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?"
I don't get why so many people who are against action like this keep buying Apple products. Of the people who are going to respond to this, I know that a large portion of them will have a MacBook, a larger portion will have an iPhone, and an even larger portion will have an iPod.
If you dislike their business behavior, do your duty as a responsible consumer and don't buy from them.
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.
Also, the argument that Apple needs to break compatibility in order to protect itself is complete bullshit. If my Palm doesn't sync with iTunes, I'm going to bitch about it to Palm. Nobody expects iTunes to work.
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...
iTunes already extends functionality for 3rd parties. Blackberry have iTunes syncing, the proper way, and have had it for quite some time. Ditto for many other 3rd parties. Palm refusing to implement syncing with their device the proper way isn't promoting some kind of compatibility, it's just being lazy. And they are breaking the USB spec to do it, thus introducing non-standard behavior from a device.
Palm isn't doing what it can to provide compatibility, in fact, what they are doing is illegal in that they are breaking their contract with the USB-IF. Contract law is law, and breaking a contract is unlawful, ie illegal.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
I don't think the USB-IF deserves that much blame.
While I appreciate what Palm is trying to do here, USB devices are supposed to identify themselves by the allocated manufacturer number, and it's common in my experience at least to have drivers locate the right device by checking manufacturer and device IDs.
Manufacturers using whatever IDs they like can result in collisions in the namespace, which will result in things like crashing and malfunction sooner or later.
Note also that my mouse uses the Logitech manufacturer ID, though it's a completely standard mouse that works with the standard USB functionality. It doesn't pretend to be made by Apple, or whichever company made the first USB mouse.
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.
Actually, neither is criminal. No law was violated... (IANAL, so just kick me if I'm wrong and I'll go back to my X-Plane).
Palm HAS violated a 'gentlemans agreement' with the USB-IF.
Just because you don't agree with Apples actions, does not make Apples actions criminal.
It seems that you are prioritizing...
Palms money grubbing desire to make a profit off Apples work over...
Apples money grubbing desire to make a profit off Apples work.
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
> 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.
That sounds a lot like the arguments Microsoft used to use. Nobody believed them either. Apple seems to be determined to illustrate the consequences of a failure to benefit from the lessons of history.
Thaddaeus A. Vick, Speaker for the Coyote
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.
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.
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?
Yes, there is, and yes, it's documented and supported, and yes, other 3rd parties are using it right now (Blackberry). iTunes keeps a copy of its database as an XML file which is kept up to date. The files themselves are stored on your hard drive and their location is written to this XML file. Any software can read in this file and then sync to any device it wants. Many 3rd parties are already doing it, be it stand-alone syncing software (doubletwist, The Missing Sync) or vendor provided syncing solutions (Blackberry's media desktop).
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
IANAL *BUT* I do believe that Palm can legally do whatever they like with the USB-compatible ports but what they might be doing wrong is continuing to call the port USB. to be USB to must meet the specs, and palm is breaking those specs so might be in trademark violation of the USB name and logo. They could just name the port something else and maintain compatability but I done think it is legit to call the port a USB port.
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?
FYI:
Contract law is law, and breaking a contract is unlawful, ie illegal.
We can get into a debate over the proper definition of "illegal", but the way you seem to be using it implies that, in the eyes of the law, breaking a contract is somehow discouraged as a matter of public policy. It isn't. Yes, the party you've contracted with can sue you if you breach, but the law actually goes to some lengths to permit breaches of contract to the extent that they promote economic efficiency.
From Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Nowhere is the confusion between moral and legal ideas more manifest than in the law of contract...The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it - and nothing else.
caritj.org
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
This is a Pre telling a competitors service that it is an iPhone. Is that legal?
No more legal than faking a MS Internet Explorer User agent string, to visit a website that displays broken pages to certain browsers.
(Once upon a time, it was necessary to fake user agent to visit certain MS web sites, if you were using particular browsers)
I do believe that Palm can legally do whatever they like with the USB-compatible ports but what they might be doing wrong is continuing to call the port USB.
Unless USB-IF ties the USB patent license to the USB logo license.
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??
Please guys, mod him down for not knowing what he is talking about.
The iTunes database is available in plain straightforward XML format. On a Macintosh, you can read that database with two lines of code and get either an NSDictionary* or a CFDictionaryRef; the code for CFDictionaryRef is part of Core Foundation and open sourced. That database contains _everything_ about your iTunes Library. The music files are plain MP3 or AAC files. Apple wrote software that can sync the iTunes Library to Apple hardware, Palm can do the same for their own hardware.
