Doesn't it make just as much sense to design hardware to work with the existing software as it makes to write new software, when the result will be a more reliable experience, and less work for the customer?
Apple doesn't provide an API for a third-party to write syncing software for iTunes. And the format of the iTunes database can change at any time.
It's not Apple's obligation, but it's what hardware makers want.
Since Apple's device works that way, they need to have their product do the same, or they will have a substantial competitive disadvantage.
In other words, there are very strong incentives for the other manufacturers to do whatever they need to do to make their product usable out of the box, with as little extra work by their customer as possible.
Having to switch from iTunes to a third-party media player is a big undertaking, and won't score points with the customer when considering a purchase.
It's best if the iTunes library can be reliably used directly w.o. software installations.
I could be wrong, but I suspect a much larger percentage of people would think it wrong to download a book and read it without paying anything. Right now it's a lot less convenient for the average person to download than buying the actual book, and publishers still have enough time to educate the public, and ask them nicely, rather than embarking upon a failed RIAA-style sue-the-uploaders spree.
Reading a book is a bit more immersive of an experience than listening to a song.
Also, you get to add it to your bookshelf, and you can say you legally own it and read it, which to many people is an accomplishment, another feather in your hat...
You put so much time into reading a book, that I suspect much of the population during reading a book will begin to appreciate what each author has put into the work, such that the longer and the more they read it, the more they begin to feel ashamed for having ripped them off.
A book is a much bigger thing than a song, and I think people see it.
If the book was 10 pages long, and could be read in 5 minutes, yeah, piracy is likely to be an issue.
I think the longer the book is, the less likely people will be comfortable reading through a pirated copy, without buying a legit copy.
The difference between driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, and driving 25 miles per hour over the speed limit.
Or the difference between shoplifting a pack of mentos VS stealing a diamond necklace.
Yes, i'm suggesting that the more value the person puts into what they've gotten, the more likely they are to feel guilty and go buy the book properly, even if they started to read the pirated version... A 150 page book is a lot different from a 3 minute song, the time investment on the reader's part is much more:)
How about text-to-speech technology? I'm thinking of software that would take a book, synthesize speech, and render each chapter as a MP3. So you could consume the written book while driving (although you might not want to, since listening to an e-book or even music while driving is distracting and dangerous).
Bonus points if the software detects when a conversation is occuring and assigns specific voices to specific characters.
And also applies various adjectives to the speech when described...
E.g. if the book said 'In a rasping voice, he said "XXX"', the synthesizer process should adjust the voice to be more rasping for that message.
If the book said, 'X said laughingly, "blah"', the synthesizer should insert a chuckle.
When dealing with physical books it's almost inconceivable that you mishandle the book and accidentally "turn the page". When using an e-book reader it's very easy to accidentally push a button and lose your place. Or maybe there's a fear the device dies on you while reading.
E-book readers are $300 or $400 device you have to get to to read electronic books, why do that, when they can buy real physical ones at the bookstore for relatively little expense?
If the book is for educational purposes, you will want it physical for easy access, and the ability to scribble free-form notes (typing is too cumbersome/inconvenient for such notes)
For entertainment purposes, it's almost inconceivable that you read more than one book at once... so what's the benefit in having a device that lets you store multiple books?
To boot, the DRM-laden electronic books are almost just as expensive as the physical ones, and you can't lend them to friends. To boot, you can't place them on a photocopier and make copies of particularly interesting sections to use in a paper, personal momento, etc. You can do less with the e-books than you can physical ones.
I think there's a stronger feeling of ownership and control over a printed book. as if the text belongs to you, and reading is a very tactile experience, where you are involved.
Versus Music, DVDs, where you are basically a passive listener, just enjoying the sounds and images the machine is making.
You can rip a page if you don't like it, you can doggy ear, or bookmark pages with significance to you.
The book is on your shelf, it's more secure that way, you can always get to it whenever you want. Your dead tree book can't fail you, the batteries cannot die. No one really wants to steal it, and it's easily replaced, you can take it in public without fear.
