With iTunes 9, Apple again disables Palm Pre sync

[AppleInsider]

The tug of war between Apple and Palm continues, as the latest update to iTunes has once again blocked the Palm Pre from syncing with a users' iTunes library.

When the Palm Pre was first released, it, by default, would transfer media from iTunes by incorrectly identifying itself as an iPod. Apple struck back in July with iTunes 8.2.1, which broke sync capabilities, but only temporarily.

A week later, Palm fired back with webOS 1.1, a software update that again enabled the Pre to access media from iTunes. In a jab at Apple, Palm announced the fix at the end of a blog post by stating "Oh, and one more thing," just as the iPod maker often does when it introduces new products at a keynote.

According to Precentral.net, when sync initially worked, the Pre identified itself as a "mass storage device" called an iPod. Then, to get it working the second time, Palm had the device identify itself as a "mass storage device manufactured by Apple" called an iPod.

Given the back-and-forth nature of the ongoing dispute, it's likely safe to assume that Palm will once again issue a webOS update and circumvent Apple's latest blocking method. The latest update, webOS 1.2, was expected to be released this week, but has been quietly delayed.

In other Palm news, the handset maker this week unveiled the Pixi, the second smartphone built on the webOS platform. It is coming to Sprint later this year.

The timing of Palm's announcement has once again seen the company overshadowed by Apple, with the iPod maker announced new media players this week. Earlier this summer, the Pre launched just as Apple announced the iPhone 3GS.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[SGSStateStudent]

Yes! Very good job, Apple! May Palm die off with their stupid "iCOPYAPPLE" methods and products and their stupid traitor employees who develop ways to gain share form Apple! PALM FAILED AGAIN!

[Hattig]

System software like iTunes which is used for mobile device sync should work with any third party hardware. Otherwise it's enforcing product tie-in, and is a horribly Microsoftian type tactic.

I'm not saying that Apple's own products can't have more advanced features (e.g., apps from the app store), but that there should be a bare minimum support for media and PIM sync via a standard protocol that third party device could implement.

[parky]

Palm, if you want to succeed then develop your own software, don't leech of the back of others.

It is unfair to your customers, and that is your responsibility NOT Apple who owe them nothing.

You sold the product, you should support it, not expect others to do so.

It is no use saying 'Apple get revenue from the iTunes Store for Pre Users'.
That is a cop out and you know it.
There will be many pre owners who just use iTunes to sync their own ripped content to the Pre, without buying a single thing from Apple.

Use the money YOU get from the sale of YOUR products to develop software for the Pre.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by Hattig

System software like iTunes which is used for mobile device sync should work with any third party hardware. Otherwise it's enforcing product tie-in, and is a horribly Microsoftian type tactic.

I'm not saying that Apple's own products can't have more advanced features (e.g., apps from the app store), but that there should be a bare minimum support for media and PIM sync via a standard protocol that third party device could implement.

iSync????

[parky]

Originally Posted by Hattig

System software like iTunes which is used for mobile device sync should work with any third party hardware. Otherwise it's enforcing product tie-in, and is a horribly Microsoftian type tactic.

I'm not saying that Apple's own products can't have more advanced features (e.g., apps from the app store), but that there should be a bare minimum support for media and PIM sync via a standard protocol that third party device could implement.

And who exactly pays Apple for the work to design, build and test that iTunes works with the hundreds of devices that exist? How quick would complain when iTunes got bigger and bigger and more bloated due the support required for non Apple devices.

[Rokken]

Originally Posted by Hattig

System software like iTunes which is used for mobile device sync should work with any third party hardware. Otherwise it's enforcing product tie-in, and is a horribly Microsoftian type tactic.

I'm not saying that Apple's own products can't have more advanced features (e.g., apps from the app store), but that there should be a bare minimum support for media and PIM sync via a standard protocol that third party device could implement.

There are many alternatives for Palm to sync Pre with iTunes music, but unfortunately they chose to go down this road (and even brag about it) instead of writing a proper software. They are really doing their customers a favour (or not).

