugin architecture would be better, but let's be honest, does iTunes really need more bloat? The program is already a war crime on Windows and it's getting that way on Mac OS too.
While I share your opinion that it's Apple's right to block Palm, I just want to mention that, contrary to traditional slashdot wisdom, antitrust law does not require a monopoly. It also prohibits so-called "unfair business practices". Another case where no real monopoly is needed is multi-company collusion, though I admit that such conduct has the effect of a de facto monopoly. It's a fair question to debate the morality of blocking interoperatability. I like Apple, and it seems wrong for Palm to get a free ride on Apple's work, but where would the PC world be without interoperatability and standards? Why not allow printer manufactures to block third-party ink and toner suppliers? It's not easy, and anyone with too firm an opinion on this has probably not thought it through.
Fleur de Sel
Microsoft's not a monopoly either, but they were still accused of monopolistic practices and forced by the EU to open their Windows setup to multiple browsers (the "choose your browser" install popup). If Apple continues down this path, considering the iStore and iTunes represent 85% of all online music sales, then they too will be forced to open-up their software by the EU or the US DOJ.
So:
Is there a method Palm can use to import my iStore-purchased music into their devices, and not break the law or USB-IF rules?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
But again, Apple does offer interoperability, in a documented and supported way. Palm not using said interop mechanisms doesn't mean they don't exist. Going so far as to break the USB spec to not use the proper and documented way is getting even more ridiculous and shows that they will stoop to any low to save a buck.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
I think the argument is that they aren't really needing to do extra work to support the Pre. The extra work they're doing is deliberately un-supporting Palm, which achieves nothing other than annoying the customers of their competition. The real question is why bother with emulating an iPod at all, surely there's a better way for Palm to do this. There must be some quite compelling reason to go with this protocol over some other solution.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing illegal about the Pre telling iTunes it's an iPod. After all, Internet Explorer claims to be Mozilla, and Google Chrome claims to be Chrome, Safari, AND Mozilla! Now if iTunes started issuing firmware hash challenges to iPods, Palm would be stuck - to answer the challenges they'd have to ship a copy of the iTunes firmware which other than being very large would also be illegal. But I guess Apple can't easily update every iPod to support that retroactively.
Really, I've really got to wonder what Apples long term strategy is here. The constant stream of stories like this have to be causing recruitment issues if nothing else. They're already being questioned by the US Govt over the Google Voice issue and now they're apparently issuing updates intended only to break interop? Despite many rumors that is something I don't recall Microsoft ever doing.
No where did you say why Apple has to force iTunes to be compatible with third party devices. Anti trust is not a reason because Apple is not a monopoly.
Apple regularly boast they're #1 and the dominant supply of digital music, to the media, to the market and to consumers. They are the monopoly when it comes to portable music players and purchases, at least in the US. Now they're abusing it. All they need to do is say "We don't support sync from other devices". Deliberately breaking what works is them abusing their monopolist position. Apple are wasting shareholder's money going out of their way to break sync. Antitrust will follow, they have been the new MS for two or three years now. Only fanbois like you seem oblivious to it. Expect them to be fighting in court for a number of years with 3 years. Fast forward 10 years, apple will be old hat and google will be the next under the radar.
Or just write your own damn sync software that can read off the iTunes library as well as other sources! This isn't rocket science. Then their much touted feature goes from "clever and constantly breaking cat-and-mouse hack" to supported by Apple.
Reading the library is dead simple. It's plain XML that has been extended gracefully but not fundamentally changed in years. It's also well-documented.
You're missing the point. Palm isn't (I don't think?) trying to claim that Apple is required to remain compatible with third-party devices. Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices for the sole purpose of remaining the only company with a device that can sync with your software.
Look, it's one thing to unintentionally break functionality due to a change your API in order to offer new features or functionality, and because you don't want to spend your resources supporting third-party devices. But it's quite another to intentionally break them just because you don't want them to use your software.
Ubiquitous car analogy: You buy a Honda Civic and your alternator breaks. Joe's Alternators has a third-party alternator that will work fine and is cheaper/has better features/whatever, but the next time you take your car in for service, they update your vehicles firmware, and now the alternator won't work. If Honda accidentally disabled the alternator because all of their new alternators have been updated to a tighter spec, hey; that's life. But does Honda have the right to disable all third-party alternators just because they want you to buy *their* alternator? Isn't that the very definition of anti-competitive?
So you're saying Apple has more market share thanks to a better product ? Isn't that how competition works ?