It's easy to lend to friends.. just hand them the book.
You get two pages of text side-by-side. Typical e-book readers just provide you one continuous page, so the experience is completely different.
They don't have to single out Palm.
They'd be singling out anyone who is utilizing their sync technology without properly licensing access to it.
As for the cert revokation, it's very easy.. if iTunes reports to Apple on the certificate seen, the first time a player registers.
Apple can set a threshold, so that if it sees more than 5000 players registering with the same hardware certificate in a 30 day period, that hardware's certificate gets revoked.
They'll nix feedback just like other sites nix reviews, if they determine that in their judgement, they think the item was bought for the sole purpose of entering negative feedback, for example.
And an expansive, ever increasing list of reasons.
But at least they are honest enough and tell you (somewhat) what they will remove.
Most people casually browsing the site however (just as most people browsing retailers sites) have no idea that sites provide policies that allow negative ratings to be stricken from the record, and their effects on "stars" and rating score to be removed, at the whim of someone whose interests are in more sales.
One of the more serious types of slander/libel (called defamation) is negligently or maliciously saying that someone broke a law or might be sued.
A company or group of companies can't sue someone for "slandering" or defaming an entire industry.
To fall afoul of libel or slander law, you actually have to say or write something about a specific person, group of people, or legal entity.
The statement has to be: a statement of plausible fact, not true. And there must be an element of malice or culpable negligence, in order for defamation to have occured.
Valid defenses are "fair comment and criticism", and truth is always a defense.
Since the author indicates he is speaking from personal experience, truth is very likely.
And it appears clear that the intent is fair comment and criticism. Given a bad experience with one site's management of reviews, it's quite fair to raise questions about online retailers' review monitoring/censorship practices in general.
You, on the other hand, have posted a comment: I hope that one of the others sues you for slandering their reputation.
We can observe what can only be described malice here, because you are saying that you hope one of the companies sues the author.
Hoping that bad things happen to someone is a form of malice.
You also stated: By presenting it the way you have, you've essentially attacked the reputation of all well-known online computer component shops. Could be newegg, NCIX, ZZF, amazon, tigerdirect, buy.com, bestbuy
In other words, you may actually be committing or very close to committing the very offense you appear to suggest the author has committed.
You have also named specific companies, who might now have an interest in taking up a case against you, because they were not originally mentioned by the author, and by listing their names you imply they're somehow involved in this.
And post your negative reviews on other retailer-neutral sites.
There are even sites called 'resellerratings.com' and 'bizrate.com' that permit you to rate retailers.
I suggest you post your review of the product and separately post your review of the retailer, discussing how they apparently censor product reviews.
Also, please don't hide them post their name in this article. Along with the review they rejected, so the readers can have an example of what said retailer might censor.
Hiding their name is almost suggesting that what they do is OK. After suppressing all your reviews about your poor experience, you still want to protect them?
Stop going out of your way to protect the retailer and start shaming them for what they do and what they've done.
Imagine this... you're the network admin.. your primary workstation is a MacOS or Linux Desktop.
You want to go to windowsupdate.com and use Windows update corporate mode to download updates for offline installation to some desktops you admin.
This is a very common scenario: it is much more efficient for corporations to download updates once, and use sneakernet to deploy them to PCs, when there is poor network connectivity.
Maybe the updates need to be installed on a few XP workstations at a remote site, that isn't connected to the internet, only has a dialup connection, or has limited bandwidth.
In any case, you can't do it. Microsoft's update web site won't let you download updates in the form of.exe files for offline installation, unless your OS is Windows and your browser is MSIE.
I'm only providing an explanation as to why Logitech Mice and Keyboards don't spoof Apple's vendor ID or the 1st mouse's manufacturer vendor id.
The reason is: they didn't have to do it, for the software that ships with the systems by default to at least recognize and use the device.
In other words, the needs of their users are met by default.
