And to those who notice their 70%+ marketshare of MP3 devices .
Apple can have 90% of the MP3 player market and iTunes would not be perceived as "monopolistic" in the eyes of the courts. That's because there are many other apps that can be used to get music into an iPod. The iPod, like nearly all MP3 players, are seen as just an external HD. You can just drag the songs you want into it. There is no need for iTunes, except for firmware updates. Thus an iPod owner is not "tied" to iTunes. And Apple has always allowed third party apps to put music into an iPod.
iTunes is the most popular music jukebox/organizer. But by no means the only one. Nor does it have a "monopolistic" marketshare. The iPod may have 70% of the MP3 marketshare. But by no means does that mean that iTunes is on 70% of the computers. Over 40% of the computers are business computers and I bet most of them don't have iTunes on them. If any music jukebox/organizer stand a chance of being considered holding a "monopolistic" market share, it would be Windows Media Player. As it is installed on nearly every PC with Windows. Including business computers.
iTunes will work on a PC or Mac. And you do not need an iPod to use it. You can still use it to organize your music, play your music on the computer, drag songs out of it to any MP3 player (that plays the file format and is seen as an HD. Even a thumb drive or cell phone.), burn disc (music, MP3 and data), convert files and access the iTunes Store with it. About the only thing you can't do is to easily transfer your music (and playlist) to any other portable MP3 player, except an iPod/iPhone.
So you do not need iTunes to use an iPod. And you do not need an iPod to use iTunes. There is no lock in or "tied".
The EU was looking into the "tied" bewteen the songs purchased from the iTunes Store and the iPod. But this was because of the DRM the labels required Apple to have in place. The EU have never looked into iTunes software being "tied" to the iPod or vice versa.
I would think that since Apple allows RIM to sync the Blackberry and isn't allowing PALM to sync the PRE it's more a case of very bad for Apple's Image along with slave labor they use to manufacture the phone.
Allow Blackberry
Don't Allow Palm Pre
Can anyone say EU anti Trust?
Have you perhaps considered that RIM has licenced this technology from Apple while Palm is stealing it?
True, but I used to use iTunes and its store, and I easily bought far more than $250 (the price of my iPod) in music from iTunes. Therefore they would make money from the Palm Pre. Since then, I left iTunes and switched to Amazon MP3, certain questionable sources, and foobar2000 and I am much more pleased with the service I am receiving and I would never go back to iTunes.
Apple is being an A$$! They are worse than Microsoft. They should just tell Palm users "Welcome to the best software for your Pre" and leave it at that. They could even toss up little iPhone ads on the sync screen when you connect a Pre....I would be cool with that. I can't believe the EU is going after MS over IE integration and nobody blinks when Apple won't even let other devices connect to iTunes.
Someone gave my wife a Zen Stone for running last year. It is great and just what she needed but I can't us it with iTunes so I'm left with hacking the music in or shelling out more money for a Shuffle. That is BS. I mean I love Apple products, own quite a few, iPhone(2), Touch, Nano, Mac Minis, MacBook but it pisses me off when another company has a great product and it won't work with an Apple product because of Apple. You suck Apple when it comes to playing fair.
Apple has a history of being on the short end of "fair"... The graphical user interface of Windows 3.1 was a complete rip off of Apple.
Now Apple is protective and maintains their moat carefully. Good business sense.
All the more important in an era when every other month some dumb a$$ holding company sues for patent infringement of one of the 100 zillion patents they have accumulated in hope of suing a cash rich company and making big bucks.
Why should Apple spend THEIR money on making sure 3rd party products work with THEIR products while SOMEONE ELSE makes the money that would be paying for that checking?
Who suggested apple should spend money on making sure other products could sync. All Anyones said is apple should stop spending money on trying to stop other products from syncing.
I think this is a great response from palm. Apple users will eventually get pissed of if apple keeps releasing updates just to break the pre. And palm are just giving users what they want. Why would anyone want one program to sync with there iPod and another for there phone. If apple doesn't want to let others sync through iTunes then they shouldn't either and go back to using iSync, after all wasn't that the whole point of it.
