iTunes sync spat between Palm, Apple continues - Page 5

Originally Posted by Tofino

what if it's your drunken neighbour who missed his driveway?

Originally Posted by Rankzero

I beg to differ!

* ITunes does not sell hardware! For any one user of an ipod there are three potential users that would buy ipods if they could use it without the stupid ITunes requirement! Just let it work as a USB mass storage device. And, lots and lots of users complain about ITunes. I think ITunes works fine but that should be up to anyone.

* Apple is making money selling music, a simple fact you can check in the quarterly reports. So the argument to only sell music from Itunes store to ipod/apple/iphone owners is discriminating and anti-competetive. You wait and se what the courts in EU will say. And the issue is about size, this apply to any shop/system once they get a large market share. What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?

* Apple does not own my media, (nor adresses, calendar events etc) that I have in my ITunes library! If I previously used ipods and was forced to use ITunes then it is my property and I can make use of it ANY WAY I WANT.

Conclusively, Apple's mobile venture is much about lock in and it is an UGLY path of keeping customer in the "hog hen" once hooked. In contrast, Apple's computer venture used to be about freedom, remembering the 1984 Mac video (most of you here do not remember that?) about how we should not be controlled and brain washed. Now it is Apple creating a IPhone App Censorship-Nanny-state!

Originally Posted by Rankzero

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.

Originally Posted by Rankzero

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.

Originally Posted by Kishan

iTunes consists of three distinct parts:

1. An online store where one can purchase media. All music on this store is now DRM free and may be played on a large variety of media devices.

2. A "jukebox" app for managing media from a variety of sources, only one of which is the online music store.

3. A synchronization app for Apple media devices.

I would argue that parts 1 and 2 are open to anyone on the Mac or Windows platform. It is only the third part which is in contention. Persons may purchase on the iTunes store and then move the media to any jukebox/synchronization app they choose. I would argue that Palm has chosen to not provide its users with this app, instead relying on Apple to provide it. As such, they have placed their users experience in the hands of a company that sells competing hardware! Does this seem like a silly business practice to anyone else?

Originally Posted by mkral

This whole battle seems like a losing proposition for Palm. Imagine if you bought an iphone and every week or couple of weeks it stopped syncing with your media. Eventually it gets fixed, but sooner or later it stops syncing again. This happens over and over. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, eventually, I'd get tired of this and look for alternate solutions. Even if palm re-enables sync every time, I'd still be pissed if I was a pre user and couldn't get new media onto my phone for a few days or a few weeks every time itunes blocked it. Maybe I"d find some kind of third party software, like the missing sync, or maybe I would go for a new phone. If I went for a new phone, I doubt I'd get the new pre (whatever it was at the time I upgraded), as I know that this hassle is going to continue.

Originally Posted by Rankzero

Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!

Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!

Frankly Apple can take the competition whithout being a bully! BTW there is no secure solution to lock out anything (like ITunes media library) from a private computer when you have root access. If you do not want to spoof as ipod there are many other ways to rip the ITunes library. I think Apple is surely loosing the fight to google and other "open standard champions" if the continue this fight. In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!

Originally Posted by hill60

Yes it's obvious that iTunes is a monopoly, there's no way that another piece of software could be more prevalent. take Windows Media Player, it's got nowhere near the market pene...

..oh, hang on.

The Palm pre has no respect for USB standards so why should Apple?

If Apple wanted to run 110 volts down USB to a spoofed iPod why should anyone stop them.

The USB-IF guidelines are obviously meaningless to Palm, why should they care?

btw your contacts, calendar etc are synced with the pre-existing software on your computer, iTunes even gives you a choice of which one to use.

you don't need iTunes to sync that information to another device.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

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.

Originally Posted by jfanning

You missing some words there, it should be "Before the iPhone, there was no such experience on the Mac.". And even then, it isn't true, iSync is seamless...

Originally Posted by nikon133

No, not really. Pre user simply has to delay iTunes update until there is Pre firmware that supports new iTunes.

