This means it doesn't carelessly dump IBEC and IBSS files during your iPhone 3GS restore into /tmp/ or &TEMP* directories. I can already sense the coming pain.... "I followed your guide but it didn't work! I can't jailbreak anymore! WTF unlock doesn't work anymore!"
Its coming guys... Apple's really serious on jailbreaks now. Its a shame, really is.
Geohot has shown time and time again, create an iPhone and he will unlock it. He even posted how he exploited Apple's attempt to lock the iPhone. Humans make iPhones, a human will break the lock. Just that simple.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to throw around unfounded accusations, please continue. Just don't get defensive when you are called on it.
Dude, call me out on anything you'd like. I'm not sitting here claiming to be the know-everything guy. My point is my opinion, one that only someone who is incredibly naive would *NOT* believe. <---edited statement there, forgot the "not"
Microsoft was founded to have a monopoly over its desktop OS years ago. Since that time, its become modular and much more compliant in the eyes of the US government, and even the EU, who is exerting its power over Microsoft to this day (again, in my opinion) unfairly. But my point is they're image alone is enough to get people's blood boiling, even in areas where they are NOT considered a monopoly.
For instance, the zune. Say Palm released a new phone, and it just so happens that this phone syncs perfectly and flawlessly with the Microsoft Zune software. Do you truly, honestly expect me to see the same reaction to Microsoft's actions as you do with Apple's actions? Please, Microsoft would be punched into the ground and everyone would stick up for Palm. There's no way you'd get this much support for Microsoft's cause, even if the motivation and principles were 'in sync' with Apple's. <-- Pun intended.
I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....
Geohot has shown time and time again, create an iPhone and he will unlock it. He even posted how he exploited Apple's attempt to lock the iPhone. Humans make iPhones, a human will break the lock. Just that simple.
Musclenerd, from the iPhone Dev Team, is already predicting than Apple will have an "i" device that will be pretty much impossible to jailbreak through software alone in as little as 18 months.
Besides... No offense, but Geohot comes off as kind of a ****** to me, to be honest. I don't know, its not like I know the guy personally, but he seems to enjoy doing things his own way vs what should be best for everyone. He hates Nitrokey for leaking certain baseband vulnerabilities to Apple before they can be used for an unlock, but then has no issue leaking the temporary iBoot exploit that the dev team held off in order to help the most amount of iPhone 3GS owners to jailbreak. Double-standard, if you ask me.
All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.
Your interesting post made me instantly think of a 1971 film titled Perkele! Kuvia Suomesta. And it wasn't so much the "Images of Finland" bit that triggered the association.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.
As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.
What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.
Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?
You can play unprotected music you bought using iTunes on any number of software, devices, or computers. Apple is not preventing you from copying your iTunes music to any other music software. What Apple is doing is preventing other devices from syncing with iTunes by pretending to be Apple devices. Alternatively, Palm or any other company can create their own software that can import or access your iTunes music for syncing with their device. iTunes places your music in regular folders that you can access using the Finder (On Mac) or Explorer (on Windows).
What are you talking about?? "Apple has no monopoly."
They're the #1 distributor of all digital music sold in the US, they're the #1 distributor of ALL music sold in the US, and they have over 70% of the MP3 player marketshare for Q1 of 2009.
Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields, and yet they are still held to a different standard than Microsoft.
You can be the number one distributer and still have a minority of sales, which is what Apple has. They sell about 20% of the music in the USA, far from a monopoly. They sell even a smaller percentage around the rest of the world.
Why don't you look this stuff up before making these statements?
It has nothing to do with the method of distribution, only the percentage of total distribution.
All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.
“Our mission is to acquire some of the most beautiful land in West Michigan, and to develop unique residential communities while preserving as much of the natural features as possible. Rather than developing 100 percent of the land in a community into individual lots, we choose to cluster the lots and leave much of the property in its natural state for the homeowners to enjoy.”
Ah, the latest ploy from your friendly local developer. Instead of having a larger yard area for your family and friends to enjoy, you get the developers vision of common areas to enjoy with everybody else. Not to mention the wonderful ability of the developer to cram that many more McMansions into a smaller area, thereby reducing his cost structure while lowering your quality of life while living there. What's not to like? Meh.
First, thanks to Melgross for stating his arguments clearly and with logic. Also, thanks for his business experience. I don't have any issue with his opinion, but will express my own opinion which tends to go to the exact opposite.
First, why should the iTunes Store and iTunes software be an open platform for everyone who installs either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes?