[kotatsu]

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

Apple allows other apps to look in the iTunes data (and iPhoto, Address Book, iCal, Mail).

Palm could make their own syncing app if they want to - RIM did it.

[tawilson]

Originally Posted by Hattig

System software like iTunes which is used for mobile device sync should work with any third party hardware. Otherwise it's enforcing product tie-in, and is a horribly Microsoftian type tactic.

• iTunes synced with the iPod/iPhone only from a time when it was minority in the desktop media player market, so it can continue to do so as nothing underhanded has been done.
• Product tie-in is perfectly legal.
• Microsoft released a "0% market share product" (IE) with a "95%+ market share product" (Windows), thereby creating an instant 95%+ market share web browser.
• That and they did things to break Netscape's interaction with Windows.

So, no they are not even remotely similar.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

I gather you keep your front door open so that anybody could just walk in at anytime and use your facilities?

Perhaps you could post your address? I am sure some would appreciate your generosity.

I certainly would applaud it. But take advantage of it? Not on my life!

[tawilson]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API?

That would hurt iTunes, the reason things happen so slowly in Microsoft/Windows land is because of all the compatibility issues they have to check. Apple can move and adapt faster because supporting ~20 devices is easier than supporting hundreds.

Look at all the hassle with Windows Mobile, even though it has an API. Things are far from perfect over there, admittedly that has also been hindered by Microsoft setting unrealistically low minimum specs for Windows Mobile devices. But, it's far from rosy in Microsoft's corner of the world.

Open standards = good.

Don't confuse open standards with an API, they aren't the same. Windows has an API, and "open standards" definitely doesn't belong in the same sentence as "Windows".

[johnmcboston]

Originally Posted by parky

Palm, if you want to succeed then develop your own software, don't leech of the back of others.

Is it leeching, or just using what just popular? So your saying palm owners should manage their music in iTunes (being Mac people), and then use (say) palmtunes to organize music a second time in order to get music on their palm? Then abandon that next year for berrytunes when they happen to change phones again to a blackberry, and need different proprietary music sync software?

I don't see it as leeching. I see it as using existing software that all mac and may PC owners have and letting them use their existing software to sync music to their phone ratehr than have to install yet another app to duplicate functionality

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by parky

And who exactly pays Apple for the work to design, build and test that iTunes works with the hundreds of devices that exist? How quick would complain when iTunes got bigger and bigger and more bloated due the support required for non Apple devices.

Did you miss the point about "standard interface" in the original poster's message? Apple wouldn't have to support hundreds of devices. They just give a protocol that device manufacturers can use and move on with their lives. It's clearly not that hard to tie into Apple's existing iPod sync protocol except for the fact that Apple has locked the gates to any hardware but their own.

I for one would appreciate Apple and it would make me more likely to stay with a Mac when I go to purchase my next computer. At least on a Mac, iTunes is a pretty integral part of the user experience and I'm not happy with how Apple has tied it to their own hardware. I want to be able to do what I want with my computer. Apple is free to lock down their peripheral hardware (like iPhones and iPods) all they want but I want my computer to do what I want it to do, not what Apple decides it should do.

[wedgeantilles]

Originally Posted by Hattig

System software like iTunes which is used for mobile device sync should work with any third party hardware. Otherwise it's enforcing product tie-in, and is a horribly Microsoftian type tactic.

I'm not saying that Apple's own products can't have more advanced features (e.g., apps from the app store), but that there should be a bare minimum support for media and PIM sync via a standard protocol that third party device could implement.

iTunes is not system software as far as I am aware. It's just an application.

[hittrj01]

Originally Posted by johnmcboston

Is it leeching, or just using what just popular? So your saying palm owners should manage their music in iTunes (being Mac people), and then use (say) palmtunes to organize music a second time in order to get music on their palm? Then abandon that next year for berrytunes when they happen to change phones again to a blackberry, and need different proprietary music sync software?