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
He means for other devices to sync with iTunes music libraries, which other devices can do by reading the plaintext iTunes XML database. You are confusing that with Apple's attempts to stop people using software other than iTunes to sync iPods.
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.
One difference: with Ethernet, duplication of MAC addresses causes a malfunction of the network itself. Prefixes are assigned to companies for a technical purpose: to insure no two companies ever manufacture cards that share an address. The USB vendor ID isn't used for addressing, so as long as the device correctly implements the capabilities it advertises itself as implementing (which aren't tied to vendor ID) there should be no hardware-level malfunctions. Apple's trying to use the vendor ID merely to block sync with devices that would otherwise be technically perfectly capable of correctly syncing with iTunes. IMO it's Apple's right to try that, but nobody else is obliged to go along with them.
I'd note that vendor impersonation has a long history. Microsoft themselves do it, Internet Explorer to this day claims to be Mozilla in it's user-agent string, and this was done with the deliberate intention of fooling Web servers into thinking it was actually Netscape.
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.
One way for Palm is to have the USB id configurable by the user, which means that the user can change to the Apple ID at will to circumvent any lock-down by Apple.
That way Palm is conforms to the USB requirements and the users can be happy.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Palm is doing what is necessary to provide compatibility. If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that, and to sue Apple and USB-IF if they continue the cat-and-mouse game.
Probably this will eventually get to court, and Apple will be forced to extend itunes interoperability to other manufacturers.
I have not seen a more clueless post in recent memory. I would have thought that someone of your stature would have a better understanding of what is involved here. Palm is breaking the USB standard. There will probably be a lawsuit but Palm may end up facing fines and/or lose the ability to USB logos on their devices. They are in violation of the USB IF rules. They are not only using Apple's Vendor ID but also an Apple specific device ID. Device IDs are not necessarily unique under the USB spec so if a device need drivers to support specific features of the device, the OS will use a combination of the Device ID and Vendor ID to load the correct driver. If devices begin spoofing IDs like this, the entire schema for identification of USB devices will be broken.
Get back to us when you decide to leave the airy fairly land of Open Source/Academia and join the real world which is comprised of corporations with budget constraints and shrinking revenue streams. Some of us have to actually work hard for a living.
Apple provides a windows API for writing iTunes plugins and a similar API for OS X. They also provide the iTunes library in XML format which any third party developer can use to sync media from the library to their device. RIM makes use of this XML document to facilitate media syncing in their windows and mac Blackberry desktop applications and Palm could have done the same with the Palm pre.
It would be a trivial matter to write a syncing agent using the Library XML and I could probably write one in a few days.
Not only is palm using iTunes to sync media from the library but they are also syncing contacts and photos by piggy backing on the syncing services Apple built into windows/os x for syncing the iPhone and iPod touch. That goes beyond trying to just access media from iTunes.
If you really are the famous Bruce Perens, explain to me why Palm should be allowed to piggy back on Apple's work for syncing windows pictures and contacts. Would you support non-GPL software piggy backing on GPL'd software in the same way on linux or would you have a double standard on that issue? Are you telling us that you would attach a GPL violator but defend someone who is violating their license agreement with the USB IF?
I sincerely hope that you are not actually Bruce Perens and that someone has hacked your account because if that is not the case, you have become an embarrassment to the OSS movement much like RMS has become.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
But again, Apple does offer interoperability, in a documented and supported way.
In a second class, highly crippled way. There is no Sync capability. No playlist support.
The fact that they can not prevent you from drag-and-drop using your computer's operating system hardly constitutes a level playing field.
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.
There are many music download and music access services available. Just go elsewhere. Like so many "firsts" on the Net - e.g. eBay, Yahoo, etc. - iTunes seems old in the tooth. Couple that with egregious DRM policies and attempts to choke interoperability. Why bother. I like Apple products, but who really needs iTunes for music. Other than as a software platform for playback, I could care less about the iTunes music store. Try these: http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/b?ie=UTF8&node=163856011 http://pandora.com/ http://www.emusic.com/ http://www.slacker.com/ http://www.napster.com/ http://music.myspace.com/ www.youtube.com http://www.rhapsody.com/home.html http://www.walmart.com/music http://www.last.fm/ http://social.zune.net/music/ http://www.seeqpod.com/
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.