Because iTunes is a public internet store which sells unprotected music tracks (and other programs and software) to anyone with a credit card, provided that they install either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.
As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.
What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.
Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?
Well, thanks, I think, for your complements in the beginning.
The reason why I don't agree is because Apple never opened their "store" to the general public. If they had done that, then restricting sales to a few favored devices would have been problematic. But as they only used the store for their own devices, the situation is different. Many companies have in-house services that are only allowed for their own customers of other services or equipment. This usage is not in dispute.
Since this subject is one that is open to the public because of it's wide ranging interest, it seems different, but it's not.
The real question is whether others can sell to Apple's products, and they can. There is no law that I know of that states that a company must sell to all and sundry when it's clear that sales are to be made only to specialized devices sold by that company. This is what Apple has done.
But it's even less than that. We're not talking about music sales, but merely syncing to a device that Apple doesn't sell. Pre owners can buy music from Apple's store and put it on their phones. No restrictions! What is happening here is simply a syncing situation. Apple is not under any obligation to allow other manufacturers to sync to their software. This isn't general purpose software in regards to syncing with hardware. Palm is free to write their own software to allow them to use facilities to gather the purchases made so as to sync them to the Pre. This is fairly simple stuff.
The question here is whether Palm was right in telling their customers that the Pre synced with iTunes in the first place, when they knew that they were doing something that wasn't proper, and might be taken away. They just assumed that Apple wouldn't have the chutzpa to tighten up their procedures.
They were wrong.
I know that sometimes what we want to happen seems to be what should be allowed to happen, but it's not always that way. This is one of those times.
Dude, call me out on anything you'd like. I'm not sitting here claiming to be the know-everything guy. My point is my opinion, one that only someone who is incredibly naive would *NOT* believe. <---edited statement there, forgot the "not"
Microsoft was founded to have a monopoly over its desktop OS years ago. Since that time, its become modular and much more compliant in the eyes of the US government, and even the EU, who is exerting its power over Microsoft to this day (again, in my opinion) unfairly. But my point is they're image alone is enough to get people's blood boiling, even in areas where they are NOT considered a monopoly.
For instance, the zune. Say Palm released a new phone, and it just so happens that this phone syncs perfectly and flawlessly with the Microsoft Zune software. Do you truly, honestly expect me to see the same reaction to Microsoft's actions as you do with Apple's actions? Please, Microsoft would be punched into the ground and everyone would stick up for Palm. There's no way you'd get this much support for Microsoft's cause, even if the motivation and principles were 'in sync' with Apple's. <-- Pun intended.
I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....
It's tough to say what would happen with MS. They have no problem cutting their partners off when it suits them as they did with "Plays For Sure". If Palm tried to sync with the Zune marketplace, MS might be so happy that this gives it validation, and a few possible customers, that they may pay Palm to continue doing it.
Market leaders and market laggers act differently.
It's true that MS uses its monopoly profits to prop up its other businesses. The Zune is one of those businesses. I remember at about the end of the first year of the Zune, Ballmer was asked in an interview, when they were going to bring the Zune international. He said, in a comment that he may not have realized told more than he meant it to that; "if we did that, we would only lose more money." Very revealing.
So yes, they might welcome the Pre.
Apple is not a monopoly, and makes money on all its hardware endeavors. The iTunes store just make a small percentage. It's there to sell Apple hardware. Why should they give a competitor an advantage?
And if you or others are going to start insisting that Apple has a monopoly, you are really going to have to support that.
I smell an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. This is the beginning of the anti-competitive legal battles for Apple. Intentionally inhibiting a consumer's use of non-Apple products. Here comes the legal pain. They deserve the lawsuit.
That's laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by holywarrior007
This is a clear case of monopoly from the Apple, which is bad. What if tomorrow the MS doesn't allow the iTunes and Safari to run on the Windows. Will the Apple then cry foul?
Not the same comparison. Palm can easily write their own software that will run on Macs, just as Apple has written their own software that runs in Windows. Apple couldn't object to Palm writing their own "preTunes" for OSX.
Why SHOULD Apple be working on a platform for sync, that I suppose you mean would work with competitors devices?
Benefits to Users
Users might have several computers, at home and at work, a PDA, an iPod and multiple cell phones. Users will want to automatically sync data on all their computers and devices?especially, contacts and calendars which are supported on most devices.