Another thing if apple bring out a camera will that justify them in breaking photo sync in iphoto with everyone elses camera.
Apple can have 90% of the MP3 player market and iTunes would not be perceived as "monopolistic" in the eyes of the courts. That's because there are many other apps that can be used to get music into an iPod. The iPod, like nearly all MP3 players, are seen as just an external HD. You can just drag the songs you want into it. There is no need for iTunes, except for firmware updates. Thus an iPod owner is not "tied" to iTunes. And Apple has always allowed third party apps to put music into an iPod.
Sure, you can drag the files onto the iPod but good luck trying to play them through the iPod's user interface. iTunes and iPods/iPhone are meant to be inextricably tied to each other.
If you could point out to me a sanctioned piece of software from Apple which allows me to sync my iPod and iPhone other than iTunes, I will try and use it
Quote:
So you do not need iTunes to use an iPod. And you do not need an iPod to use iTunes. There is no lock in or "tied".
What did I say? Interesting story - Interesting comments. I love this ^_^
I got a lot of heat last time for saying this last time, but I'll say it again -- if Microsoft acted the way Apple did by breaking the Pre's ability to sync with, let's say, the Zune software, the outrage would fall almost entirely on Microsoft, not Palm. By this, I mean that Apple usually gets a pass on these types of issues.
Its not an anti-trust issue, but it is anti-competitive behavior. Not that Apple doesn't have any right to, I'm just saying they're usually more forgivable than the other players for some odd reason.
Apple does make money from the Pre in the form of song bought from iTunes. Now if people are just using it as a way play their music from that they bootleg then it would not benefit Apple at all. I also never buy music from Apple, so the only money they got off me was my purchase of all three different iPhone models. On a side note Blackberries can sync with iTunes, so your playlist move over. I would also say if the iPhone didn't exist today so many people on here would not be so hostile to the Pre or any other phone for that matter.
True, but I used to use iTunes and its store, and I easily bought far more than $250 (the price of my iPod) in music from iTunes. Therefore they would make money from the Palm Pre. Since then, I left iTunes and switched to Amazon MP3, certain questionable sources, and foobar2000 and I am much more pleased with the service I am receiving and I would never go back to iTunes.
I have also found that Amazon offers a wider range of music as well
virus on Pre, ads in Pre iTunes, etc... People really cannot read anymore?
it syncs because itunes think it's an iPod. itunes cannot differentiate, so it cannot display ads or whatever; if it would, there would be on your iPod as well.
Apple could block the Pre once and for all if they used an encrypted connection between the iPod and iTunes. That way if Palm hacked an iPod firmware and took out the private key Apple could sue them under the DMCA. It wouldn't even have to be the whole connection, just the handshake phase.
But this would require issuing a crypto supporting firmware update to all existing iPods, and if a unit is plugged in with an older firmware, iTunes refuse to do anything with it except upgrade it's firmware. That would be a very harsh customer experience.
That's not the point. Microsoft had to allow other Browsers on their Operating System. Apple has become Microsoft. Biil Gates Gives to Charity and Steve buys Livers.
Who's the evil one.
I agree. I used to hate Microsoft with a passion because their software was crappy but more importantly because they bullied people into doing things. I used to like Apple; but now the tables are turning. Apple is becoming a pretty nasty bully and they seem to have that mentality that they can get away with anything (I know having worked there). Bully the carriers; bully the competition; bully the music industry. At the end of the day; no-one likes a bully (except obviously the fan-boys).
Sooner or later; this will catch up to them. Look at what's happening to Microsoft. The other reality is that the end users ultimately end up paying for this. Yes that means all you crazy Apple fan-boys. I know you love to dish lots of money at Apple; but in a world dominated by Apple in a similar way that Microsoft dominates the desktop; you WILL be paying a whole lot more dough for the same product you have today.
