I don't really understand why Apple doesn't license the ability for other devices to interface with iTunes.
Because iTunes is free and the money they make from music sale is nothing compared to the money they make from iPods and iPhones sales. Apple is a business and they need to make money in order to keep their R&D running.
Yes, iTunes is air for me. I wouldn't know how to get along without it. Thank you for bringing that clarity to my life.
And while iTunes syncing is a convenience for Pre users, it is hardly something "Palm has staked their entire business on" working.
I'm always glad to provide clarity, young padowan.
As for Palm staking their business on iTunes, we must respectfully disagree. Palm is trying to compete in the mainstream market against the mainstream market leader. Their behavior places them squarely in the underground, hacker, jailbreaker market. They are risking their already tarnished reputation on hacking iTunes instead of providing a mainstream solution for their customers. That is the death song for any legitimate business. The WebOS will forever be linked with the idea of marginal hacking from a second rate company. It is, unfortunately, the thing the Pre is most infamous for right now.
Seriously! I'm not a programmer, but how hard could it be? Locating the iTunes Music folder should be trivial. And that folder is organized in a very structured manner, so working with is should be easy. They could then either parse the iTunes XML library file to all the playlists and other info (Apple could potentially change the format of that list as a counter measure, but I think that would be less likely),
They could change it but that would require rewrite of other apps (all of iLife).
This file contains some (but not all) of the same information stored in the iTunes Library file. The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your music and playlists available to other applications on your computer."
as far as i know there is nothing preventing me from determining how and where i use the non-rights managed media i already own.
but it's interesting to know that palm thinks itunes is the only game in town.
i bought the car. the gas station attendant needs a package delivered. every time i stop for gas he slips said package into the back of my car. and he never asks. just pay for the delivery yourself you sneaky bastard.
Maybe Palm had as part of their business strategy to take market share from iPhone by allowing people to sync their iTunes music to Pre and so in effect say 'you get better cell carrier service and you do not lose any of your valuable music in the switch'.
I think the Pre is a good product and if it came to India would sell pretty well, but unfortunately, its only available in USA at moment, if I remember.
The device/vendor spoof has always struck me as Palm's "Plan B". Palm pressed very hard to get the Pre and WebOS out as soon as they did, and the results are impressive. As with any project on a strict timeline, Palm certainly made some compromises. Missing sync software seems like a cutback.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Palm began developing a different solution a while ago: to rely on iTunes alone is certainly poor planning. The real surprise has been Palm's reaction. Maybe, as others have said, all the hand waving was just to buy more time.
Oh yeah, Palm is all about freedom and rights. They are simply attempting to leverage Apple's innovation and investment in the iTunes Store to make their iPhone compete in its MP3 function. The only "free" they stand for is free ride. In this regard they are no better than Psystar. Pay up or shut up.
Wow, think of all the time and frustration and bad press Palm could have avoided if they had just "engaged" with their software development department to develop their own syncing software.
I think Palm knew this would happen. This is part of their strategy to get the Pre better known. There are other major phone vendors that offer software that connect to the iTunes XML file and media files, but many don?t even know they exist. Being the David to Apple?s Goliath they get automatic sympathy despite being in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
Sadly, in the EU, where they might have a better chance, they're not even selling the Pre!
Personally I believe that as Apple ship iTunes as system software, it should provide a native, built-in support for third party media syncing via a specified protocol that maybe could require licensing fees from the hardware manufacturer to use.
I?ve mentioned that as an option before. With iTunes becoming the de facto way to organize one?s music I think that even with free and easy access to the iTunes files I think that it may behoove Apple to offer a limited connectivity option like the one you mention. This gets non-iDevice users into iTunes and using the iTunes Store, but then prevents them from being able to sync apps and DRM-protected video. I would think this would encourage the iTunes presence and help sway people to get an iDevice in the future so they can get full access to content.
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Hattig
Personally I believe that as Apple ship iTunes as system software, it should provide a native, built-in support for third party media syncing via a specified protocol that maybe could require licensing fees from the hardware manufacturer to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I?ve mentioned that as an option before. With iTunes becoming the de facto way to organize one?s music I think that even with free and easy access to the iTunes files I think that it may behoove Apple to offer a limited connectivity option like the one you mention. This gets non-iDevice users into iTunes and using the iTunes Store, but then prevents them from being able to sync apps and DRM-protected video. I would think this would encourage the iTunes presence and help sway people to get an iDevice in the future so they can get full access to content.
iTunes is no more "system software" than iPhoto or any of the other iLife apps or many of the other apps that come with your Mac. Just because it's pre-installed doesn't make it a system component that would be expected to provide some system-wide service.