For example, users may want to sync their phone and iPod devices with Address Book and iCal (see Figure 1). If they have a .Mac account, they might want to sync their contacts, calendars, and bookmarks across multiple computers. But why stop there? They might want to sync their music, photos, some arbitrary folders, and Mail rules, too. Even large enterprises such as companies and universities might want to sync their custom objects across the network. Syncing is a service available to all applications, not just Apple applications.
The goal is for syncing to be ubiquitous, available to all as just another service on Mac OS X, so that users don?t have to think about syncing; all applications, devices, and computers should sync quickly and quietly in the background.
Yah, Apple does work on synching with other devices for obvious reasons. It just doesn't work on them for competitor's devices on Windows.
iTunes Agent may, or may not still work. Haven't looked in detail how it works but given you have to have a dedicated playlist for your device and it lives as it's own App, I think it just looks at the XML for that playlist and copies over the files when you connect.
This would have been pretty danged easy for Palm to have replicated instead of purposely thumbing their nose at Apple. I suppose their intent was to get Apple to shut them out to be able to play the victim.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
You do realize that the AAC files from the iTunes Store can be easily converted into MP3 files, which can be played on any MP3 player.
Users might have several computers, at home and at work, a PDA, an iPod and multiple cell phones. Users will want to automatically sync data on all their computers and devices—especially, contacts and calendars which are supported on most devices.
For example, users may want to sync their phone and iPod devices with Address Book and iCal (see Figure 1). If they have a .Mac account, they might want to sync their contacts, calendars, and bookmarks across multiple computers. But why stop there? They might want to sync their music, photos, some arbitrary folders, and Mail rules, too. Even large enterprises such as companies and universities might want to sync their custom objects across the network. Syncing is a service available to all applications, not just Apple applications.
The goal is for syncing to be ubiquitous, available to all as just another service on Mac OS X, so that users don’t have to think about syncing; all applications, devices, and computers should sync quickly and quietly in the background.
Yah, Apple does work on synching with other devices for obvious reasons. It just doesn't work on them for competitor's devices on Windows.
iTunes Agent may, or may not still work. Haven't looked in detail how it works but given you have to have a dedicated playlist for your device and it lives as it's own App, I think it just looks at the XML for that playlist and copies over the files when you connect.
This would have been pretty danged easy for Palm to have replicated instead of purposely thumbing their nose at Apple. I suppose their intent was to get Apple to shut them out to be able to play the victim.
I know what you're saying, and many devices sync to the computer, either using Apple's software that Apple wrote to enable it, or with third party software.
But that's in areas where Apple doesn't have any major product lines at stake. For this, they do. But even here, these companies can write fairly simple software that will do some of this for them. This has been pointed out here several times.
I can't see any reason why Apple shouldn't reserve some functionality for their own devices giving them an advantage.
If other companies want some of the advantages, they can hire a couple of guys to do the work.
Or possibly a company such as Mark/Space will do it if there's enough demand. I have their software. When my Samsung i300 and 1330 didn't work with the Palm Desktop supplied, their software made it happen. It also made the phones, as well as my later Treo 700p work with Apples software. So this isn't impossible, and Apple shouldn't stop it.
But for Apple to enable it would be silly.
Why should they give people the ability to say; "Hey, I can auto sync a Pre to iTunes, now I don't have to buy that iPhone."?
All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.
Spam gets better all the time.
I must admit, I first read that link as "Whiteyville" and thought it was some kind of joke.
The iTunes Store is a public internet store, open to anyone with a credit card.
When Apple made a Windows version of the iTunes software for Windows devices, it stopped playing to the exclusive crowd of Apple fans.
iTunes songs can be synced and placed in neat folders on any Windows PC and any Apple built devices, iPods, iPhones and Macs. Song tracks can also be copied on any device with a hard drive and played with a number of music playing software.
The only issue seems to be whether syncing can occur only on a Windows PC or an Apple branded device. To remove syncing on a Pre device seems to be retaliation on a successful cell phone competitor. I believe it is ill advised (and the sort of thing Microsoft was accused of doing a number of times).
Success should be enjoyed and celebrated, but you can't prevent others from going in business and marketing successful products.
Comments
This means it doesn't carelessly dump IBEC and IBSS files during your iPhone 3GS restore into /tmp/ or &TEMP* directories. I can already sense the coming pain.... "I followed your guide but it didn't work! I can't jailbreak anymore! WTF unlock doesn't work anymore!"
Its coming guys... Apple's really serious on jailbreaks now. Its a shame, really is.