If Operating systems discriminated, then Logitech would have had good reasons to emulate the Apple or Microsoft device that works by default as closely as possible and spoof the vendor id, in order to have the device work by default
Because working by default without the user having to go through any extroardinary efforts (like installing software) is very much a desired outcome for simple devices like Keyboards, Mice, Hard drives, and yes, MP3 players.
It makes no difference whether the layer preventing it from working by default is at the OS layer, or at the layer of media player software.
To be clear, iTunes happens to be the media player software users have installed by default, at least on Mac platforms.
For the hardware to work by default it needs to seamlessly interoperate with iTunes, without the user needing to install any software on the PC or take other special actions.
1. User agent strings are not USB IDs. They are different specs for different technologies and have different rules.
It doesn't matter that the technologies are different, they are exactly the same thing.
With the exception that there's an authority that assigns some vendor ids, intended to be used by the org they are assigned to.
Much like the IEEE assigns OUIs to companies that produce Ethernet hardware, for use in their MAC addresses.
However, that doesn't stop admins from locally assigning whatever MAC address they want, or even stop some manufacturers from being able to say "to hell with the registration authority" and burn whatever MAC address onto the EEPROM that they want.
People wanting you to support someone else's product isn't your support liability.
Someone could call Apple and ask for support getting their Zune to talk to their PC too, or how to get their Zune to properly sync with iTunes, it doesn't mean Apple has to help them.
You either refuse to do it, or you bill the person calling in for support, for the service of trying to help you troubleshoot a non-covered product.
It's not as if Apple has provided a support phone number for the iTunes software, anyways.
Licenses. No license is granted by virtue of membership in the Forum to any patent, copyright, or trademark.
The USB-IF logo program is separate from membership, and non-members can participate.
Also, USB-IF doesn't own patents. Nothing requires a vendor to license anything through USBIF, except the use of the USB logo.
The USB-IF's most extreme possible recourse in this matter would appear to be to cancel Palm's membership, without refund of the $4000 annual fee, and kick them out of the logo program.
They can't stop them from licensing USB technology they don't own.
Not correct. Palm is violating the license they signed wrt USB.
No. The USB-IF doesn't like what they're doing, in releasing software that allows the user to spoof Apple's vendor id. That's not equivalent to violating a license agreement.
You're making a legal representation that would appear to be unfounded.
Violating a policy the USB-IF has come up with later is not equivalent to violating a signed contract or license agreement.
You might think of this as something like the IETF adopting a policy that makers of HTTP clients on mobile devices must use an assigned vendor id in their user-agent header, and no others, or they can't call their software a "Web browser". And it would be just about as enforceable...
Oh yeah... and what happens when Palm delivers
software compliant with all new USB-IF policies on their devices, but makes an 'optional' "iTunes9 Sync Fix" patch warning on their web site, with a click-through disclaimer that the Palm will no longer be fully USB-IF compliant when installed?
It doesn't matter, Palm can't generate new certs of their own, so Apple could just ban whatever cert they see Palm using, and deploy it in the next "security" update.
Or incorporate OCSP in iTunes and revoke any certificate Apple finds Palm selling devices using.
Palm would have a hard time evading the ban, unless they bought an Apple device and extracted its cert for each device they ship.
Slashdot Mirror
The advantage is you can fix the flaw by releasing a new build of the app against the new library.
With SxS assemblies, your app keeps linking against the old version of the DLL which might never get the patch (?)
Doesn't it make just as much sense to design hardware to work with the existing software as it makes to write new software, when the result will be a more reliable experience, and less work for the customer?
Apple doesn't provide an API for a third-party to write syncing software for iTunes. And the format of the iTunes database can change at any time.
That makes sense... Makers of eBook readers need to sell them in packs..
E.g. Amazon should sell a $300 6-pack of kindles... so you can put one in each place you commonly go to :)
It's not Apple's obligation, but it's what hardware makers want.
Since Apple's device works that way, they need to have their product do the same, or they will have a substantial competitive disadvantage.
In other words, there are very strong incentives for the other manufacturers to do whatever they need to do to make their product usable out of the box, with as little extra work by their customer as possible.
