iTunes sync spat between Palm, Apple continues - Page 4

Rightly so, and thus It was not a quote. Nevertheless, you said 'Apple isn't in the iTunes business to sell music, they are there to sell hardware and the software...' which i was alluding to.

I still claim freeing ipods from ITunes would sell more ipods! And, freeing ITunes from ipods would sell more music! I do not understand that you all, "Palm-bashers", cannot see that whatever Apple argues, it is illegal (anti-trust law) to sell one using the freeness of the other. A very known case of this is the Netscape / IE battle with tie-in to Windows. Remember?


Sorry, I put the "only" in the wrong place. The intended meaning was "sell music from Itunes store *only to* ipod/iphones". I know you can buy CDs etc and use with ipods. That is all good.


Firstly, as I stated above, you are not allowed to give away things free under any terms. Thus if Apple, unlawfully does this then this "recompense" problem is about charging (more than free) for ITunes and balancing with charging less for hardware/music. When it comes to Apple's income, it is also very hard to argue they will earn less returns of ITunes efforts, by excluding potential customers from the store.

About hispanics, I do not care where you live. The hypothetical case was just a general example that should make the absurdity clear of selecting customers to block to any store when there is no extra effort to let them in!

I agree the censorship issue, relating to App Store arbitrary rejection powers, is off topic but it fits right in with Apple's unproportionate control behaviour. Again, check the "why 1984"-video and you will know a different Apple! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

If I knew something about the law, please enlighten us with a factual evidence of what you are stating, since I am ignorant. You better make sure you provide a link. Btw We are talking EU law correct?
Make sure it shows that Apple are being anti-competitive, since that what your opinion is.

(emphasis added)

Is iTunes a monopoly? Serious question.

Up until a couple of years ago iTunes was designed to sync with just Portable Media Players, namely iPods. Today iTunes can also sync with media playing cell phones, namely the iPhone and occasionally the Palm Pre.

In order for a product to be deemed a monopoly, you first have to define the relevant market. So what is the market? I guess it would be 'software that syncs a computer to a portable media device'.

So....
How many MP3 players or PMP's DON'T use iTunes to sync with a computer.
How many media capable "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
How many media capable NON "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.

In the US, every year, are there MORE PMPs and cell phones sold that are NOT Apple products... or LESS?

How many computers have Windows Media Player installed?
How many computers have iTunes installed?


Are you absolutely sure about that?

Of course iTunes/Apple is a monopoly. They have a monopoly on awesome software that even the most die-hard haters want to have.

In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.

Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82#Tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.

shooting a burglar is not necessarily equivalent to 'shoot first, ask questions later'. I find it rather comforting that, despite the hyperbole, most gun owners are keenly aware of the consequences of an unjustified killing: They go to prison. American law generally does not give a blank check to violent defense of one's home, but neither does it force people to decide between going to prison and (for example) being raped or murdered by an intruder. Reason USUALLY wins the day. Despite the very visible exceptions.

Case in point: A college student recently confronted an intruder in his garage. The intruder lunged for the student, who defended himself with a sword he had brought with him to investigate the noises. The intruder's hand was severed, and he suffered 'severe lacerations' to the chest. He died at the scene. It was discovered that the intruder was a long time offender, with many convictions for violent crimes. However, despite the fact that the student acted in self defense against a known criminal who was a real threat, the local prosecutor's office declined to initially RULE OUT filing charges against him. They wanted a thorough investigation done before they decided. Reason wins.

C

Funny how Apple won't get a cease and desist order again Palm- do something legally rather than cat and mouse. Maybe Apple realizes as others have posted that they would loose.
Otherwise sue, Apple -NOW.

I have cut and paste the quote (see below), so everyone can read it and understand that this guy is using factual evidence, which does not supports is opinions, actually their explain, he does not understand the law.

So how does Apple have monopoly and abuse their dominance in market, since I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you have used this quote. They have not stopped anyone from syncing with their iTunes library, you must write your own program, as someone has stated there are choices too many for consumers.