Geohot has shown time and time again, create an iPhone and he will unlock it. He even posted how he exploited Apple's attempt to lock the iPhone. Humans make iPhones, a human will break the lock. Just that simple.
One other point
They are also a convicted monopolist.
Not apples to oranges at all.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to throw around unfounded accusations, please continue. Just don't get defensive when you are called on it.
Dude, call me out on anything you'd like. I'm not sitting here claiming to be the know-everything guy. My point is my opinion, one that only someone who is incredibly naive would *NOT* believe. <---edited statement there, forgot the "not"
Microsoft was founded to have a monopoly over its desktop OS years ago. Since that time, its become modular and much more compliant in the eyes of the US government, and even the EU, who is exerting its power over Microsoft to this day (again, in my opinion) unfairly. But my point is they're image alone is enough to get people's blood boiling, even in areas where they are NOT considered a monopoly.
For instance, the zune. Say Palm released a new phone, and it just so happens that this phone syncs perfectly and flawlessly with the Microsoft Zune software. Do you truly, honestly expect me to see the same reaction to Microsoft's actions as you do with Apple's actions? Please, Microsoft would be punched into the ground and everyone would stick up for Palm. There's no way you'd get this much support for Microsoft's cause, even if the motivation and principles were 'in sync' with Apple's. <-- Pun intended.
I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....
Geohot has shown time and time again, create an iPhone and he will unlock it. He even posted how he exploited Apple's attempt to lock the iPhone. Humans make iPhones, a human will break the lock. Just that simple.
Musclenerd, from the iPhone Dev Team, is already predicting than Apple will have an "i" device that will be pretty much impossible to jailbreak through software alone in as little as 18 months.
http://twitter.com/MuscleNerd/status/2434206336
Besides... No offense, but Geohot comes off as kind of a ****** to me, to be honest. I don't know, its not like I know the guy personally, but he seems to enjoy doing things his own way vs what should be best for everyone. He hates Nitrokey for leaking certain baseband vulnerabilities to Apple before they can be used for an unlock, but then has no issue leaking the temporary iBoot exploit that the dev team held off in order to help the most amount of iPhone 3GS owners to jailbreak. Double-standard, if you ask me.
All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.
Your interesting post made me instantly think of a 1971 film titled Perkele! Kuvia Suomesta. And it wasn't so much the "Images of Finland" bit that triggered the association.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.
As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.
What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.
Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?
You can play unprotected music you bought using iTunes on any number of software, devices, or computers. Apple is not preventing you from copying your iTunes music to any other music software. What Apple is doing is preventing other devices from syncing with iTunes by pretending to be Apple devices. Alternatively, Palm or any other company can create their own software that can import or access your iTunes music for syncing with their device. iTunes places your music in regular folders that you can access using the Finder (On Mac) or Explorer (on Windows).
What are you talking about?? "Apple has no monopoly."
They're the #1 distributor of all digital music sold in the US, they're the #1 distributor of ALL music sold in the US, and they have over 70% of the MP3 player marketshare for Q1 of 2009.
Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields, and yet they are still held to a different standard than Microsoft.
You can be the number one distributer and still have a minority of sales, which is what Apple has. They sell about 20% of the music in the USA, far from a monopoly. They sell even a smaller percentage around the rest of the world.
Why don't you look this stuff up before making these statements?
It has nothing to do with the method of distribution, only the percentage of total distribution.
I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....
Would you like some cheese with that whine sandwich?
All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.
“Our mission is to acquire some of the most beautiful land in West Michigan, and to develop unique residential communities while preserving as much of the natural features as possible. Rather than developing 100 percent of the land in a community into individual lots, we choose to cluster the lots and leave much of the property in its natural state for the homeowners to enjoy.”
Ah, the latest ploy from your friendly local developer. Instead of having a larger yard area for your family and friends to enjoy, you get the developers vision of common areas to enjoy with everybody else. Not to mention the wonderful ability of the developer to cram that many more McMansions into a smaller area, thereby reducing his cost structure while lowering your quality of life while living there. What's not to like? Meh.
First, thanks to Melgross for stating his arguments clearly and with logic. Also, thanks for his business experience. I don't have any issue with his opinion, but will express my own opinion which tends to go to the exact opposite.
First, why should the iTunes Store and iTunes software be an open platform for everyone who installs either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes?
Because iTunes is a public internet store which sells unprotected music tracks (and other programs and software) to anyone with a credit card, provided that they install either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.