I don't see it as leeching. I see it as using existing software that all mac and may PC owners have and letting them use their existing software to sync music to their phone ratehr than have to install yet another app to duplicate functionality

Yes, it is leeching, and for a reason most everyone on here is forgetting. Palm is making iTunes recognize the Pre as " "mass storage device manufactured by Apple" called an iPod." Palm is blatantly ripping off Apple in this regard. I have no problem with other devices being able to sync to iTunes (example: RIM developed their own software to interface with iTunes), but I don't see how what Palm is doing is even legal! Calling a Palm Pre an iPod that is manufactured by Apple? Tell me how that is not sketchy in the slightest.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by parky

Palm, if you want to succeed then develop your own software, don't leech of the back of others.

It is unfair to your customers, and that is your responsibility NOT Apple who owe them nothing.

You sold the product, you should support it, not expect others to do so.

It is no use saying 'Apple get revenue from the iTunes Store for Pre Users'.
That is a cop out and you know it.
There will be many pre owners who just use iTunes to sync their own ripped content to the Pre, without buying a single thing from Apple.

Use the money YOU get from the sale of YOUR products to develop software for the Pre.

+1. Palm is nothing but exactly like MS. A copynut.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by hittrj01

Yes, it is leeching, and for a reason most everyone on here is forgetting. Palm is making iTunes recognize the Pre as " "mass storage device manufactured by Apple" called an iPod." Palm is blatantly ripping off Apple in this regard. I have no problem with other devices being able to sync to iTunes (example: RIM developed their own software to interface with iTunes), but I don't see how what Palm is doing is even legal! Calling a Palm Pre an iPod that is manufactured by Apple? Tell me how that is not sketchy in the slightest.

I don't understand why Apple dosen't sue them for that. It's blatantly going against rights!

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by JLL

Apple allows other apps to look in the iTunes data (and iPhoto, Address Book, iCal, Mail).

Palm could make their own syncing app if they want to - RIM did it.

Yup. At least BB does not copy but creates its own support. Palm= Losers

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by parky

And who exactly pays Apple for the work to design, build and test that iTunes works with the hundreds of devices that exist? How quick would complain when iTunes got bigger and bigger and more bloated due the support required for non Apple devices.

Did you not read that I said that Apple would design a standard protocol for media sync from iTunes, and that other manufacturers could implement it themselves? They could even pay a licensing fee to use it.

However I think that iTunes compatibility would be a necessary feature in any media device, and thus this would benefit Apple in the long run.

Or maybe iPhoto should only support the iPhone and iPod Nano?

[maisenhe]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

I gather you keep your front door open so that anybody could just walk in at anytime and use your facilities?

Perhaps you could post your address? I am sure some would appreciate your generosity.

I certainly would applaud it. But take advantage of it? Not on my life!

See now you are "disabling" the thieves from breaking in by locking your door. How unfair of you.

I find AppleInsiders use of words very interesting. By saying disable they are making it seem like Apple allowed the Pre to sync on purpose and then just stopped. For everyone screaming about a standard interface and the world should be allowed to use iTunes to sync with whatever mp3 player they have needs to relax. Apple is not going to test all these devices to make sure they work with each release.

That would be the same as saying my Honda engine doesn't want to work with this Chevy transmission I found at the junkyard. There I have had my 2 cents worth so if you really want your device to work with iTunes all the time get an apple product else please stop whinging about it.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by wedgeantilles

iTunes is not system software as far as I am aware. It's just an application.

Oh right, so it wasn't shipped with Snow Leopard then?

Fact is, any Mac user is going to be using iTunes to manage their audio library, and probably their entire media library (podcasts, audio, video, etc). Third party apps like the EyeTV put recordings into iTunes.

Blocking media sync with third party devices from iTunes is just disingenuous. I feel it is counter to the aims of such software., now that iTunes has gotten to this position. I'm quite happy for Apple to limit third party hardware compatibility to the Mac version of iTunes only, but quite simply having more iTunes users means more iTunes marketshare, and higher possibilities of future iPhone / iPod purchase and usage. I think it's a clear win-win for Apple and consumers.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by hittrj01

Yes, it is leeching, and for a reason most everyone on here is forgetting. Palm is making iTunes recognize the Pre as " "mass storage device manufactured by Apple" called an iPod." Palm is blatantly ripping off Apple in this regard. I have no problem with other devices being able to sync to iTunes (example: RIM developed their own software to interface with iTunes), but I don't see how what Palm is doing is even legal! Calling a Palm Pre an iPod that is manufactured by Apple? Tell me how that is not sketchy in the slightest.