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
I am very sad that Apple are leveraging this situation to promote sales of their other devices, some of which users don't want (I am never paying a penny to O2 again in my life if I can help it). If I get a Palm Pre in the future because it is provided by the phone company I use and like, I would like to have the seamless experience with the media library software that Apple provide with their computers. Sadly, Apple don't want me to have such an experience, and in fact have deliberately made it impossible. In the end, the consumer loses.
iSync is not seamless. It's adequate for the task, and a reasonable tool for ~2005.
I would like to point out that back in the day, the seamless experience was a unique selling point for Apple, but that was back then, and things are different now. People will still buy iPods because they're great devices. However if they get something else, why should they be punished for buying a Mac and using the Apple provided software that comes with it?
In Windows, I cannot sync my iPod with Windows Media Player (at least natively). It's the same thing.
It's not the same thing. Microsoft doesn't prevent the iPod from syncing in WMP. That's Apple's doing. Any media player manufacturer is free to make their device sync with WMP (though I'm not sure if there's a licensing fee).
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
They already have free and open access to any DRM-free content in the iTunes folders. They can even reverse engineer the iTunes XML database so that ratings, artwork and other aspects of the iTunes app can be used in a 3rd-party application with ease. Apple tweaks the XML file from time to time, but they have never encrypted it or used some funky database for content, like they do with there iPod OS.
I think part of the reason Palm has not created their own sync application is that the company is running on fumes. Their current assets barely cover their current liabilities and most of the capital they have comes from venture capitalists, who are hoping for the Palm OS based devices to be successful enough to cause another company to make a rich bid to acquire Palm. The repeated spoofing of the vendor ID is a low cost way to keep the functionality long enough to get a buy out.
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
iTunes is not integral to the functionality of OS X. Mac users are free to use it or not.
Quote:
I am very sad that Apple are leveraging this situation to promote sales of their other devices, some of which users don't want.
This is Apple's entire business model. Apple does not make much profit from any of its software. Apple gives away for free or sells software at a cheap price to primarily drive sales of its hardware.
Quote:
iSync is not seamless. It's adequate for the task, and a reasonable tool for ~2005.
They need to make iSync work better. That's not Apple's problem.
Quote:
I would like to point out that back in the day, the seamless experience was a unique selling point for Apple, but that was back then, and things are different now. People will still buy iPods because they're great devices. However if they get something else, why should they be punished for buying a Mac and using the Apple provided software that comes with it?
I really don't understand this logic.
If you choose to buy a non iPod mp3 player, how are you punished if Apple does not directly support it? Apple has no responsibility to support products from competitors.
Yes I know. I'm saying if Apple charged a licensing fee for access to these files, people would complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
They already have free and open access to any DRM-free content in the iTunes folders. They can even reverse engineer the iTunes XML database so that ratings, artwork and other aspects of the iTunes app can be used in a 3rd-party application with ease. Apple tweaks the XML file from time to time, but they have never encrypted it or used some funky database for content, like they do with there iPod OS.
Yes I know. I'm saying if Apple charged a licensing fee for access to these files, people would complain.
Gotcha. It did seem that you of all people wouldn?t have known that. I should re-read it.
People will always complain about something. Apple can say it?s support the access within iTunes itself, but if they don?t want to then they can access the files freely through the OS. I don?t think the EU would have a problem with that as there are a couple different options from them to choose from.
The device/vendor spoof has always struck me as Palm's "Plan B". Palm pressed very hard to get the Pre and WebOS out as soon as they did, and the results are impressive. As with any project on a strict timeline, Palm certainly made some compromises. Missing sync software seems like a cutback.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Palm began developing a different solution a while ago: to rely on iTunes alone is certainly poor planning. The real surprise has been Palm's reaction. Maybe, as others have said, all the hand waving was just to buy more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
I think part of the reason Palm has not created their own sync application is that the company is running on fumes. Their current assets barely cover their current liabilities and most of the capital they have comes from venture capitalists, who are hoping for the Palm OS based devices to be successful enough to cause another company to make a rich bid to acquire Palm. The repeated spoofing of the vendor ID is a low cost way to keep the functionality long enough to get a buy out.
They are definitely running on fumes and hoping for a buyout. However, I think this is definitely Plan A. Palm has, over the years, backed off support of sync more and more. With the Pre, they finally eliminated all support of their own for sync. You can't even back the thing up to your computer and if you want to sync it with anything, you have to hand over all your information to a 3rd-party. In fact, some of the major features they've hyped about the Pre are really just their way of getting out of actually supporting sync.
EDIT: Which, actually, as I think about it, supports the idea that they are only angling for a buyout. No "messy" desktop software baggage to go with it. You buy Palm, you get the Pre and webOS, and you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
The letter also said that Apple's use of the vendor ID to limit iTunes syncing to proprietary hardware like the iPhone and iPod is within the rules of the USB-IF. It specifically said that Apple's actions are not "improper."