As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.
What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.
Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?
Well, thanks, I think, for your complements in the beginning.
The reason why I don't agree is because Apple never opened their "store" to the general public. If they had done that, then restricting sales to a few favored devices would have been problematic. But as they only used the store for their own devices, the situation is different. Many companies have in-house services that are only allowed for their own customers of other services or equipment. This usage is not in dispute.
Since this subject is one that is open to the public because of it's wide ranging interest, it seems different, but it's not.
The real question is whether others can sell to Apple's products, and they can. There is no law that I know of that states that a company must sell to all and sundry when it's clear that sales are to be made only to specialized devices sold by that company. This is what Apple has done.
But it's even less than that. We're not talking about music sales, but merely syncing to a device that Apple doesn't sell. Pre owners can buy music from Apple's store and put it on their phones. No restrictions! What is happening here is simply a syncing situation. Apple is not under any obligation to allow other manufacturers to sync to their software. This isn't general purpose software in regards to syncing with hardware. Palm is free to write their own software to allow them to use facilities to gather the purchases made so as to sync them to the Pre. This is fairly simple stuff.
The question here is whether Palm was right in telling their customers that the Pre synced with iTunes in the first place, when they knew that they were doing something that wasn't proper, and might be taken away. They just assumed that Apple wouldn't have the chutzpa to tighten up their procedures.
They were wrong.
I know that sometimes what we want to happen seems to be what should be allowed to happen, but it's not always that way. This is one of those times.
Dude, call me out on anything you'd like. I'm not sitting here claiming to be the know-everything guy. My point is my opinion, one that only someone who is incredibly naive would *NOT* believe. <---edited statement there, forgot the "not"
Microsoft was founded to have a monopoly over its desktop OS years ago. Since that time, its become modular and much more compliant in the eyes of the US government, and even the EU, who is exerting its power over Microsoft to this day (again, in my opinion) unfairly. But my point is they're image alone is enough to get people's blood boiling, even in areas where they are NOT considered a monopoly.
For instance, the zune. Say Palm released a new phone, and it just so happens that this phone syncs perfectly and flawlessly with the Microsoft Zune software. Do you truly, honestly expect me to see the same reaction to Microsoft's actions as you do with Apple's actions? Please, Microsoft would be punched into the ground and everyone would stick up for Palm. There's no way you'd get this much support for Microsoft's cause, even if the motivation and principles were 'in sync' with Apple's. <-- Pun intended.
I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....
It's tough to say what would happen with MS. They have no problem cutting their partners off when it suits them as they did with "Plays For Sure". If Palm tried to sync with the Zune marketplace, MS might be so happy that this gives it validation, and a few possible customers, that they may pay Palm to continue doing it.
Market leaders and market laggers act differently.
It's true that MS uses its monopoly profits to prop up its other businesses. The Zune is one of those businesses. I remember at about the end of the first year of the Zune, Ballmer was asked in an interview, when they were going to bring the Zune international. He said, in a comment that he may not have realized told more than he meant it to that; "if we did that, we would only lose more money." Very revealing.
So yes, they might welcome the Pre.
Apple is not a monopoly, and makes money on all its hardware endeavors. The iTunes store just make a small percentage. It's there to sell Apple hardware. Why should they give a competitor an advantage?
And if you or others are going to start insisting that Apple has a monopoly, you are really going to have to support that.
I smell an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. This is the beginning of the anti-competitive legal battles for Apple. Intentionally inhibiting a consumer's use of non-Apple products. Here comes the legal pain. They deserve the lawsuit.
That's laughable.
This is a clear case of monopoly from the Apple, which is bad. What if tomorrow the MS doesn't allow the iTunes and Safari to run on the Windows. Will the Apple then cry foul?
Not the same comparison. Palm can easily write their own software that will run on Macs, just as Apple has written their own software that runs in Windows. Apple couldn't object to Palm writing their own "preTunes" for OSX.
Why SHOULD Apple be working on a platform for sync, that I suppose you mean would work with competitors devices?
Benefits to Users
Users might have several computers, at home and at work, a PDA, an iPod and multiple cell phones. Users will want to automatically sync data on all their computers and devices?especially, contacts and calendars which are supported on most devices.
For example, users may want to sync their phone and iPod devices with Address Book and iCal (see Figure 1). If they have a .Mac account, they might want to sync their contacts, calendars, and bookmarks across multiple computers. But why stop there? They might want to sync their music, photos, some arbitrary folders, and Mail rules, too. Even large enterprises such as companies and universities might want to sync their custom objects across the network. Syncing is a service available to all applications, not just Apple applications.
