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?"

Comments

I remember

[ShakaUVM]

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.

Re:I remember

[RedK]

The fact is compatiblity is already present. Apple allows 3rd parties to sync the iTunes library to their devices and it does it in a documented and supported way. Palm is just deciding to ignore all this functionality and they are breaking the USB spec to do it, just so they can save a few bucks. Now it has gone as far as the USB-IF commenting that Palm is breaking their license agreement (or contract), which in and of itself is illegal. Next step is probably to revoke their license to use and display the USB name and logo on their product's marketing material.

Re:I remember

[Idbar]

You're right, proof of that is that IE and Safari still add the string Mozilla to their User-Agents.

If that ensures compatibility, of Palm's products, I guess they are making the effort to keep their customers happy (even though iTunes, at least for Windows, is the worst piece of software ever).

Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le

[matt4077]

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.

USB, people ... USB

[gordguide]

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.

Re:USB, people ... USB

[girlintraining]

Please read the letter USBIF wrote to Palm -- they *expressly* stated that usage of the VID/PID in this manner is a supported and expected function of the USB standard. They are using their VID/PID exactly in the way it was intended for.

It wasn't before iTunes 8.2.1 was released. First it was allowed, then Apple tied the software to the vendor ID, so Palm responded by saying "Hey, I got a better idea: How about you f--- off?" and emulated the vendor ID. To hell with the USB-IF! I applaud Palm for standing up to this: Technology should interoperate as best as it can with other technology, on the simple basis that it's cheaper to not redesign the wheel -- don't engineer what you can just buy is a mantra in most engineering communities, until you get to IT where this kind of anti-social behavior is encouraged. If they don't want to test everything, then fine! Put it in the fine print. The vendorID can then be used for diagnostic purposes as it should -- "Well, we don't support that configuration. Sorry." There's a big difference between departing from interoperability or not testing it because of expense as opposed to intentionally making something not interoperable.

This is a malaise of our profession and we should support every individual, group, and company that tries to get away from it.

Re:USB, people ... USB

[thefinite]

Good grief. Educate yourself. There have been dozens of comments already pointing out that Apple provides a simple way to access its iTunes library that is free to third-party developers. RIM uses this method for its Blackberry devices.

Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.

Re:USB, people ... USB

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Is that really a problem? If the offshore products are shoddy, people won't use them. If they work well enough, then they work well enough. This isn't about selling the Palm as an Apple iPod.. it's about leveraging the capability of the user's existing software. Palm is not being being advertised as an Apple iPod. Palm is not recommending people complain to Apple about problems with the device, and Apple has no requirement to support it. This isn't about a small no-name company trying to sell an Apell EyePod, after all.

I personally don't see this as any different than a browser spoofing its ID as IE or Firefox to make webpages display right/better, a mouse spoofing its ID to be "Logitech compatible", or Linux spoofing its ID so BIOSs will provide the proper functionality. Obviously iTunes is disabling functionality simply because the the vendor/device ID don't match certain blessed numbers, otherwise Palm would not need to be doing this. All Palm is doing is spoofing those numbers so iTunes won't disable that functionality, and they apparently do enough testing to make sure their product works as advertised.

Apple may not be a monopoly, and this may not run afoul of anti-trust laws, but it reeks of monopolistic (new word?) behavior. Palm's products are functional, and Apple is purposely trying to make them non-functional, for no valid reason.

Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le

[Cyberllama]

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.

Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le

[Bruce Perens]

You're welcome to think what you want, but the fact is that if you have to break a standard to be compatible, no law prevents you from doing so and ethics say you should. If a contract is used to keep you from being compatible, you can probably both overturn the contract and win damages.

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.