I'd rather see 2-3 companies do good; than one dominant one. Although clearly Rim still shows Apple how to make a big profit on a phone; I'd still like to see 1-2 more options there so a duopoly doesn't get created in the US (cause all US companies are pennies in the international market).
Haha; possibly. But at the end of the day; if Apple keeps updating iTunes everytime it finds a new way to break the pre; they too will give their users a poor experience.
ie: Do you really get a good thing out of the Microsoft genuine advantage? NO! Same deal here. If the updates are merely to break devices; then they'll piss me off.
Apple is being an A$$! They are worse than Microsoft. They should just tell Palm users "Welcome to the best software for your Pre" and leave it at that. They could even toss up little iPhone ads on the sync screen when you connect a Pre....I would be cool with that. I can't believe the EU is going after MS over IE integration and nobody blinks when Apple won't even let other devices connect to iTunes.
Someone gave my wife a Zen Stone for running last year. It is great and just what she needed but I can't us it with iTunes so I'm left with hacking the music in or shelling out more money for a Shuffle. That is BS. I mean I love Apple products, own quite a few, iPhone(2), Touch, Nano, Mac Minis, MacBook but it pisses me off when another company has a great product and it won't work with an Apple product because of Apple. You suck Apple when it comes to playing fair.
IE was forced upon us with the purchase of every single computer, that's why the EU went after MS. iTunes is included with every Mac OS X product which is fine because it is a "closed environment", i.e. every buyer knows what they get when buying a Mac, including iTunes. On the other hand, Apple does not force iTunes onto MS users - they are free to download it and certainly will once they buy an iPhone/iPod because these devices are meant to work with iTunes. Apple has built iTunes to enhance the user experience of iPhone/iPod users and as such, iTunes is an extension of these products. Should people use iTunes without an Apple device, they obviously can do so but once they do, they should not complain if they could not sync their non-Apple devices.
Why should Apple be forced to make iTunes compatible with any non-Apple device? Why are people complaining that Apple broke the Pre syncing with iTunes when there is no way to sync the Pre with Zune? Why is no one complaining that there is no Zune software for the Mac? Why is no one complaining that the iPhone/iPod cannot sync with the Zune software? Simple: iTunes and Zune software were created as companion products to a company's specific hardware. They may open the software to other devices but certainly have no legal obligation to do so. iTunes is so popular today because of the sheer number of iPhones and iPods in use. Zune software is not nearly as popular because there not nearly as many Zunes in use.
IE was forced upon us with the purchase of every single computer, that's why the EU went after MS. iTunes is included with every Mac OS X product which is fine because it is a "closed environment", i.e. every buyer knows what they get when buying a Mac, including iTunes. On the other hand, Apple does not force iTunes onto MS users - they are free to download it and certainly will once they buy an iPhone/iPod because these devices are meant to work with iTunes. Apple has built iTunes to enhance the user experience of iPhone/iPod users and as such, iTunes is an extension of these products. Should people use iTunes without an Apple device, they obviously can do so but once they do, they should not complain if they could not sync their non-Apple devices.
There's not really any difference between what Microsoft was doing with IE with what Apple is doing with Itunes. Microsoft didn't force IE onto everyone who bought a computer, just people who bought computers running windows who knew what they were doing.
What was and is different is the market share, not the openness or closedness of the platforms. Apple doesn't have a monopolistic marketshare in OS, so they can pretty much do whatever they want.
In online music, that's a different issue. The key issue in antitrust is how you define a market. If you define the dominance of itunes relative to all installed music software, it is obviously not a monopoly. But, if, as some have said, Apple does have a 70% share of the digital music player market, then the fact that all of those devices are forced to use itunes is using monopoly power.
Monopoly, by itself, is not an antitrust violation, since there are certain benefits that arise, if it is true that Apple barely makes money off of itunes. No ipod, no itunes. Moreover, that is probably not a proper market definition (though it would be the one I would argue for if I were Palm). But the fact that vista owners don't have a computer that came with itunes says nothing as to whether or not Apple is being a monopoly.