Originally Posted by Foo2

I'm not sure the USB-IF needs to do anything but declare Palm to be in violation of their agreement.

That might be enough to prevent the Pre from being advertised as supporting USB. A recall and destruction of product packaging and advertising literature that declares the Pre as supporting USB might also be necessary. If Palm continued to advertise the Pre as having USB, a charge of false advertising might be brought against the company, which is where Apple could get involved directly or maybe even indirectly (and quietly) by funding legal action by the USB-IF.

Depending on the terms of the USB agreement, a flagrant violation might even prevent Palm's advertising any device they manufacture as being USB.

My vivid imagination suggests the USB agreement might further prevent component manufacturers from selling "USB" components to any manufacturer that is deemed to be in violation of the agreement. Hopefully for Palm's sake, they've figured these things out, though.

Originally Posted by Homie

So should MS be allowed to block iTunes in PC's? Really? Should Windows automatically delete Safari? This is a dangerous argument you are making.

Originally Posted by krabbelen

Not at all the same thing! Google is "replacing some of the core functions of iPhone" by writing its own program. So yeah, you can "make a 'phone call'" with a Google app; and you can with Skype and Truphone and I suppose others.

Google is not hacking the iPhone so that when you go to the regular built-in phoning function and make a phone call you can do it through Google instead of your regular carrier on your SIM card account.

People are saying the Google app should be approved because the carrier should be open to competition -- that since you are already paying ATT for "unlimited data", you should be able to use your data bandwidth in this way. How is this making Apple look bad? These apps add value to the iPhone. It makes ATT service look bad. Now, if Google was trying to sell its hardware Gphone or whatever by using as a selling point that it syncs fully and smoothly with iTunes just as though it was an iPhone, I think there would be a little bit of a problem.

If Apple said, "hey we can give you Google Maps and Google search on your iPod or iPhone without the ads, because we have figured out how to hack straight into Google's servers without using their publicly released APIs, then you can bet there would be a problem!

There is no double standard, because people are calling for Palm to do the same as Google (and as Blackberry has already done with your iTunes library) -- WRITE THEIR OWN PROGRAM. Good grief, how hard is that to understand!

Palm is not only trying to access your library, which is legitimate and allowed by Apple; they are trying to take advantage of the user experience that Apple has carefully crafted and developed for its own devices. They want the automatic sync with smart playlists, and unwatched podcasts, and everything else. These are part of the selling point and differentiation of Apple's iPods and iPhones. And Palm is using Apple's uniquely assigned USB ID to achieve it.

Originally Posted by Rankzero

...So if you can drag it what is so good about not allowing a synch routine work for all players?

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

I had a PC back in the day as well as Hotsync. iTunes is far and away better than HS on its best day. iSync is better than HS on its best day. If iTunes was not the best of breed, Palm would not be staking everything on it. They are risking everything for iTunes, not HS, not Palm Desktop.

If you doubt how important iTunes sync is, just visit the Precentral.net site. Some openly admit they bought the Pre because it could sync using iTunes. This is a big deal and a big moment in tech history. Can't wait to see how it ends.

Originally Posted by souliisoul

Sorry but using Internet explorer as an example is flawed every way you look at it. IE would disable other browsers that would be anti competition, since internet is not owned by MS. Apple own iTunes and Device ID, which Palm are using. Apple have every right to disable the Palm Pre, since it is using their device ID, which is no no by USB IF. Why don't Palm do what everyone esle does and develop a sync software. No its too easy to do it cheaply and then cry foul.

Sorry mate but Apple are not suing because it would raise awareness to Palm Pre, free publicity at Apple's expense. Noticed all the crying has come from Palm, wonder why.

Originally Posted by dasanman69

Do jailbreakers get tired of jailbreaking their iphones every time apple locks them out? The answer is no.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

This is a very good observation. I was one of the early to complain about Apple denying GV, but I've come around to the conclusion that Apple has somewhat of a point here.