But more to the point, monopolies aren't just about market share, they are about a control position in a market. If tomorrow Apple decided to try and lock out other vendors, consumers have dozens of alternatives they can use and Apple will just be a bad memory.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
If apple does offer "interoperability, in a documented and supported way" why does palm (And Linux) have to reverse-enginer the protocol that Apple use??
Fair use is what that was called. It is still on the books by the way.
The consumer has certain rights. They paid for the music and apple cannot deny them access to it. Palm is providing an interface and should not have to pay apple for that. Maybe apple has some fancy API that they could license but they would have to pay for that. if they can do it without paying then why wouldnt they? Keep in mind that the consumer who has fair use rights to the media is the one who is using the service, palm provides the interface.
So you're saying Apple has more market share thanks to a better product ? Isn't that how competition works ?
Actually I was saying that the iPod is an overpriced, shiny toy with fewer features than many of its competitors. The iPod just has that je ne sais quoi/popular cool factor that makes people want it, not because it's better on features or price.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
That's just it: They're issuing updates to explicitly BREAK interoperability. On two markets they have a 'monopoly' similar to MS with windows - portable MP3 players and online music downloads. That stinks of unfair or anti-competitive business practices and plenty of other random legal terms.
What if MS decided that all windows programs needed to be signed and licensed and sold through an app store they controlled?
I'm sure this will wind up in court with lots of bickering, motions, friend-of-the-court nonsense, appeals and so on. In reality we'd do better to just let the kids duke it out on the playground and see what happens. Would be even funnier if Apple implemented a hash check and palm found a collision to match it without 'stealing' code :)
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Matters may have been quite different if Windows checked the mouse's Vendor ID and refused to activate by default a standard mouse or keyboard with a vendor's ID other than Microsoft's.
Or if the Phoenix or Asus BIOS image was designed to only recognize keyboard or mice with a certain vendor id.
Yes, the third party KB and Mouse vendors could have eventually developed their own software (software not popular or included by default as most users' setups), but it would be so inconvenient to computer users, that the manufacturer would be likely to spoof Microsoft's ID.
Banning hardware for interoperating based on Vendor ID, when there is no technical reason for it (e.g. the profile is the same, the same 'standard' mouse/kb driver without the arbitrary restriction is just fine for the other vendor.). Is a sure path to seeing vendors want to spoof each other.
The USB-IF and Apple are dragging themselves into a trap. Palm is just the first high-profile vendor to be doing this. You can be sure there will be other devices doing the same, eventually.
I see most comments here are taking the bait and going with what (I'm sure) Palm wants the debate to centre around.
In no particular order, and not to single anyone out, but just to illustrate: ... Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging their own software to look for specific string, and if found cause applications to fail. ..." ... Or take the easy way, and just introduce proprietary extensions to the protocol, that won't be revealed to third parties. ..." ... I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?) ..."
"
"
"
I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons.
And so on ...
This is not reverse-engineering. This is not circumventing proprietary extensions. This is not hiding code and hunting for it within applications.
This is a Hardware Device ID assigned by the organization that licenses a technology and insures those who use that technology do so in a way that won't, for example, cause a fire, since USB carries power.
The ID is not secret. You can get the hardware device ID of every manufacturer's product from a number of sources, including doing a Properties/Get Info on all the hardware connected to your computer. Software on your device can poll the 3rd party device for the ID string, to, say, load the right driver, or whatever.
" ... Apple's concern is that the Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod and people have been calling them about problems with the Pre. ..."
A post that is much closer to the point. But, we can take it further than that. That post was an example of what could go wrong, with everyone who supports USB. Aside from the fact that this is the highly charged Apple/iTunes/iPod vs The World spin, it's really not about Apple at all.
Many posters have commented (quoted above) about how Palm vs iTunes could play out. And, I'm sure, some of that will come about sooner or later; Palm seems intent on forcing it along with more than a few others. Whatever.
But, it's the method Palm chose that is the real problem. The USB Implementers Forum sees this as the wedge that breaks USB compatibility everywhere. If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Some of that may already be going on, but to have a member of the Forum thumb their nose at the terms of those who insure USB "just works"?
Which is why the USBIF will not let Palm get away with this for much longer.
The questions then becomes what do the USBIF do, and why is Palm insisting on taking this road instead of another? It has as much potential to harm Palm, as a hardware vendor, as anyone else, including Apple.
You are largely correct, that monopoly is NOT the issue here.
Dominant market position is. So is using Dominant Market position in one industry to achieve dominance in another.