P.S. Maybe just maybe your the one that is ignorant of the law and using laws you do not understand or know how to interrupt. Lastly please show us how your last 2 links are similarly to what Apple is undertaking in marketplace, since I like to see how you choose to link the two situations using those factual evidence.

I personally think, you do not know what you are talking about and it is simple, PALM or anyone had a case against APPLE, it would be in Courts by now, very simple.


Article 82 of the Treaty establishing the European Community is aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position. Its core role is the regulation of monopolies, which restrict competition in private industry and produce worse outcomes for consumers and society. It is the second key provision, after Article 81, in EC competition law. The text of Article 82 provides the following,
“\t(1) Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States."
(2) Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

This will resolve itself when Apple starts getting a percentage of sales of the Pre.
But, that is not likely as it "may" impact sales of iPhone/iPods.

Some kind of "monetary" incentive "might" change the situation.

Anecdote by the instructor for the concealed weapons safety class I took (mandatory before getting a ccw, here in Michigan): The instructor asked one of his gung-ho students, 'Lets suppose you have your pistol with you, and as you're walking through a dark alley, someone jumps out of the shadows, points a gun at you, and demands your money. What do you do?' The student responded, 'I'd pull out my gun and shoot him!' The instructor immediately corrected the foolish student, 'No, you'd give him your money. Because he can pull the trigger a hell of a lot faster than you can draw.' The moral of the story is that just because you have the tool to defend yourself, you won't always be able to use it. Discretion is still necessary.

C

I used unprecise language. It does not have to be a monopoly, but when you have a dominant market share, you have special obligations in both US and EU law.


You are correct to point this out. It is very dependent on what is considered a separate market. The market where Apple rules is, as everyone know, the ipods. So the tying practice that can anti-competetive is connecting things to ipods. Like Itunes store/app store etc. Also now the size of the market "internet music selling" business of Apple is also looking dominant in terms of market share. So tying products like ipods back to ITunes is also anti competetive.


You are right about these critical questions and again in a case it would be about defining "markets" and "dominant" players according to Apple's och Palm's views. In my view and the rest of the industry it *is* without doubt Apple that is the incumbent, looking at ipods and the universe around them! Palm's "hook" only proves this position. Otherwiser it would not be worth the effort.

A parallel that puts Apple Iphone on the other side of the bench is Exchange servers in corporations. Here Microsoft it the clear incument and they could try to block the connection to competitions clients but it will get them into court in no time.


Of course not. But I think Apple will grow (because of good engineering) and then case becomes more clear. And I think Apple, we, and the world would gain if all systems were more open. Let all PMPs buy music and sync trough Itunes store/itunes. Let all ipods/iphones have open synch interface to allow any software to interoperate on Mac/Windows/Linux/etc.

This is exactly the thought I was having. Does Palm really think they are helping their clients? If I had a Pre, why would I sync with iTunes knowing I was going to have unreliable access?

You can try to compare apples to oranges (no pun intended), but there are many glaring differences that make such a comparison problematic.

The first, is that Apple isn't barring people from entering the market by using restrictive distribution agreements with other parties in the market. Microsoft used it's clout to strongarm OEMs from adding competing software on their products. Apple does not tell Dell to not put Windows Media Player on their Windows products and to only put iTunes on. It would be interesting to know if the reverse may be true. That MS discourages Dell and others like Acer from adding iTunes to their machines now that MS is desperately trying to push it's crappy Zune player again.

Apple also hasn't been introducing quirks in its software to prevent interoperability, things like AARP code, which "broke" Windows 3.0 from running on top of competing DR-DOS. And saying that checking the USB IDs for valid units and preventing synching with fakers is not the same as what Microsoft did.

You can have a monopoly in US or even EU law, it's when you abuse it when it antitrust becomes necessary. And the case against Apple has a long way to go in this regard, no matter how many people try to spin it. That's something even MS boosters fail to comprehend.