Apple is complaining because it signed a contract with the USB IF and paid a great deal of money/legal expense/time/hoop jumping to obtain a USB vendor ID: a unique identifier for their company, assured by the USB IF that any device that reports this little code is an Apple product.
They're not complaining about competition. They even offer a way to use third party music players sync and work with iTunes - they just don't include in the instructions and API "copy our vendor ID and pretend to be an iPod".
I certainly agree that Apple is trying to use its dominance to gain footholds in other industries.
However, it is false to say that you cannot sync a music file purchased from itunes to another device. ITMS files are no longer DRMd. You can use any music player or music library managing software you like. What you cannot do is use itunes to sync it.
Small distinctions like this are worth noting
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.
The iTunes software does treat non-Apple devices differently. It ignores them. Apple doesn't want to support other hardware with their syncing software, and aren't legally required to do so.
What they did instead was provide an API so anyone can access the media in your iTunes library. Plenty of other devices are able to access that library using the documented method, including the PS3 and Xbox 360 (3rd party software broadcasts your library through a UPnP server).
So there is more than one reason Palm "has" to resort to USB ID spoofing. And that additional reason is their laziness and cheapness about developing their own syncing software as stated above. This has been a long-standing problem with Palm devices. They gave up producing Mac sync software in particular from almost day one of their history, necessitating the development of third party tools such as "The Missing Sync for Palm".
Simliar to the reasoning above, you might say that Palm was in violation of anti-trust, since they had the most popular PDA of the time, and didn't support non-Windows platforms, forcing Apple and Linux users to reverse engineer the device's protocol and file structure.
"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.
The actual legal standard for a monopoly is the ability to set prices without regard to the offerings of competitors. MS was ruled a monopoly on PC OSes because they could set the price of Windows at several hundred dollars (retail) and ~$50.00 for OEMs even though their competition, (linux, the various open source BSDs, etc.) cost zero dollars.
In order for Apple to be ruled a monopoly in the digital music player market, they would need to be proven to have the ability to set the prices for ipods without regard for the price of other music players. This would be a very tough sell in a court of law.
The argument that iTunes has any sort of monopoly would be even tougher because it is free, and the legal definition relates to *inflated* price of the supposed monopoly holder's offering.
The argument that the iTunes music store is any sort of monopoly would similarly have to rely on Apple being able to price their song offings at an exorbitantly high level. Again this would be a very tough sell.
So, from an anti-trust perspective, it would be very hard for Palm or anyone else to argue that Apple is a monopoly.
Paul may (or may not) have a legal argument for using Apple's vendor ID from the perspective of interoperability, but the monopoly argument is not very likely to fly for the simple reason that Apple has real competitors in all these areas. These competitors' products are not prices so wildly below Apple's that Apple could be considered a legal monopoly in any of these three areas (digital music player, pc software for organizing/playing/purchasing digital music, online sales of digital music).
Apple is just winning because their offerings are preferred by the buying public, not because they've got any sort of lock-in strangle hold on the market.
Answer: they don't, because iTunes just overwrites the XML file. Apple devices sync back, and so do Palm devices when Apple isn't getting in the way.
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.
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So, in airy fairly land of Open Source/Academia, standards are eschewed in favor of pragmatism, while Corporate America, with shrinking revenue streams, is obsessed about the standard?
A few days, in your spare time, off the books? Or would you rather just hack your Vendor/Device ID in five seconds to get it working? Which is cheaper?
How dare those bastards take advantage of extant libraries or programs. Next thing you know, they'll be compiling against Windows libraries and using Internet Explorer to display things.
Non-GPL software piggy backs on GPL software all the time. A large part of the web servers runs on GPL software, and every proprietary web browser is piggy backing on them. It's not sufficient to "piggy back" some software to violate copyright/trademark/whatever. If it were, the only way you could run software is if everything on the system was copyrighted by one entity.
Now, as for this being a USB IF violation, that's an actually valid point. But, to that end, if Palm is stripped of being able to advertise USB devices, so should Apple since clearly Apple's Vendor/Device pairing has nothing to do with iPhone specific quirks. No, Apple intentionally broke working software by misusing the USB specification.
