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).
Use of the USB logo and USB name is trademarked and requires a license. This is more than a gentlemen agreement, it is a contract and is protected under contract law. Breaking a contract is in fact illegal unless provisions are made and respected about for breaking it.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Apple is far from a monopoly though. It's not like they don't have to face healthy competition. And that's even more true in mobile platforms, where they are #3 in market share.
Pay ? It's free. Just read the file ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music Library.xml on a Mac, or the same file under Documents and Settings on Windows. You now have all the information about the iTunes library, including the file locations on your hard drive. From there, it's easy to sync up anything.
So why did Palm not just write software that did this like Blackberry or Windows Mobile does ? Because then they wouldn't be all over the news or because they are lazy or because they want to stick it to Apple. Who knows what they are really thinking.
The XML file is an official, supported way of interface with iTunes. If Apple changes it, it will get documented. And it has been changed over the years, but since it's XML and change mostly involves adding new tags, everything stays backwards compatible. This is a much more robust solution than simply spoofing IDs and hope no one notices.
Every bit as big a monopoly on media players as Microsoft as on desktop operating systems ? Because, if I walk into Bestbuy, I see tons of non-Apple media players. They all work with my content and are very usuable without me changing my habits much. They aren't all the same brand either, and there's big players in the arena (Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Creative, etc..). They also can use music bought on different digital music stores (iTunes, Wal-mart, Amazon, etc..).
Yet, all I see on the Desktop Operating Systems shelves is Windows Vista. There might be a copy of OS X somewhere in some Apple specific section.
And you say that Apple has a monopoly ? A control position on the market ? Dream on.
Illegal doesn't mean criminal. There is such a thing as contract law, and that law states you shouldn't break contracts. Palm just did. As such, they have made an unlawful move, or if you prefer, an illegal one.
Except you can offload your "Istore songs" onto any devices, using that Device's syncing facilities or just by copying the files over. Apple doesn't have to write in support into iTunes for syncing your device. That's your vendor's responsability. RIM understands and MediaSync for Blackberry reads in the contents of the iTunes Media Library using the XML exported file and then syncs the files.
And what obvious reasons would those be ? I doubt you could come up with something that wasn't conjecture. I think you'll be the one doing the leap in logic.
MacOS (the thing that used to be called System # and run on 68k machines) and Mac OS X aren't the same thing at all. Mac OS X is actually NeXTSTEP with a new display engine. It has nothing that was in the original and for a time, you had to run Mac OS 9 to get app compatibility.
So while I see the point you're trying to make, you're mostly just trolling.
Tell that to all the early Zune HD buyers that were promised free games and apps on the Zune Marketplace and that just now discovered this or will in the future.
It's news worthy because the Zune HD just recently released, comes with a marketplace not unlike the Apple App Store. Then the news came that the SDK wouldn't be available to the general public, only to a choice few 3rd parties. Then the news came that Microsoft would release all their apps for free. And now this, the catch comes along. Now we know why the marketplace is not like the App Store, because they plan to shove advertising down your throat.
You do understand you can buy third party solutions for much cheaper right ? The connector might be proprietary but there are tons of 3rd parties that do make devices for iPod with it and Apple doesn't prevent it.
Hum, the initial premise was that the iPod could do TV output. You retorted the following:
Shouldn't that read "iPod docks that cost twice as much as the iPod itself output to televisions"?
I corrected you saying the dock wasn't necessary at all, that just the cable was. Now you're just trying to not be wrong by changing your original message (which is impossible through editing, so you're trying to troll it away).
What are you blabbering about ? First, the Apple article shows that Component is a valid a connection (and no, Composite and Component aren't the same thing) and even then, S-video, Composite and Component all permit a iPod to hook up to a TV, contradicting your initial statement of even needing a dock.
Because the iPod Touch doesn't support 802.11n networking, only b and g. What purpose would it serve to say "Hey, the device is 802.11n capable, but the software won't let you use it". They probably used that particular chip for cost reasons. The chip is perfectly capable of doing b and g and probably costs less in volumes than the b/g only chips now that technology has gone forward.
Slashdot Mirror
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).
Use of the USB logo and USB name is trademarked and requires a license. This is more than a gentlemen agreement, it is a contract and is protected under contract law. Breaking a contract is in fact illegal unless provisions are made and respected about for breaking it.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Apple is far from a monopoly though. It's not like they don't have to face healthy competition. And that's even more true in mobile platforms, where they are #3 in market share.