Why should Apple be forced to make iTunes compatible with any non-Apple device? Why are people complaining that Apple broke the Pre syncing with iTunes when there is no way to sync the Pre with Zune? Why is no one complaining that there is no Zune software for the Mac? Why is no one complaining that the iPhone/iPod cannot sync with the Zune software? Simple: iTunes and Zune software were created as companion products to a company's specific hardware. They may open the software to other devices but certainly have no legal obligation to do so. iTunes is so popular today because of the sheer number of iPhones and iPods in use. Zune software is not nearly as popular because there not nearly as many Zunes in use.
Apple shouldn't be forced to make their software compatible, but breaking Palm's emulation is playing right into Palm's hands.
The Palm Pre's a good phone (I own one), the OS is great, and the hardware is on par with the 3G, but definitely inferior to the 3GS. Top it off with the fact that its on Sprint who may have a better network than ATT, but Sprint is much much smaller. Pre's whole selling point is that its an "iphone killer". Every time the words iphone and pre are mentioned in the same sentence, Palm does a little dance. Apple and Palm's battle over itunes gives legitimacy to the claim they are the iphone rival, and not blackberry or google. In about 6 months the Pre will be available on Verizon, and if it still has all the hype it does now, it may indeed become the chief iphone rival.
Apple should have waited an update or two before breaking it, so that it didn't seem like they created an update just to break Palm.
Also, I love all the people saying Apple should sue Palm. Palm has not done anything illegal. All they've done is changed the inputs into the itunes system. If that is illegal, that would be like a car company claiming that it was illegal to make mods for their car. The car company is free to change the car around so that the parts don't fit, but all the pre is doing right now is telling itunes it fits in the ipod socket. If Apple sues Palm over that, Palm won't even have to pay legal fees; the EFF will defend them for free.
The funny thing is that they?ll manage to get a lot of people loudly angry at Apple. Hardly any of their users will actually blame Palm for the inconvenience.
And that's a very good thing in my opinion. Much like Apple blasts Microsoft for a lot of things that are actually the fault of 3rd party companies, it would be very nice to see Apple get a taste of their own medicine over iTunes and the Pre. Apple will increasingly be in danger of facing anti-competition sanctions as the iTunes base becomes more and more dominant and they continue to lock out devices that aren't their own. When you dominate an area of the market, you have to be VERY careful where you tread.
Comments
And to those who notice their 70%+ marketshare of MP3 devices
Apple can have 90% of the MP3 player market and iTunes would not be perceived as "monopolistic" in the eyes of the courts. That's because there are many other apps that can be used to get music into an iPod. The iPod, like nearly all MP3 players, are seen as just an external HD. You can just drag the songs you want into it. There is no need for iTunes, except for firmware updates. Thus an iPod owner is not "tied" to iTunes. And Apple has always allowed third party apps to put music into an iPod.
iTunes is the most popular music jukebox/organizer. But by no means the only one. Nor does it have a "monopolistic" marketshare. The iPod may have 70% of the MP3 marketshare. But by no means does that mean that iTunes is on 70% of the computers. Over 40% of the computers are business computers and I bet most of them don't have iTunes on them. If any music jukebox/organizer stand a chance of being considered holding a "monopolistic" market share, it would be Windows Media Player. As it is installed on nearly every PC with Windows. Including business computers.
iTunes will work on a PC or Mac. And you do not need an iPod to use it. You can still use it to organize your music, play your music on the computer, drag songs out of it to any MP3 player (that plays the file format and is seen as an HD. Even a thumb drive or cell phone.), burn disc (music, MP3 and data), convert files and access the iTunes Store with it. About the only thing you can't do is to easily transfer your music (and playlist) to any other portable MP3 player, except an iPod/iPhone.
So you do not need iTunes to use an iPod. And you do not need an iPod to use iTunes. There is no lock in or "tied".
The EU was looking into the "tied" bewteen the songs purchased from the iTunes Store and the iPod. But this was because of the DRM the labels required Apple to have in place. The EU have never looked into iTunes software being "tied" to the iPod or vice versa.
Palm can work out those agreements on their own.