Having to switch from iTunes to a third-party media player is a big undertaking, and won't score points with the customer when considering a purchase.
It's best if the iTunes library can be reliably used directly w.o. software installations.
I could be wrong, but I suspect a much larger percentage of people would think it wrong to download a book and read it without paying anything. Right now it's a lot less convenient for the average person to download than buying the actual book, and publishers still have enough time to educate the public, and ask them nicely, rather than embarking upon a failed RIAA-style sue-the-uploaders spree.
Reading a book is a bit more immersive of an experience than listening to a song.
Also, you get to add it to your bookshelf, and you can say you legally own it and read it, which to many people is an accomplishment, another feather in your hat...
You put so much time into reading a book, that I suspect much of the population during reading a book will begin to appreciate what each author has put into the work, such that the longer and the more they read it, the more they begin to feel ashamed for having ripped them off.
A book is a much bigger thing than a song, and I think people see it.
If the book was 10 pages long, and could be read in 5 minutes, yeah, piracy is likely to be an issue.
I think the longer the book is, the less likely people will be comfortable reading through a pirated copy, without buying a legit copy.
The difference between driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, and driving 25 miles per hour over the speed limit.
Or the difference between shoplifting a pack of mentos VS stealing a diamond necklace.
Yes, i'm suggesting that the more value the person puts into what they've gotten, the more likely they are to feel guilty and go buy the book properly, even if they started to read the pirated version... A 150 page book is a lot different from a 3 minute song, the time investment on the reader's part is much more :)
How about text-to-speech technology? I'm thinking of software that would take a book, synthesize speech, and render each chapter as a MP3. So you could consume the written book while driving (although you might not want to, since listening to an e-book or even music while driving is distracting and dangerous).
Bonus points if the software detects when a conversation is occuring and assigns specific voices to specific characters.
And also applies various adjectives to the speech when described...
E.g. if the book said 'In a rasping voice, he said "XXX"', the synthesizer process should adjust the voice to be more rasping for that message.
If the book said, 'X said laughingly, "blah"', the synthesizer should insert a chuckle.
When dealing with physical books it's almost inconceivable that you mishandle the book and accidentally "turn the page". When using an e-book reader it's very easy to accidentally push a button and lose your place. Or maybe there's a fear the device dies on you while reading.
E-book readers are $300 or $400 device you have to get to to read electronic books, why do that, when they can buy real physical ones at the bookstore for relatively little expense? If the book is for educational purposes, you will want it physical for easy access, and the ability to scribble free-form notes (typing is too cumbersome/inconvenient for such notes)
For entertainment purposes, it's almost inconceivable that you read more than one book at once... so what's the benefit in having a device that lets you store multiple books? To boot, the DRM-laden electronic books are almost just as expensive as the physical ones, and you can't lend them to friends. To boot, you can't place them on a photocopier and make copies of particularly interesting sections to use in a paper, personal momento, etc. You can do less with the e-books than you can physical ones.
I think there's a stronger feeling of ownership and control over a printed book. as if the text belongs to you, and reading is a very tactile experience, where you are involved.
Versus Music, DVDs, where you are basically a passive listener, just enjoying the sounds and images the machine is making.
You can rip a page if you don't like it, you can doggy ear, or bookmark pages with significance to you.
The book is on your shelf, it's more secure that way, you can always get to it whenever you want. Your dead tree book can't fail you, the batteries cannot die. No one really wants to steal it, and it's easily replaced, you can take it in public without fear.
It's easy to lend to friends.. just hand them the book.
You get two pages of text side-by-side. Typical e-book readers just provide you one continuous page, so the experience is completely different.
You can't expect to plug any device into a computer and have it work by default.
No, consumers do actually expect that. Mac users especially.
It works that way when you plug an iPod in, you can use iTunes straight a way, it works by default without installing any driver.
They don't have to single out Palm. They'd be singling out anyone who is utilizing their sync technology without properly licensing access to it.
As for the cert revokation, it's very easy.. if iTunes reports to Apple on the certificate seen, the first time a player registers.