From Daring Fireball:

http://hunter.pairsite.com/blogs/20091004/

Craig Hunter nails it:

"Clearly, other companies know how to sync painlessly with iTunes music (see RIMs Blackberry Media Sync for example), so why doesnt Palm develop a syncing solution for their own hardware? The exact reason is unknown, but my guess is that its a combination of things. Perhaps Palm doesnt have the resources to develop their own sync app. Or maybe they want some publicity. Or maybe they just want to push Apples buttons. Who really knows.

But I seriously question the strategy and brains of any company that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of their competitors software. I mean, really? Can it get any more ridiculous? Can you possibly send a more mixed, less confidence- inspiring, were a bunch of hacks who cant provide our own sync software for our products message to customers?"

Indeed.

actually, I think that one qualifies as an analogy, rather than metaphor (or simile!).

C

I stand corrected. The point still stands. Palm is saying that they have a sync solution that is just as good as Apple's... because it IS Apple's!

I'd have to agree that it's ridiculously easy to do it on Mac OS. The question is how hard would it be for making one on Windows.

Personally, Palm can send me a Pre and I'll write them a nice simple Mac OS one.

Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.

Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.

But I can also agree that if there are good open interfaces to ITunes then Palm could use that. I doubt there is. If so this is merely a discussion of methods.


I may be ignorant of many things. And the law is for courts to interpret. But the Microsoft vs Commision case is a direct application of Article 82 and I think it is analogous. Microsoft tied Media player into dominant Windows, and Apple ties dominant online "music selling" into ipods. I may be wrong but I think industry knows that Apple/Itunes/App Store is the dominant player and you do too. Itunes Store has more than 70% of download music market.

Are you drunk? Palm Pre users can purchase as much iTunes music as they like, just like they can from Amazon. They can drag in onto the Pre and listen to it as they wish. If you want all the advantages of an iPhone, you will just have to buy an iPhone. This is so hysterical, I will quote it again.


Palm has done a great job at brainwashing.


Does this propaganda appear in the box of the Pre, or do you have to go into special clinics to have it done?

You obviously know nothing about monopolies; Look it up. Apple developed the software, Apple built the device, there is no law that has or ever will state that they have to provide support for 3rd party devices at all.

Apple has made it clear that you can access Itunes XML database (open standard) using your own software. Protecting your patents is anti-competitive? Really? Don't you understand that beating out the competition is what companies do?

interesting you reply to me, but forget that patrickwalker shows how bad your opinions are with concern to the evidence provided, so please explain how his opinions are inaccurate because he did a very good job in my eyes and what i wanted to say.

Btw: You told me I was ignorant of the law initially and implied that you knew it better!! so now do not not reply, the law is for courts to interpret.

If you had just provided your opinions without using the 'personal touch' of calling me ignorant, I would have let your comments go, since everyone has an opinion, but you decided that you knew best, which is not the case.

Patrickwalker said it best

'You can have a monopoly in US or even EU law, it's when you abuse it when it antitrust becomes necessary. And the case against Apple has a long way to go in this regard, no matter how many people try to spin it. That's something even MS boosters fail to comprehend.'

P.S. again provide evidence that Apple intentionally stopped Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes and it was not deemed a hack. I am not taking you at face value anymore, factual evidence please!

We kinda knew Palm was Bush-league from the start, what with Elevation Partners keeping it a hairs-breadth away from certain death.

But really, this latest move by Palm proves it.

I swear it really seems Rubinstein is still working for Apple. Otherwise the grudge he might hold against his former employers has driven him quite insane.

The real nail in the Palm coffin here is the lack of precedent for what they're doing (because what they are doing to their brand and to their customers is insane) and the existence of overwhelming evidence for alternative sync methods: RIM has found a way, and there are other methods to sync as well. But Palm wants to give users the "full iTunes experience", which they did not create and have no rights to. Insane.

I never have or owned a Pre! I own an Iphone! You are right and my statement is wrong, you can buy and use on other things - now, if you buy non-DRM and pay extra. So if you can drag it what is so good about not allowing a synch routine work for all players?