Does the RIM sync from within iTunes when you plug it in?

That's why Palm did what they did. It's reverse engineering for interoperability. It makes the legal situation quite murky. It wouldn't have happened if Apple had a documented third-party media sync protocol within iTunes.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

Open standards = poor.

And I don't want that as a shareholder.

[screamingfist]

apple has every right to do this?
so microsoft should make changes with every update and patch to break itunes, safari, and anything else it doesn't want and that is perfectly okay too?
wise up 'yes boys' and see these companies for what they are. their business practices are not something to be praised...

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

Not Palm. They are despisable by also following the "One more thing" thing.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by screamingfist

apple has every right to do this?
so microsoft should make changes with every update and patch to break itunes, safari, and anything else it doesn't want and that is perfectly okay too?
wise up 'yes boys' and see these companies for what they are. their business practices are not something to be praised...

Hello?? APPLE MADE iTunes and Safari FOR PC USERS WHO REQUIRE THEM. What has that got to do with Microsoft locking down on Apple's software? With your suggestion, they are just going to screw themselves, MS users and not Apple, wisecrack. Palm is violating regulations by doing that.

[tundraboy]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

It's called the free-rider problem and if you believe in the free enterprise system then you should recognize the free-rider problem as a problem. Or shall we now force Ford to compel their dealers to accept GM cars for servicing even if Ford doesn't want to? Or shall we force the ground crew of American Airlines to assist United Airlines passengers even though American Airlines doesn't want to? Or shall I now be allowed to buy a meal at McDonalds and then get a table at Le Cirq and eat my happy meal there without ordering anything from Le Cirq?

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by tundraboy

It's called the free-rider problem and if you believe in the free enterprise system then you should recognize the free-rider problem as a problem. Or shall we now force Ford to compel their dealers to accept GM cars for servicing even if Ford doesn't want to? Or shall we force the ground crew of American Airlines to assist United Airlines passengers even though American Airlines doesn't want to? Or shall I now be allowed to buy a meal at McDonalds and then get a table at Le Cirque and eat my happy meal there without paying Le Cirque?

+1! Nice examples BTW.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

Since when has Apple ever open up anything? My ATV sits locked in their BS.

[screamingfist]

if microsoft would have killed itunes from the get go with this tactic that apple is using on palm (why should apple get a free ride on MS marketshare?) then you would see a lot more zunes in use.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by screamingfist

if microsoft would have killed itunes from the get go with this tactic that apple is using on palm (why should apple get a free ride on MS marketshare?) then you would see a lot more zunes in use.

Or Miscrosoft could have killed off Macs running Windows by disabling Boot Camp or Paralells. Don't be surprised if it happens. Then we'll see who cries foul. MS could simply enable this as part of their users contract on Windows 7.

[Switch23]

Originally Posted by screamingfist

if microsoft would have killed itunes from the get go with this tactic that apple is using on palm (why should apple get a free ride on MS marketshare?) then you would see a lot more zunes in use.

I must've missed that chapter of the iPod's history where Apple head-faked Windows Media Player so that the iPod could dominate the .mp3 player market.

[hdasmith]

Originally Posted by Hattig

Oh right, so it wasn't shipped with Snow Leopard then?

You answer it yourself. iTunes is shipped WITH Snow Leopard, not PART OF Snow Leopard. You can delete iTunes, and your computer will run quite happily. Until the EU stepped in, you couldn't delete IE from Windows and not have problems. IE was system software, iTunes never has been.