Apple can set a threshold, so that if it sees more than 5000 players registering with the same hardware certificate in a 30 day period, that hardware's certificate gets revoked.
eBay feedback
They'll nix feedback just like other sites nix reviews, if they determine that in their judgement, they think the item was bought for the sole purpose of entering negative feedback, for example.
And an expansive, ever increasing list of reasons.
sellers will no longer be able to leave negative/neutral feedback for buyers
And a comprehensive feedback removal policy.
Examples:
But at least they are honest enough and tell you (somewhat) what they will remove.
Most people casually browsing the site however (just as most people browsing retailers sites) have no idea that sites provide policies that allow negative ratings to be stricken from the record, and their effects on "stars" and rating score to be removed, at the whim of someone whose interests are in more sales.
One of the more serious types of slander/libel (called defamation) is negligently or maliciously saying that someone broke a law or might be sued.
A company or group of companies can't sue someone for "slandering" or defaming an entire industry.
To fall afoul of libel or slander law, you actually have to say or write something about a specific person, group of people, or legal entity.
The statement has to be: a statement of plausible fact, not true. And there must be an element of malice or culpable negligence, in order for defamation to have occured.
Valid defenses are "fair comment and criticism", and truth is always a defense.
Since the author indicates he is speaking from personal experience, truth is very likely. And it appears clear that the intent is fair comment and criticism. Given a bad experience with one site's management of reviews, it's quite fair to raise questions about online retailers' review monitoring/censorship practices in general.
You, on the other hand, have posted a comment: I hope that one of the others sues you for slandering their reputation.
We can observe what can only be described malice here, because you are saying that you hope one of the companies sues the author. Hoping that bad things happen to someone is a form of malice.
You also stated: By presenting it the way you have, you've essentially attacked the reputation of all well-known online computer component shops. Could be newegg, NCIX, ZZF, amazon, tigerdirect, buy.com, bestbuy
In other words, you may actually be committing or very close to committing the very offense you appear to suggest the author has committed.
You have also named specific companies, who might now have an interest in taking up a case against you, because they were not originally mentioned by the author, and by listing their names you imply they're somehow involved in this.
There are some affirmative defenses against claims under defamation laws...
And as for copyright laws: fair use, which using some material for criticism is considered.
The money spent on PR is irrelevent, it doesn't negate the public's right to free speech and free expression.
And post your negative reviews on other retailer-neutral sites.
There are even sites called 'resellerratings.com' and 'bizrate.com' that permit you to rate retailers.
I suggest you post your review of the product and separately post your review of the retailer, discussing how they apparently censor product reviews.
Also, please don't hide them post their name in this article. Along with the review they rejected, so the readers can have an example of what said retailer might censor.
Hiding their name is almost suggesting that what they do is OK. After suppressing all your reviews about your poor experience, you still want to protect them?
Stop going out of your way to protect the retailer and start shaming them for what they do and what they've done.
Maybe, but is having to use MSIE reasonable?
Imagine this... you're the network admin.. your primary workstation is a MacOS or Linux Desktop.
You want to go to windowsupdate.com and use Windows update corporate mode to download updates for offline installation to some desktops you admin. This is a very common scenario: it is much more efficient for corporations to download updates once, and use sneakernet to deploy them to PCs, when there is poor network connectivity.
Maybe the updates need to be installed on a few XP workstations at a remote site, that isn't connected to the internet, only has a dialup connection, or has limited bandwidth.
In any case, you can't do it. Microsoft's update web site won't let you download updates in the form of .exe files for offline installation, unless your OS is Windows and your browser is MSIE.
It's an arbitrary restriction.
I think it's a good example.
I'm only providing an explanation as to why Logitech Mice and Keyboards don't spoof Apple's vendor ID or the 1st mouse's manufacturer vendor id.
The reason is: they didn't have to do it, for the software that ships with the systems by default to at least recognize and use the device. In other words, the needs of their users are met by default.