Please stop you are giving me brain acne, just to read your continued search to be right. You are shown to be inaccurate in your opinions. Its okay to have opinions and it is okay to be wrong in your opinions, since we all are not prefect and know everything. What is hard to understand is someone that has been provided evidence that his opinions are wrong and continues down the path to try and enlighten us.

Are you a politician by any chance

Sorry for the personal attack, but assuming you didn't know (much) about anti-competetive law, it was not ment as one. I simply wanted to state that there's more to anti-competetive law than offering choice. As you and Patrickwalker both may agree with.

There may be a long way before there is a clear case against Apple but I and many other Apple consumers can clearly *feel* their anti-competetive behaviour. In the computer market, Apple plays a different game of being underdog and promoting open standards (html 5 etc). I guess I wish to see more of that.

Me thinks Jon Rubenstein isn't really in charge and it's DVD Jon instead.

let me guess...you've never been robbed?


You make a lot of generalizations about burglars. The fact is, when one is in your house, it's dark, you can't take time to assess what they're after, their psycology, or their armament.

do you also criticize policemen for taking body shots instead of shooting the leg?

the fact is, in high stress situations, you do whatever you can to neutralize the target. sure most burglars fall into the categories you state, but there are some that don't fit that mold. take that risk if you want, but you don't subdue a burglar until the police come, you don't chase them out. you simply have no idea what they're capable of.

and you're making a logical fallacy by putting words into his mouth. all he said was he shoots a burglar that comes into his home. you've extrapolated that by assigning machismo motives and calling him a coward. bad form.


I beg to differ. you were reading far too much into the "tenor" of the post that started this. the guy simply compared bricking a pre to "shooting a burglar." nothing about killing, murder, death, sadism, or anything that others are assigning to him.

Finally, i find gazoobee's rank nationalism to be appalling; claiming that america is a bit more barbaric than other countries is absolutely indefensible and cannot be backed up by anything other than biased opinion. perpetuating american stereotypes in that manner is arrogant, prejudiced, and shows a lack of education and understanding, not just about americans, but about the world in general. the fact that such stereotypes accuse americans of arrogance yet depend on arrogance themselves, shows that such character traits are not american tendencies, they are human tendencies.

remember when english colonists accused native americans of being barbarians, then proceeded to nearly eliminate them? there is meaning behind the phrase "takes one to know one."

in simplest terms, you're just as much a prick as the people you deign to accuse of the same.

Since you own an iPhone, you know what it is to have a seamless sync experience between all your important data on you computer and your phone. Before the iPhone, there was no such experience. You have come to take it for granted. Companies like Palm would kill for that experience. Clearly, they are willing to steal and risk their reputation for it. iTunes sync is a HUGE deal. Let no one tell you otherwise.

This turns into semantics it seems. Facts can be wrong and I will easy admit if I am wrong about facts. Opinions are subjective and cannot be wrong.

I do now know the facts of what exactly Apple did or Palm did but I *believe* Apple made a deliberate change to disable the sync with Palm pre. My opinion *is* that this is bad practice of Apple, which is enterly subjective and no thing has been presented that makes me change my view. Everyone can, as you say, have their opinon.

Just one simple reply 'opinions can be wrong'

Here, I agree with you completely -- except for one thing-- which is just a annecdotal twist in the Palm/Apple discussion, the "Before the iPhone, there was no such experience" is not on the spot. Did you se the original first Palm Pilot with the Hotsync software? It was the first 1996.

Oh well you keep *feeling* that way and I will wait for the appropriate commission or government to actually show me by law that is the case.

Unfortunately that was only released on windows (windows 95, windows 3.1) v2 of desktop sync software supported windows 98 and NT. No Mac version was released until much latter. I never bought one for that reason.

Actually just thinking about it name a phone that does have seamless sync experience before iPhone release across Mac/Win platforms.

Oh yeah?! If I state, I believe that the world is flat. all that would be true in this example is my belief that the world is flat, but my opinion is not free from scrutiny or being infallible simply because I state it as my opinion.