This is illegal in the US.
Apple owns 70+% of online music sales world wide. They have long since passed the threshold where regulation is appropriate. They should either open the iTunes store to other software, or open syncing to other devices with the same facility and elegance as their own devices.
As for your statement:
I like Apple, and it seems wrong for Palm to get a free ride on Apple's work
I will refer you to the huge overwhelming percentage of Apple OS software that is "borrowed" from open source.
Who is getting a free ride?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I have to agree. There would be only one reason for Palm to need to resort to USB ID spoofing. That would be because iTunes treats non-Apple devices differently and probably quite poorly. So in order to get the level of functionality out of iTunes, Palm has to "lie" to iTunes about what it is.
We have seen similar behavior from other vendors and software makers in the past, but quite notably in instant messenger clients and servers, web browsers and in Windows networking.
there is nothing "illegal" about breaking contracts. you just have to pay restitution if you breach a contract.
Please engage your brain - you can't force anyone to pay restitution unless there's legal recourse to apply such force. C'mon, exactly how do you think this process works without the force of law - company A is supposed to send its goons over to "visit" company B's boss?
In a nearby city here in Washington state, we just had a judge order that city's teachers to go back to work because they were striking and their contract contained a no strike clause. If breaking the contract wasn't illegal, why was a judge involved?
#DeleteChrome
This is very true. I own an iPhone because Safari is pretty much the best mobile browser in a phone out there and because the app store is fantastic. As a music/video player though? It's WAY Behind the curve. It's not even funny. Apple makes players that are low on features and high on price. Here's some glaring omissions that pretty much every competitor has in players that have half the cost:
1) No transcoding. These days, most players will just play DivX natively. Not only do you have to transcode every file for the Iphone/Ipod touch/etc --- but apple doesn't even give you the software for it. Seroiusly. iTunes does not support transcoding from any of the most common internet video codecs/formats. About all it can convert on its own is mpeg/uncompressed avi/quicktime into h.264. This is ridiculous. Not only are they lacking in key functionality, but they force you to find third party software to overcome this deficit.
2) Hard drive mode support. Almost every other player lets you just view your video/mp3 files on the device as a hard drive and copy files back and forth as you see fit without using ANY software other than your operating system. You want to sync your files? Use iTunes. Nevermind that it's one of the buggiest/bloated/unintuitive/god awful pieces of software I've ever used. You're stuck with it.
3) Audio codecs. Apple players don't even support half of the codecs that other players support. Again, this is part of their strategy to lock you into the "itunes" universe.
I could rant for days, but I won't. The iPod touch is a great device, for separate reasons. But Apple does not make good mp3 players. They make some aesthetically pleasing, but very expensive ones and that's just about the nicest thing you can say about them. While my iPhone does frustrate me as a media player, it's "good enough" that I don't bother owning another player. But believe me, if I only wanted a music player, Apple wouldn't even be considered for a second -- and yet somehow, even excluding the iPod touch, they dominate that market. It's not because of superior products.
They established any early monopoly when they bought all pretty much all the 1.5inch hard drives and were, as a direct result, the only company making a small-form factor high-storage mp3 player at the time. Nobody else could offer the same amount of storage without making the player significantly larger. Even though their player was inferior in any number of other ways, this sold ipods. It got Apple a monopoly they still enjoy today, and believe me, they aren't "playing nice" in their efforts to keep it. They're not above using anti-competitive (though perhaps still legal, IANAL) tactics in order keep that monopoly. This whole Pre/iTunes syncing affair is merely one of them.
BlackBerry just released their desktop software for the Mac, which syncs with iTunes.
Mark/Space produce software which syncs Windows CE devices, Palm devices (including the Pre!) and Android devices with the iTunes library.
Mark/Space and BlackBerry use the supported APIs, so they haven't had any problems with Apple disallowing their sync functionality. (Mark/Space's products have been sold for years now.) Palm are just being lazy, because they don't want to have to write and support their own sync code.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
What license? Blackberry pay no license, they just sync with iTunes in the proper manner, by reading and writing the iTunes XML file. Of course, this requires that they write their own sync software.
Total rubbish.
Palm has no legal right to do anything of the sort. They are in breach of contract with the USB-IF by using Apple's vendor ID but that's not illegal (in so far as the act itself isn't, and breach of contract between two entities is not a crime).