The reason most people running a Mac use iTunes is because there's not a lot else out there. And the analogy of iPhoto is ridiculous. The whole point of iPhoto is to manage your photographs. As such, if Apple did disable downloading from a camera, all you would have to do is copy to the photos straight into your library from the flash card, much like you can do with iTunes and some media players.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The timing of Palm's announcement has once again seen the company overshadowed by Apple, with the iPod maker announced new media players this week. Earlier this summer, the Pre launched just as Apple announced the iPhone 3GS.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

Palm didn't release media devices, all they did was announce (not release) a new phone. I wouldn't call it "overshadowing" by any stretch.

As for the Apple blocking others from iTunes is very childish in my mind. If they keep touting the iTunes store, then a Palm Pre/Pixi or RIM device, or even (gasp!) a Zune / WinMo device syncing with it means revenue for Apple through the store. I would think that having more devices and more people buying from your iTunes store (which could turn into a possible hardware sale when the device eventually dies or becomes obsolete) would help business. I'm not saying Apple should support these devices, but the should not lock them out!

Nope. Gotta make sure its only Apple products on Apples.

Now, what would happen if Microsoft all the sudden made patches for its OS that stopped the functionality of iTunes? I'm sure MANY people would be having a fit with the same arguments.

Anyhow, I ditched iTunes a long time ago. Bloatware if you ask me, and never has the features I want. This latest update is no different. If it weren't for my iPod touch, I'd have removed it from my Mac too.

[screamingfist]

Originally Posted by Switch23

I must've missed that chapter of the iPod's history where Apple head-faked Windows Media Player so that the iPod could dominate the .mp3 player market.

if you couldn't run itunes, and ipod wouldn't be allowed to work with media player (sort of like palm pre and itunes) then zune.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Or Miscrosoft could have killed off Macs running Windows by disabling Boot Camp or Paralells. Don't be surprised if it happens. Then will see who cries foul. MS could simply enable this as part of their users contract on Windows 7.

MS would shoot themselves in the foot doing this and for that, we will never see it happen. When someone buys Parallels (or Fusion, or downloads VMWare) to run Windows, they HAVE to buy (unless they have one) a licence for Windows too. Typically at full price. This means more money for MS. MS, aside from the Zune and XBox, is not a hardware company. They really couldn't care less who is running Windows, as long as people are running it. Mac or PC. It does not matter.

MS will not lock out Apple computers from their OS. They are reaping the benefits from all these "switchers" too... ironically.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by tundraboy

It's called the free-rider problem and if you believe in the free enterprise system then you should recognize the free-rider problem as a problem. Or shall we now force Ford to compel their dealers to accept GM cars for servicing even if Ford doesn't want to? Or shall we force the ground crew of American Airlines to assist United Airlines passengers even though American Airlines doesn't want to? Or shall I now be allowed to buy a meal at McDonalds and then get a table at Le Cirq and eat my happy meal there without ordering anything from Le Cirq?

I've brought a Ford into a Toyota shop before, and they fixed up my fiance's car without any issue or complaints. On a flight that was cancelled back when TWA was around, I had to fly on United who were nice enough to all those TWA people (yes, on TWA's dollar I believe). I've seen folks bring in McDonalds into other restaurants (mainly for their children) and usually the restaurant was fine with it as long as they bought stuff there.

My point is really this: By allowing iTunes to be opened to Palm/RIM/MS/etc... means that people with these devices could BUY from the iTunes store (which is the main reason the software is free in the first place). They may not be Apple products, but Apple would be getting revenue, even taking it away from Rhapsody (ugh how I loathe them). On top of that, they would draw in customers to their eco-chain instead of pushing them away like they are now.

[ruel24]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.

Open standards = good.

Yes, open standards are good. The problem is that, as stated many times by Apple, and proven by the relatively small profit they make from it, iTunes is not designed as a profit area. Instead, it's designed to sell iPods. Now, with that in mind, why would they, then, open the iTunes store to anyone?

[Rokken]

Originally Posted by screamingfist

apple has every right to do this?
so microsoft should make changes with every update and patch to break itunes, safari, and anything else it doesn't want and that is perfectly okay too?
wise up 'yes boys' and see these companies for what they are. their business practices are not something to be praised...

I don't remember reading somewhere that Apple wrote iTunes et al. for Windows through a hack and pretend these apps are written by Microsoft.