The goal is for syncing to be ubiquitous, available to all as just another service on Mac OS X, so that users don?t have to think about syncing; all applications, devices, and computers should sync quickly and quietly in the background.
http://tinyurl.com/lqbckf
Yah, Apple does work on synching with other devices for obvious reasons. It just doesn't work on them for competitor's devices on Windows.
iTunes Agent may, or may not still work. Haven't looked in detail how it works but given you have to have a dedicated playlist for your device and it lives as it's own App, I think it just looks at the XML for that playlist and copies over the files when you connect.
http://ita.sourceforge.net/
This would have been pretty danged easy for Palm to have replicated instead of purposely thumbing their nose at Apple. I suppose their intent was to get Apple to shut them out to be able to play the victim.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
You do realize that the AAC files from the iTunes Store can be easily converted into MP3 files, which can be played on any MP3 player.
Benefits to Users
Users might have several computers, at home and at work, a PDA, an iPod and multiple cell phones. Users will want to automatically sync data on all their computers and devices—especially, contacts and calendars which are supported on most devices.
For example, users may want to sync their phone and iPod devices with Address Book and iCal (see Figure 1). If they have a .Mac account, they might want to sync their contacts, calendars, and bookmarks across multiple computers. But why stop there? They might want to sync their music, photos, some arbitrary folders, and Mail rules, too. Even large enterprises such as companies and universities might want to sync their custom objects across the network. Syncing is a service available to all applications, not just Apple applications.
The goal is for syncing to be ubiquitous, available to all as just another service on Mac OS X, so that users don’t have to think about syncing; all applications, devices, and computers should sync quickly and quietly in the background.
http://tinyurl.com/lqbckf
Yah, Apple does work on synching with other devices for obvious reasons. It just doesn't work on them for competitor's devices on Windows.
iTunes Agent may, or may not still work. Haven't looked in detail how it works but given you have to have a dedicated playlist for your device and it lives as it's own App, I think it just looks at the XML for that playlist and copies over the files when you connect.
http://ita.sourceforge.net/
This would have been pretty danged easy for Palm to have replicated instead of purposely thumbing their nose at Apple. I suppose their intent was to get Apple to shut them out to be able to play the victim.
I know what you're saying, and many devices sync to the computer, either using Apple's software that Apple wrote to enable it, or with third party software.
But that's in areas where Apple doesn't have any major product lines at stake. For this, they do. But even here, these companies can write fairly simple software that will do some of this for them. This has been pointed out here several times.
I can't see any reason why Apple shouldn't reserve some functionality for their own devices giving them an advantage.
If other companies want some of the advantages, they can hire a couple of guys to do the work.
Or possibly a company such as Mark/Space will do it if there's enough demand. I have their software. When my Samsung i300 and 1330 didn't work with the Palm Desktop supplied, their software made it happen. It also made the phones, as well as my later Treo 700p work with Apples software. So this isn't impossible, and Apple shouldn't stop it.
But for Apple to enable it would be silly.
Why should they give people the ability to say; "Hey, I can auto sync a Pre to iTunes, now I don't have to buy that iPhone."?
You do realize that the AAC files from the iTunes Store can be easily converted into MP3 files, which can be played on any MP3 player.
And most players and phones will play AAC directly.
You pay $40 in taxes
Joe in Miami, I live in Miami.
All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.
Spam gets better all the time.
I must admit, I first read that link as "Whiteyville" and thought it was some kind of joke.
Spam gets better all the time.
I must admit, I first read that link as "Whiteyville" and thought it was some kind of joke.
There is a new study out that shows that one in six people respond to spam!
One in six!!!
Unbelievable!
When Apple made a Windows version of the iTunes software for Windows devices, it stopped playing to the exclusive crowd of Apple fans.
iTunes songs can be synced and placed in neat folders on any Windows PC and any Apple built devices, iPods, iPhones and Macs. Song tracks can also be copied on any device with a hard drive and played with a number of music playing software.
The only issue seems to be whether syncing can occur only on a Windows PC or an Apple branded device. To remove syncing on a Pre device seems to be retaliation on a successful cell phone competitor. I believe it is ill advised (and the sort of thing Microsoft was accused of doing a number of times).
Success should be enjoyed and celebrated, but you can't prevent others from going in business and marketing successful products.