It's almost as though they're asking for a (legal) fight.
Regardless, the ball's in Apple's proverbial court.
Get ready for iTunes 8.2.2
I would think that since Apple allows RIM to sync the Blackberry and isn't allowing PALM to sync the PRE it's more a case of very bad for Apple's Image along with slave labor they use to manufacture the phone.
Allow Blackberry
Don't Allow Palm Pre
Can anyone say EU anti Trust?
Have you perhaps considered that RIM has licenced this technology from Apple while Palm is stealing it?
Apple made iTunes for iPod sales.
Apple doesn't make money from the Palm Pre.
True, but I used to use iTunes and its store, and I easily bought far more than $250 (the price of my iPod) in music from iTunes. Therefore they would make money from the Palm Pre. Since then, I left iTunes and switched to Amazon MP3, certain questionable sources, and foobar2000 and I am much more pleased with the service I am receiving and I would never go back to iTunes.
Apple is being an A$$! They are worse than Microsoft. They should just tell Palm users "Welcome to the best software for your Pre" and leave it at that. They could even toss up little iPhone ads on the sync screen when you connect a Pre....I would be cool with that. I can't believe the EU is going after MS over IE integration and nobody blinks when Apple won't even let other devices connect to iTunes.
Someone gave my wife a Zen Stone for running last year. It is great and just what she needed but I can't us it with iTunes so I'm left with hacking the music in or shelling out more money for a Shuffle. That is BS. I mean I love Apple products, own quite a few, iPhone(2), Touch, Nano, Mac Minis, MacBook but it pisses me off when another company has a great product and it won't work with an Apple product because of Apple. You suck Apple when it comes to playing fair.
Apple has a history of being on the short end of "fair"... The graphical user interface of Windows 3.1 was a complete rip off of Apple.
Now Apple is protective and maintains their moat carefully. Good business sense.
All the more important in an era when every other month some dumb a$$ holding company sues for patent infringement of one of the 100 zillion patents they have accumulated in hope of suing a cash rich company and making big bucks.
Power to Apple for protecting their greatness.
Why should Apple spend THEIR money on making sure 3rd party products work with THEIR products while SOMEONE ELSE makes the money that would be paying for that checking?
Who suggested apple should spend money on making sure other products could sync. All Anyones said is apple should stop spending money on trying to stop other products from syncing.
I think this is a great response from palm. Apple users will eventually get pissed of if apple keeps releasing updates just to break the pre. And palm are just giving users what they want. Why would anyone want one program to sync with there iPod and another for there phone. If apple doesn't want to let others sync through iTunes then they shouldn't either and go back to using iSync, after all wasn't that the whole point of it.
Another thing if apple bring out a camera will that justify them in breaking photo sync in iphoto with everyone elses camera.
Apple can have 90% of the MP3 player market and iTunes would not be perceived as "monopolistic" in the eyes of the courts. That's because there are many other apps that can be used to get music into an iPod. The iPod, like nearly all MP3 players, are seen as just an external HD. You can just drag the songs you want into it. There is no need for iTunes, except for firmware updates. Thus an iPod owner is not "tied" to iTunes. And Apple has always allowed third party apps to put music into an iPod.
Sure, you can drag the files onto the iPod but good luck trying to play them through the iPod's user interface. iTunes and iPods/iPhone are meant to be inextricably tied to each other.
If you could point out to me a sanctioned piece of software from Apple which allows me to sync my iPod and iPhone other than iTunes, I will try and use it
So you do not need iTunes to use an iPod. And you do not need an iPod to use iTunes. There is no lock in or "tied".
I think you're incorrect.
I got a lot of heat last time for saying this last time, but I'll say it again -- if Microsoft acted the way Apple did by breaking the Pre's ability to sync with, let's say, the Zune software, the outrage would fall almost entirely on Microsoft, not Palm. By this, I mean that Apple usually gets a pass on these types of issues.
Its not an anti-trust issue, but it is anti-competitive behavior. Not that Apple doesn't have any right to, I'm just saying they're usually more forgivable than the other players for some odd reason.
