Originally Posted by Hattig
System software like iTunes
itunes is an application, not system software
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 uses XML to hold the library info, making it very easy for anyone to write an interface for their devices automatically recognizes what music you have and where on your drive it is located.
certainly not a totally closed system is it. compared to say iweb or iphoto
Originally Posted by johnmcboston
Is it leeching, or just using what just popular?
it is leeching when you either don't ask for permission or having been told no you do it anyway. and continue to do it when you are told no via someone blocking you from continuing
Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent
I don't understand why Apple dosen't sue them for that. It's blatantly going against rights!
because it is not illegal. it's more a case of being rude.
there is a USB forum that dishes out the id codes but they have no weight of law. the best they can do is to refuse to give someone device codes or a vendor code. but that's it.
Originally Posted by Hattig
Oh right, so it wasn't shipped with Snow Leopard then?
yeah well they also included Flash which is from Adobe.
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.
funny you mention Microsoft and Zune. cause you know they refuse to create a Mac version of that software and you can't sync an ipod with the Zune software.
Originally Posted by camroidv27
I've brought a Ford into a Toyota shop before, and they fixed up my fiance's car without any issue or complaints.
because they wanted to. if they had said no there is nothing to force them
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).
you have no idea what kind of handshake deals they might have going to help each other out in an emergency
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.
the key being that something was bought from the other restaurant. if you just walked in with your McDs and sat down without ordering something from them you wouldn't be so welcome.
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
uh, they can buy now. nothing is stopping anyone from buying from the itunes store so long as you have an internet connected computer and the money. you don't need an ipod or anything else.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Not necessarily. Supposing that each iPod/iPhone has a serial number and/or other unique ID and/or characteristic that can be queried (and the iPhones, and I believe at least newer, if not all, iPods, do) they could require that the iPod/iPhone be validated through the iTunes store (like iPhone activation) before it will sync, at least the first time. This would require Palm to copy specific information from Apple manufactured devices and essentially forge them on their devices.
which is what they did, using the vendor code. now they will have to probably go in and pick a device code as well. which just makes them even more guilty of being douches.
Originally Posted by brucep
what proof can a i offer to back these claims that apple block the pre ??
find the exact code that analyzes the device, identifies if as coming from Palm and tells itunes to ignore the device.