Pay ? It's free. Just read the file ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music Library.xml on a Mac, or the same file under Documents and Settings on Windows. You now have all the information about the iTunes library, including the file locations on your hard drive. From there, it's easy to sync up anything.
So why did Palm not just write software that did this like Blackberry or Windows Mobile does ? Because then they wouldn't be all over the news or because they are lazy or because they want to stick it to Apple. Who knows what they are really thinking.
The XML file is an official, supported way of interface with iTunes. If Apple changes it, it will get documented. And it has been changed over the years, but since it's XML and change mostly involves adding new tags, everything stays backwards compatible. This is a much more robust solution than simply spoofing IDs and hope no one notices.
Every bit as big a monopoly on media players as Microsoft as on desktop operating systems ? Because, if I walk into Bestbuy, I see tons of non-Apple media players. They all work with my content and are very usuable without me changing my habits much. They aren't all the same brand either, and there's big players in the arena (Sony, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Creative, etc..). They also can use music bought on different digital music stores (iTunes, Wal-mart, Amazon, etc..).
Yet, all I see on the Desktop Operating Systems shelves is Windows Vista. There might be a copy of OS X somewhere in some Apple specific section.
And you say that Apple has a monopoly ? A control position on the market ? Dream on.
Illegal doesn't mean criminal. There is such a thing as contract law, and that law states you shouldn't break contracts. Palm just did. As such, they have made an unlawful move, or if you prefer, an illegal one.
Except you can offload your "Istore songs" onto any devices, using that Device's syncing facilities or just by copying the files over. Apple doesn't have to write in support into iTunes for syncing your device. That's your vendor's responsability. RIM understands and MediaSync for Blackberry reads in the contents of the iTunes Media Library using the XML exported file and then syncs the files.
And what obvious reasons would those be ? I doubt you could come up with something that wasn't conjecture. I think you'll be the one doing the leap in logic.
MacOS (the thing that used to be called System # and run on 68k machines) and Mac OS X aren't the same thing at all. Mac OS X is actually NeXTSTEP with a new display engine. It has nothing that was in the original and for a time, you had to run Mac OS 9 to get app compatibility. So while I see the point you're trying to make, you're mostly just trolling.
AT&T is fine with it. All of AT&T's blackberry customers get to use the Google Voice app on their phone without a problem.
Tell that to all the early Zune HD buyers that were promised free games and apps on the Zune Marketplace and that just now discovered this or will in the future.
It's news worthy because the Zune HD just recently released, comes with a marketplace not unlike the Apple App Store. Then the news came that the SDK wouldn't be available to the general public, only to a choice few 3rd parties. Then the news came that Microsoft would release all their apps for free. And now this, the catch comes along. Now we know why the marketplace is not like the App Store, because they plan to shove advertising down your throat.
Because Linux is more than a kernel ? There's a lot of userland stuff that is missing from Android.
You do understand you can buy third party solutions for much cheaper right ? The connector might be proprietary but there are tons of 3rd parties that do make devices for iPod with it and Apple doesn't prevent it.
Hum, the initial premise was that the iPod could do TV output. You retorted the following :
Shouldn't that read "iPod docks that cost twice as much as the iPod itself output to televisions"?
I corrected you saying the dock wasn't necessary at all, that just the cable was. Now you're just trying to not be wrong by changing your original message (which is impossible through editing, so you're trying to troll it away).
What are you blabbering about ? First, the Apple article shows that Component is a valid a connection (and no, Composite and Component aren't the same thing) and even then, S-video, Composite and Component all permit a iPod to hook up to a TV, contradicting your initial statement of even needing a dock.
HDMI is only one way to connect to a TV. How bout you try to get informed before spouting nonsense : http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1454.
No because you don't need a dock, just a cable.
Because the iPod Touch doesn't support 802.11n networking, only b and g. What purpose would it serve to say "Hey, the device is 802.11n capable, but the software won't let you use it". They probably used that particular chip for cost reasons. The chip is perfectly capable of doing b and g and probably costs less in volumes than the b/g only chips now that technology has gone forward.
You do understand Nokia is the biggest player in the industry right ? They already outsell the iPhone : http://www.theiphoneblog.com/images/stories/2009/08/121423-gartner_smartphone_2q09.png