Apple has absolutely no obligation to provide third party compatibility with iTunes for third party devices - they do offer an API that allows you to use third party devices with iTunes, but Palm has chosen not to go that route. Apple also does not have a monopoly on the music and cellphone market, and they don't have a monopoly on jukebox music software (that they give away for free I might add) or even online music stores (not that the iTMS has anything to do with this dispute, unless you choose to buy songs on there, and even then you can easily [using iTunes] move them into a format that will work with any music player).
iTunes exists to support iPods and iPhones. They have absolutely no obligation to make it play nice with third party players - they give it away for free after all, and it is very clear what it is designed to do.
Apple is very clear about what it offers up front - if you don;t want to be part of the vertically integrated experience, with all of the benefits and downsides that come with it, then you are free to use other software and hardware.
What's not ok is if you're Palm and you say "well, we want to use iTunes, an app given away by Apple for free, to sync music and photos with the Pre, and we're going to do that by spoofing Apple's purchased and contractually protected USB vendor ID" - are you really surprised Apple is stopping this?
Hint: it is not illegal for them to do so, nor is it illegal for Palm to do what they are doing. They are breaching their contract with the USB IF though, which is a matter between Palm and the USB IF.
There is also no anti trust issue here.
They didn't have to; they did it the wrong way. Other programs that synchronize media using iTunes, such as Nokia Multimedia Transfer and Salling Media Sync, synchronize iTunes media with devices the supported way, which is to read the iTunes library XML file and use that to do the synchronization. The Palm people decided not to do their own sync engine and to fake the appearance of an iPod, which is not the supported way of doing this.
They do have a way to access the music, and it doesn't even require a fee or an API. The user's iTunes library is stored in a plain text XML file with an obvious schema. It includes all the information about the user's library and the physical location of the files. iTunes itself doesn't even use this file; it's created and maintained solely for the use of third party applications. This is how RIM and other vendors offer iTunes syncing: their own sync application parses the XML file and then syncs the songs between the device and the computer. Palm simply doesn't want to bother writing their own sync application. They'd rather hack in to iTunes and use it.
As to fair use, songs bought on the iTunes store are plain jane AACs, and are stored in the user's iTunes folder in a rather obvious manner. By default, this will be ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/artist/album. This is also how songs manually imported in to iTunes are stored if you have iTunes set to manage your music library (on by default, although you're explicitly asked if you want to turn this off the first time you run iTunes). Anyone who wants to can open that folder in Windows Explorer or Finder or whatever and do whatever you want with the files.
Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
Suppose MS introduced a new executable format, and as part of that you had to specify vendor in the executable. However people notice something: If MS or one of their partners are specified as the vendor, the app runs at full speed. If anyone else is specified as the vendor, the app gets slowed down by the OS. So, other companies take to marking their apps as being made by MS, so that they don't run slower.
Would they be wrong to do this? Should MS be allowed to harm their apps on purpose?
This is the same sort of thing Apple is doing. It isn't a case of Apple saying "We don't support 3rd party devices, we aren't going to help make your stuff work." That would be fine. It is a case of them putting in an artificial check for the specific purpose of breaking compatibility with a competitors device.
It's not even code theft. It's reporting to be Apple, using a vendor ID unique code that Apple paid the USB IF for - a code that was assured to be unique to Apple.
No one is breaking the law on either side. Palm is breaking a contract with the USB IF though, and Apple has every right to ensure that devices that report Apple's unique, purchased USB ID on the USB bus are in fact Apple devices.
The analogy I would use is that Palm is forging tickets to a free concert put on by Apple - it's not illegal, and the concert venue has every right to impose more stringent security checks to look more closely for fraudulent tickets.
After all Apple is just about inviting this type of solution.
How exactly is Apple inviting USB spoofing when they already have a fully functional, documented API and plug-in framework to be used for the purpose of syncing 3rd-party devices?
Rabid Apple haters are just as ridiculous and illogical as extreme Apple fanbois; they've just chosen the opposite extreme. Either way, you're throwing good sense out the door in order to pretend the world really is how your suppose it is (either Apple is always evil or Apple can do no wrong).
This forum sure contains a lot of ridiculous and close-minded people for a group that fancies itself to have above-average intellect.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
1) No transcoding. These days, most players will just play DivX natively. Not only do you have to transcode every file for the Iphone/Ipod touch/etc --- but apple doesn't even give you the software for it. Seroiusly. iTunes does not support transcoding from any of the most common internet video codecs/formats. About all it can convert on its own is mpeg/uncompressed avi/quicktime into h.264. This is ridiculous. Not only are they lacking in key functionality, but they force you to find third party software to overcome this deficit.