Then learn the facts! This has been discussed since before the Pre was launched, back when Palm advertised Pre syncing with iTunes.

Yes, Apple is deliberately changing the iTunes app so that non-iPods arent showing up in iTunes with false USB IDs, including Apple's USB Vendor ID, Product ID, Manufacturer ID, and even false iPod serial numbers. You think this is good for Palms customers to be treated this way when Apple has gone out of their way to make the iTunes file and DB very open and well documented so that any PMP can connect and sync the contents of the iTunes folders and info? RiM has a great app for syncing with the well documented and open iTunes XML file written in plain text. Apple could have encrypted this if they were going to be asses about it, but they didnt, but you think they need to go that extra mile and support the Palm Pre in iTunes and to abolish the idea that a device shouldnt pretend to be another device. Lets go back to the part where you stated, "I do now know the facts. Perhaps now youll do a little research before posting your opinions.

Opinions don't have much to do with "right" and "wrong." But they have a lot to do with "informed" and "uninformed."

I think the term in US law is "Market Power". Everyone tends to think of "monopoly" in terms of Microsoft's 90% or 95%. Market power or dominance is enough to get a company into trouble. I don't believe there is a finite 'number' that has to be passed. The courts decide that.



I think that is a mistake. One cannot define the market as "iPods". A few years ago you might have been able to define the market as "portable MP3 players. After video... maybe "Portable Media Players". Now the market is "portable media players including media capable phones". That was the whole idea behind my previous post.


Although this adds another layer of complexity to the matter It may or may not be relevant. Just one example: The Palm Pre has an Amazon MP3 Store client on the phone itself! I think Palm would have a tough sell trying to prove that not having access to iTunes denied their customers access to digital music.



The rest of the industry? What do you mean Microsoft with the Zune and Windows Mobile? Rim and Blackberrys? Nokia, Sony Erricsson, Carrier branded phones, Creative, Samsung, HTC, Archos, Motorola, San Disc, Cowan and many more...?

There are hundreds of personal media products, from dozens of other vendors. Cumulatively (even in the US) their sales outweigh sales of all iPods and iPhones. None of them appear to "need" iTunes to work properly. Indeed a large number of them seem to sync with Windows Media Player. Perhaps WMP is the 'incumbent"?

NOTE: Even if you want to define the market in your "own terms" Apple's share of ANY market in Europe is not the same as in the US. Sales of all of Apple's product lines have a heavy slant to north America.

For Apple to get into ant-trust legal difficulties a number of criteria have to be met.

One has to define the market(s)
Does Apple have market power?
Are they abusing that power?
Are there insurmountable "barriers to entry" to the market?
(ie. how hard is it for Rim to build and sell cell phones and computer sync software? How hard is it for Amazon, Real, Napster and eMusic to build MP3 stores? ... and Microsoft to build a complete iTunes/iPod clone ecosystem?)



You appear to be backtracking.


Does Apple have that market power now and are they abusing it? Or is this going to happen at some future date?




I was obviously mistaken. I thought you wanted more competition. Not less.

I know about Hotsync. IMO, there is no way the experience is the same as iTunes. Also, there is the little matter of Hotsync being a proprietary Palm solution for devices running the PalmOS. Palm's understanding that a proprietary sync solution should be open to all comers, is a very new epiphany.

Note to all burglars ... you are hereby invited to "visit" the premises of this posters home ... no penalty required.

Tell you what ... why don't you spend your time and money to develop something that everyone wants and is willing to pay for only to watch the guy down the street hack it and put it on his device to start making money for himself instead ... then let's see if you're still so so willin to "share".

You just don't get it , do you... Apple is NOT keeping iTunes away from all users that don't own an Apple product .. check out how many windows users using iTunes. They just get, rightfully so, pissed off with companies who are too lazy to develop their own software for doing so and instead try to "trick" their device into thinking it's an iPod to work properly .... I'm starting to believe that all these Palm supporters are the same people who think that it's completely and morally right to pirate other peoples work! ... unless, of course, it's YOUR work that's getting stolen!