RMS is leader of the Free Software movement. The OSS movement sprung about precisely because there were people interested in Open Software who didn't want to be associated with Free Software ideology; ie, they were more interested in pragmatism than "[Free Software]/Academia" ideology. It's funny you're actually argue for RMS's position and chastising Perens for being more OSS movement oriented.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
You might want to read the referenced article. It states "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."
Your quote is very easy to misunderstand, whether that is intentionally, I don't know. I'll spell it out a bit clearer:
Palm has complained to the USB Implementers Forum. Palm claims that Apple prevents the Pre from syncing with iTunes (which we know is true). Palm also claims that by doing so, Apple is violating its USB-IF Membership Agreement. The USB Implementers Forum has finally responded to Palm's complaint.
What you haven't quoted is what the article further said: The USB IF's answer was that Palm is violating _its_ membership agreement by shipping hardware that pretends to be an iPod made by Apple.
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.
Actually, iTunes has built in support for a limited number of 3rd party hardware devices. Some of that is legacy support carried over from the old SoundJam app that iTunes evolved from. (I have an old Rio 500 which used SoundJam for sync, and later iTunes.)
There are also some phones other than the iPhone hat legitimately sync with iTunes, such as the Moto ROKR and SLVR. (I own a SLVR also.)
Apple may not be legally required to support other devices with iTunes, but they have in the past and they could probably be convinced to do so in the future. It might cost some money, but I'm sure an arrangement could be made.
Totally agreed that Palm is being lazy and cheap by not writing their own sync software, or paying for someone else's product.
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.
Apple may also be seen as a monopoly - I think Palm has a good chance of making that point in court, going by the market share, and the size of the secondary market of various iPod-specific devices.
Bruce Perens.
Reading the XML file doesn't support playlists? Really?
There sure is lots of information under the following headings in my XML file for some reason (brackets have been altered to get past the HTML tag filter):
(key)Playlists(/key) ...
(array)
(dict)
(key)Name(/key)(string)Library(/string)
(key)Master(/key)(true/)
(key)Playlist ID(/key)(integer)8378(/integer)
(key)Playlist Persistent ID(/key)(string)F71331C9D57061AB(/string)
(key)Visible(/key)(false/)
(key)All Items(/key)(true/)
(key)Playlist Items(/key)
Please be quiet if you don't know what you are talking about. There really is no excuse for palm being too lazy or incompetent to develop their own syncing software.
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
What a load of BS. Apple do not have a monopoly on portable music players or music downloads by any stretch. You can even use iTunes to download DRM-free songs and use them on a non-Apple music player, imagine that!
The amount of insane zealotry in some posts is just unbelievable.
It also saves Pre owners from having to install yet more software that constantly runs in the background, needlessly tying up CPU and RAM.
and this requires also that you must run their sync software in the background.
Making your competitors run extra software means there isn't an even playing field.
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.
If you want to read the iTunes library, with playlists and all other useful details, use the XML file.
On a Mac: If you want to make changes to the iTunes library, use AppleScript to send the changes to iTunes.
On a PC, there is a COM interface to iTunes (see http://developer.apple.com/sdk/)
Realistically, few care about syncing changes back to iTunes. You can do it, but the real usefulness is getting the songs onto the music device.
If you want to sync contacts, addresses, etc from your device, there is a set of APIs from Apple to do this. iTunes is a bit muddier, but still possible to sync in both directions on a Mac, and most likely on a PC.
Palm are making themselves dependant upon another vendor, a competitor no less, which is poor business sense. It's completely unnecessary, and others are doing this without fuss (see RIM).
If Apple sues Palm, or if they start a proxy war through the USB-IF
So how is it a "Proxy war" to have a standards body uphold the standards they publish?
Again, this is not about Apple. It's about the meaning of USB-IF, at all, in any context. Do you honestly think it would be a good thing for the whole USB standard to crumble like a house of cards, just to spite your hated Apple? The ironic thing is, it doesn't even end up hurting Apple - just every device that uses USB, anywhere.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You really don't understand what a monopoly is do you?
the USB IF acts to maintain the USB standard - and it features vendor ID codes that are assured (by the specification) to be unique to each individual vendor who uses them.
They *must* act to prevent other companies from just deciding to use a Vendor ID *that does not belong to them* (read: have not licenced to use because the ID has been licenced by someone else, namely Apple).
How on earth did this get +1 informative?
The sole reason the USB IF exists in the first place is to prevent (or correct) issues like this arising, when one company breaks the spec for their own ends.
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.