I guess if you call a codec 3rd party software you are right, anything quicktime can play it can re-encode and other than drm protected windows media files and some old windows codec AVIs i have no problem opening any media file in QuickTime.
2) Hard drive mode support. Almost every other player lets you just view your video/mp3 files on the device as a hard drive and copy files back and forth as you see fit without using ANY software other than your operating system. You want to sync your files? Use iTunes. Nevermind that it's one of the buggiest/bloated/unintuitive/god awful pieces of software I've ever used. You're stuck with it.
Unless you just enable hard drive mode support on the ipod. If you do it shows up as a hard drive just fine. I know it is hard to check a box these days though.
3) Audio codecs. Apple players don't even support half of the codecs that other players support. Again, this is part of their strategy to lock you into the "itunes" universe.
This one I have to give you, but only this one.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
"That would be because iTunes treats non-Apple devices differently and probably quite poorly. So in order to get the level of functionality out of iTunes, Palm has to "lie" to iTunes about what it is."
Isn't it odd that so many other companies have had no difficulty writing their own sync software without spoofing?
-- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
There would be only one reason for Palm to need to resort to USB ID spoofing.
They're so late to the game that they've resorted to cheap hacks to get their product out ASAP, rather than wait and do things properly?
That would be because iTunes treats non-Apple devices differently and probably quite poorly.
RIM have managed. Although, I haven't yet read a review on the latest Blackberry, so if you can tell me what's poor about its iTunes syncing, that would be great. Because otherwise it's just speculation.
"explain to me why Palm should be allowed to piggy back on Apple's work for syncing windows pictures and contacts"
Because they are MY picture and they are MY contacts ; they are neither Apple's nor Palm's. What right does Apple have to say who should have access to MY information? I should not need to maintain a separate database of these simply because I wish to have different vendors for different pieces of software and hardware.
If you have a song you bought on iTunes that is DRM'd, you cannot sync it except through iTunes, which will only connect to Apple hardware.
Well it's a good thing iTMS doesn't sell DRM'ed music any more, then, isn't it? And even if you did have such a file, it wouldn't matter if you could sync it anyhow, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T PLAY.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
They don't have either one. What they do have is a XML-based storage format. Palm would have to write their own syncing software to read/write from this XML format. You would have to have that software running separate from iTunes. It is impossible for Palm to write a plugin for iTunes to allow it to sync with their hardware.
BSD specifically allows the use that NeXT and then Apple put their operating system to. You say "stolen" but that is nothing whatsoever like the truth.
You say Apple give nothing back unless threatened. I point to Darwin, which was open sourced right from the day the public beta was released, and ever since.
You're strong on rhetoric, but very short on substance. That you were modded insightful saddens me, as Slashdot used to be a little more accurate than this.
> If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that
You are factually wrong here. Palm are the only ones that broke the USB spec by sending Apple's vendor ID instead of their own. USB does not connect Pre to iTunes, it connects Pre to OTHER USB DEVICES such as Macs or PC's. Palm has a right to attach to a Mac or a PC, not to iTunes. iTunes itself is not now and has never been a USB device.
Pre can be plugged into Mac or PC and mount as USB mass storage, charge over USB power, and even attach as a USB audio interface or USB mouse if it wants to do that. Nobody is stopping that. However, there is no USB standard for media sync. There's no USB codes to say "I'm a media player with a syncable library." The iPod syncs with iTunes using proprietary commands because they are both part of the same system, not a breeding ground for 3rd parties like Microsoft makes.
Now, maybe there should be a USB standard for media sync. If you think so, you may want to promote that idea. Palm may even want to promote that idea. Apple may even allow USBIF to just standardize what the iPod is already doing, same as MPEG-4 is a standardization of the Apple QuickTime file format, same as the HTML5 canvas tag is a standardization of the Mac OS Dashboard. However, what you're demanding is that Apple create and maintain a 3rd party synchronization scheme without any standardization at all. That's like saying Microsoft should write all the Web standards because IE has 50%+ market share. That is not standardization.
I also have to point out that compatibility is not free. It's incompatibility that is free, and compatibility takes work. The iPod and Mac are both USB-compatible because Apple did the work to make them so, same as Pre required work from Palm to make it USB compatible. They implement the spec and so they can talk to each other using "USB language" and get things done for the user. There are no words for "media sync" in the USB language as yet. They have to be created. It takes fucking work. That work has not been done yet by anyone, least of all Palm. Demanding that we nationalize iTunes is a poor substitute for actual industry co-operation on a media sync standard.