If Operating systems discriminated, then Logitech would have had good reasons to emulate the Apple or Microsoft device that works by default as closely as possible and spoof the vendor id, in order to have the device work by default
Because working by default without the user having to go through any extroardinary efforts (like installing software) is very much a desired outcome for simple devices like Keyboards, Mice, Hard drives, and yes, MP3 players.
It makes no difference whether the layer preventing it from working by default is at the OS layer, or at the layer of media player software.
To be clear, iTunes happens to be the media player software users have installed by default, at least on Mac platforms.
For the hardware to work by default it needs to seamlessly interoperate with iTunes, without the user needing to install any software on the PC or take other special actions.
1. User agent strings are not USB IDs. They are different specs for different technologies and have different rules.
It doesn't matter that the technologies are different, they are exactly the same thing. With the exception that there's an authority that assigns some vendor ids, intended to be used by the org they are assigned to.
Much like the IEEE assigns OUIs to companies that produce Ethernet hardware, for use in their MAC addresses.
However, that doesn't stop admins from locally assigning whatever MAC address they want, or even stop some manufacturers from being able to say "to hell with the registration authority" and burn whatever MAC address onto the EEPROM that they want.
People wanting you to support someone else's product isn't your support liability.
Someone could call Apple and ask for support getting their Zune to talk to their PC too, or how to get their Zune to properly sync with iTunes, it doesn't mean Apple has to help them.
You either refuse to do it, or you bill the person calling in for support, for the service of trying to help you troubleshoot a non-covered product.
It's not as if Apple has provided a support phone number for the iTunes software, anyways.
There's been no report of a special contract existing between Palm and USB-IF other than the normal membership agreement.
Nonsense.
Licenses. No license is granted by virtue of membership in the Forum to any patent, copyright, or trademark.
The USB-IF logo program is separate from membership, and non-members can participate.
Also, USB-IF doesn't own patents. Nothing requires a vendor to license anything through USBIF, except the use of the USB logo.
The USB-IF's most extreme possible recourse in this matter would appear to be to cancel Palm's membership, without refund of the $4000 annual fee, and kick them out of the logo program.
They can't stop them from licensing USB technology they don't own.
windowsupdate.microsoft.com. Try accessing that site using Firefox, you can be assured, it will not work.
Another example is Microsoft Office Live Workspaces. An ActiveX control is required for full functionality.
The same is true of many other MS sites. Sometimes you are still allowed to access utilizing other browsers, but functionality is crippled.
Crippled or less rich an experience, is almost as good as not working at all.
Not really. Apple doesn't have to support the palm pre; they can choose to say that "the palm pre is unsupported hardware".
Not correct. Palm is violating the license they signed wrt USB.
No. The USB-IF doesn't like what they're doing, in releasing software that allows the user to spoof Apple's vendor id. That's not equivalent to violating a license agreement.
You're making a legal representation that would appear to be unfounded.
Violating a policy the USB-IF has come up with later is not equivalent to violating a signed contract or license agreement.
You might think of this as something like the IETF adopting a policy that makers of HTTP clients on mobile devices must use an assigned vendor id in their user-agent header, and no others, or they can't call their software a "Web browser". And it would be just about as enforceable...
Oh yeah... and what happens when Palm delivers software compliant with all new USB-IF policies on their devices, but makes an 'optional' "iTunes9 Sync Fix" patch warning on their web site, with a click-through disclaimer that the Palm will no longer be fully USB-IF compliant when installed?
Windows '98 will run in a virtual machine, under e.g. VMware fusion.
Getting sound to work may be an issue, but otherwise, it works alright, and the performance on modern hardware is excellent.
It doesn't matter, Palm can't generate new certs of their own, so Apple could just ban whatever cert they see Palm using, and deploy it in the next "security" update.
Or incorporate OCSP in iTunes and revoke any certificate Apple finds Palm selling devices using.
Palm would have a hard time evading the ban, unless they bought an Apple device and extracted its cert for each device they ship.
Simple solution... Palm can stop using the USB logo on these units, and use a picture of the physical connector instead, or something such as that.