Apple made iTunes for iPod sales.
Apple doesn't make money from the Palm Pre.
Apple does make money from the Pre in the form of song bought from iTunes. Now if people are just using it as a way play their music from that they bootleg then it would not benefit Apple at all. I also never buy music from Apple, so the only money they got off me was my purchase of all three different iPhone models. On a side note Blackberries can sync with iTunes, so your playlist move over. I would also say if the iPhone didn't exist today so many people on here would not be so hostile to the Pre or any other phone for that matter.
True, but I used to use iTunes and its store, and I easily bought far more than $250 (the price of my iPod) in music from iTunes. Therefore they would make money from the Palm Pre. Since then, I left iTunes and switched to Amazon MP3, certain questionable sources, and foobar2000 and I am much more pleased with the service I am receiving and I would never go back to iTunes.
I have also found that Amazon offers a wider range of music as well
it syncs because itunes think it's an iPod. itunes cannot differentiate, so it cannot display ads or whatever; if it would, there would be on your iPod as well.
But this would require issuing a crypto supporting firmware update to all existing iPods, and if a unit is plugged in with an older firmware, iTunes refuse to do anything with it except upgrade it's firmware. That would be a very harsh customer experience.
That's not the point. Microsoft had to allow other Browsers on their Operating System. Apple has become Microsoft. Biil Gates Gives to Charity and Steve buys Livers.
Who's the evil one.
I agree. I used to hate Microsoft with a passion because their software was crappy but more importantly because they bullied people into doing things. I used to like Apple; but now the tables are turning. Apple is becoming a pretty nasty bully and they seem to have that mentality that they can get away with anything (I know having worked there). Bully the carriers; bully the competition; bully the music industry. At the end of the day; no-one likes a bully (except obviously the fan-boys).
Sooner or later; this will catch up to them. Look at what's happening to Microsoft. The other reality is that the end users ultimately end up paying for this. Yes that means all you crazy Apple fan-boys. I know you love to dish lots of money at Apple; but in a world dominated by Apple in a similar way that Microsoft dominates the desktop; you WILL be paying a whole lot more dough for the same product you have today.
I'd rather see 2-3 companies do good; than one dominant one. Although clearly Rim still shows Apple how to make a big profit on a phone; I'd still like to see 1-2 more options there so a duopoly doesn't get created in the US (cause all US companies are pennies in the international market).
Get ready for iTunes 8.2.2
Haha; possibly. But at the end of the day; if Apple keeps updating iTunes everytime it finds a new way to break the pre; they too will give their users a poor experience.
ie: Do you really get a good thing out of the Microsoft genuine advantage? NO! Same deal here. If the updates are merely to break devices; then they'll piss me off.
Apple is being an A$$! They are worse than Microsoft. They should just tell Palm users "Welcome to the best software for your Pre" and leave it at that. They could even toss up little iPhone ads on the sync screen when you connect a Pre....I would be cool with that. I can't believe the EU is going after MS over IE integration and nobody blinks when Apple won't even let other devices connect to iTunes.
Someone gave my wife a Zen Stone for running last year. It is great and just what she needed but I can't us it with iTunes so I'm left with hacking the music in or shelling out more money for a Shuffle. That is BS. I mean I love Apple products, own quite a few, iPhone(2), Touch, Nano, Mac Minis, MacBook but it pisses me off when another company has a great product and it won't work with an Apple product because of Apple. You suck Apple when it comes to playing fair.
IE was forced upon us with the purchase of every single computer, that's why the EU went after MS. iTunes is included with every Mac OS X product which is fine because it is a "closed environment", i.e. every buyer knows what they get when buying a Mac, including iTunes. On the other hand, Apple does not force iTunes onto MS users - they are free to download it and certainly will once they buy an iPhone/iPod because these devices are meant to work with iTunes. Apple has built iTunes to enhance the user experience of iPhone/iPod users and as such, iTunes is an extension of these products. Should people use iTunes without an Apple device, they obviously can do so but once they do, they should not complain if they could not sync their non-Apple devices.