Finally, I have to say that the fact that your little fact-free, law-free, anti-Apple bigotry got a score of 5 on Slashdot says bad things about the technical knowledge of today's Slashdot readers. Truly guys, if you want your Pre to have a particular feature, ASK PALM TO BUILD IT FOR YOU. Do not complain that Apple didn't build it for you. They are not your vendor. They are just a totally uninvolved vendor whose USB ID is being misused. The only action Apple has taken was to improve iTunes' ability to recognize iPods now that another device is pretending to be an iPod.
The last time I messed with an iPod it was not possible to directly copy a music file and play it. I had to use iTunes on windows or MacOS (or a barely working hack on *nix) to copy the file.
Rockbox solved that problem for me, no more bullshit ipod database
USB-IF can't really force companies to use any particular ID if some of the vendors are using the fact of the ID to lock out compatibility. They are really ripe for anti-trust if they persist in trying to do so.
Bruce Perens.
It also saves Pre owners from having to install yet more software that constantly runs in the background, needlessly tying up CPU and RAM.
But again, Apple does offer interoperability, in a documented and supported way.
Bullshit. As the above 20 posters that have gotten +5 ratings have said iTunes will not sync with a non Apple product. Except they wrote it in a iFriendly way to take the heat off Apple and put the blame on Palm which pisses me off.
Yeah Palm could write their own software that uses the library information but they can't use iTunes which is apparently what their customers are demanding.
Bruce. Stop it with the intellectual dishonesty already. Google "parsing iTunes XML" and you will find a treasure trove of code to parse the iTunes XML library. But even without bothering to licence someone else's code, Palm could easily write their own parser. It is dead easy in either Objective C or .NET/Mono. Apple provides full access to the library including playlists through the iTunes Library.xml file. Syncing contacts and pictures are not something that Apple is under any obligation to provide to third parties. It was not originally a feature of iTunes and was only added to support iPods and the iPhone. There are plenty of syncing libraries offered by parties other than Apple to do that on windows and OS X.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Syncing contacts and pictures are not something that Apple is under any obligation to provide to third parties.
Sega v. Accolade. Look it up. I'd say it applies here pretty much directly. IANAL and all that, but the simple truth is that Palm wants to have first-rate compatibility with the Apple platform, iTunes is the way you accomplish that, and using Apple's vendor ID is the way to accomplish that with iTunes. If you really want to argue anything, I think you should argue whether Apple is obligated to provide any connectivity to iTunes at all. (I would argue that they are, but that's a whole different argument. Shall we go there?)
Trusting that Apple won't change the format of the XML file is a non-starter. Apple's not going to break compatibility with un-upgraded devices any time soon, just to spite Pre; that's a classic cutting off the nose kind of situation. Or, if they do, they're dumber than I thought. So I would argue, were I in Palm's shoes, that the only way to really ensure compatibility today and tomorrow is to pretend to be Apple to iTunes. Apple created this situation in just the same way that Sega created theirs; If Palm wants their device supported on OSX to the same extent as the iPhone &c, then they need to pretend to be Apple. That right has been repeatedly upheld. I would not look for Apple to win this battle. If they do, the repercussions for IP law will be devastating.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why should apple provide support for hardware besides it's own?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Personally, I like iTunes. It automatically backs up my iPhone, syncs all of my pictures/calendar/entries/music/etc without having to do anything other than plug it in. Any music in my library with a given star rating or greater is automatically synced, how much easier could it get? It also does a pretty good job of organizing my music folders, so I don't have to do it manually. It can even play through wifi connected speakers quite easily. I've had other MP3 players and for me, dealing with "disk mode" is slow and inefficient. Browsing/ copying/moving/deleting between multiple folder structures takes more effort than a single click to mark music as good while I'm listening on my laptop. I'll admit that I've been frustrated by the lack of formats or automatic transcoding, but I doubt the average person cares as the device will play all of their legitimately and illegally downloaded music. I doubt the average person bothers with FLAC or watches movies on their phone.
iPods became popular because the vast majority of people who aren't overly computer literate find them easier to use as a whole.
Making your competitors run extra software means there isn't an even playing field.
iTunes is a free application for syncing iPods and iPhones. Are you also mad that BlackBerry Media Sync doesn't allow iPods or Palm Pres to sync with it? That the Zune software doesn't allow iPods or Palm Pres to sync with it?
It's so unfair that device manufacturers have to write their own drivers and software for the device...