IE was forced upon us with the purchase of every single computer, that's why the EU went after MS. iTunes is included with every Mac OS X product which is fine because it is a "closed environment", i.e. every buyer knows what they get when buying a Mac, including iTunes. On the other hand, Apple does not force iTunes onto MS users - they are free to download it and certainly will once they buy an iPhone/iPod because these devices are meant to work with iTunes. Apple has built iTunes to enhance the user experience of iPhone/iPod users and as such, iTunes is an extension of these products. Should people use iTunes without an Apple device, they obviously can do so but once they do, they should not complain if they could not sync their non-Apple devices.
There's not really any difference between what Microsoft was doing with IE with what Apple is doing with Itunes. Microsoft didn't force IE onto everyone who bought a computer, just people who bought computers running windows who knew what they were doing.
What was and is different is the market share, not the openness or closedness of the platforms. Apple doesn't have a monopolistic marketshare in OS, so they can pretty much do whatever they want.
In online music, that's a different issue. The key issue in antitrust is how you define a market. If you define the dominance of itunes relative to all installed music software, it is obviously not a monopoly. But, if, as some have said, Apple does have a 70% share of the digital music player market, then the fact that all of those devices are forced to use itunes is using monopoly power.
Monopoly, by itself, is not an antitrust violation, since there are certain benefits that arise, if it is true that Apple barely makes money off of itunes. No ipod, no itunes. Moreover, that is probably not a proper market definition (though it would be the one I would argue for if I were Palm). But the fact that vista owners don't have a computer that came with itunes says nothing as to whether or not Apple is being a monopoly.
Why should Apple be forced to make iTunes compatible with any non-Apple device? Why are people complaining that Apple broke the Pre syncing with iTunes when there is no way to sync the Pre with Zune? Why is no one complaining that there is no Zune software for the Mac? Why is no one complaining that the iPhone/iPod cannot sync with the Zune software? Simple: iTunes and Zune software were created as companion products to a company's specific hardware. They may open the software to other devices but certainly have no legal obligation to do so. iTunes is so popular today because of the sheer number of iPhones and iPods in use. Zune software is not nearly as popular because there not nearly as many Zunes in use.
Apple shouldn't be forced to make their software compatible, but breaking Palm's emulation is playing right into Palm's hands.
The Palm Pre's a good phone (I own one), the OS is great, and the hardware is on par with the 3G, but definitely inferior to the 3GS. Top it off with the fact that its on Sprint who may have a better network than ATT, but Sprint is much much smaller. Pre's whole selling point is that its an "iphone killer". Every time the words iphone and pre are mentioned in the same sentence, Palm does a little dance. Apple and Palm's battle over itunes gives legitimacy to the claim they are the iphone rival, and not blackberry or google. In about 6 months the Pre will be available on Verizon, and if it still has all the hype it does now, it may indeed become the chief iphone rival.
Apple should have waited an update or two before breaking it, so that it didn't seem like they created an update just to break Palm.
Also, I love all the people saying Apple should sue Palm. Palm has not done anything illegal. All they've done is changed the inputs into the itunes system. If that is illegal, that would be like a car company claiming that it was illegal to make mods for their car. The car company is free to change the car around so that the parts don't fit, but all the pre is doing right now is telling itunes it fits in the ipod socket. If Apple sues Palm over that, Palm won't even have to pay legal fees; the EFF will defend them for free.
The funny thing is that they?ll manage to get a lot of people loudly angry at Apple. Hardly any of their users will actually blame Palm for the inconvenience.
And that's a very good thing in my opinion. Much like Apple blasts Microsoft for a lot of things that are actually the fault of 3rd party companies, it would be very nice to see Apple get a taste of their own medicine over iTunes and the Pre. Apple will increasingly be in danger of facing anti-competition sanctions as the iTunes base becomes more and more dominant and they continue to lock out devices that aren't their own. When you dominate an area of the market, you have to be VERY careful where you tread.