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
I am very sad that Apple are leveraging this situation to promote sales of their other devices, some of which users don't want (I am never paying a penny to O2 again in my life if I can help it). If I get a Palm Pre in the future because it is provided by the phone company I use and like, I would like to have the seamless experience with the media library software that Apple provide with their computers. Sadly, Apple don't want me to have such an experience, and in fact have deliberately made it impossible. In the end, the consumer loses.
iSync is not seamless. It's adequate for the task, and a reasonable tool for ~2005.
I would like to point out that back in the day, the seamless experience was a unique selling point for Apple, but that was back then, and things are different now. People will still buy iPods because they're great devices. However if they get something else, why should they be punished for buying a Mac and using the Apple provided software that comes with it?
"In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software."
In fact it DOES NOT come with the OS ... it comes with the computer, BIG DIFFERENCE. Many thousands of windoze users access iTunes everyday without using Mac OS .. check facts before stating your opinion please.
"If I get a Palm Pre in the future because it is provided by the phone company I use and like, I would like to have the seamless experience with the media library software that Apple provide with their computers. Sadly, Apple don't want me to have such an experience, and in fact have deliberately made it impossible. In the end, the consumer loses."
The only consumer who loses in this scenario is the ones like you, who "want their cake and eat it too" ... they want Palm but they want it to be like "an Apple experience" ... Please tell me that you can understand that this is not Apple's problem, but rather, it is Palm's problem. If you want an Apple experience ... just buy Apple, like hundreds of thousands of consumers who live in the real world.
Comments
I don't really understand why Apple doesn't license the ability for other devices to interface with iTunes.
Because iTunes is free and the money they make from music sale is nothing compared to the money they make from iPods and iPhones sales. Apple is a business and they need to make money in order to keep their R&D running.
Yes, iTunes is air for me. I wouldn't know how to get along without it. Thank you for bringing that clarity to my life.
And while iTunes syncing is a convenience for Pre users, it is hardly something "Palm has staked their entire business on" working.
I'm always glad to provide clarity, young padowan.
As for Palm staking their business on iTunes, we must respectfully disagree. Palm is trying to compete in the mainstream market against the mainstream market leader. Their behavior places them squarely in the underground, hacker, jailbreaker market. They are risking their already tarnished reputation on hacking iTunes instead of providing a mainstream solution for their customers. That is the death song for any legitimate business. The WebOS will forever be linked with the idea of marginal hacking from a second rate company. It is, unfortunately, the thing the Pre is most infamous for right now.
Personally I believe that as Apple ship iTunes as system software
iTunes is NOT system software.
It is simply part of the standard installed software but it is not part of the OS.
It's simple to remove and the computer will run fine without it.
Look at the MS/IE fiasco.
iTunes is NOT system software.
It is simply part of the standard installed software but it is not part of the OS.
Look at the MS/IE fiasco.
Not to mention, it's also available for Windows. Or so I hear.
Seriously! I'm not a programmer, but how hard could it be? Locating the iTunes Music folder should be trivial. And that folder is organized in a very structured manner, so working with is should be easy. They could then either parse the iTunes XML library file to all the playlists and other info (Apple could potentially change the format of that list as a counter measure, but I think that would be less likely),
They could change it but that would require rewrite of other apps (all of iLife).
Also...
-> What are the iTunes library files?
"iTunes Music Library.xml
This file contains some (but not all) of the same information stored in the iTunes Library file. The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your music and playlists available to other applications on your computer."
as far as i know there is nothing preventing me from determining how and where i use the non-rights managed media i already own.
but it's interesting to know that palm thinks itunes is the only game in town.
i bought the car. the gas station attendant needs a package delivered. every time i stop for gas he slips said package into the back of my car. and he never asks. just pay for the delivery yourself you sneaky bastard.
Maybe Palm had as part of their business strategy to take market share from iPhone by allowing people to sync their iTunes music to Pre and so in effect say 'you get better cell carrier service and you do not lose any of your valuable music in the switch'.
I think the Pre is a good product and if it came to India would sell pretty well, but unfortunately, its only available in USA at moment, if I remember.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Palm began developing a different solution a while ago: to rely on iTunes alone is certainly poor planning. The real surprise has been Palm's reaction. Maybe, as others have said, all the hand waving was just to buy more time.
Wow, think of all the time and frustration and bad press Palm could have avoided if they had just "engaged" with their software development department to develop their own syncing software.
I think Palm knew this would happen. This is part of their strategy to get the Pre better known. There are other major phone vendors that offer software that connect to the iTunes XML file and media files, but many don?t even know they exist. Being the David to Apple?s Goliath they get automatic sympathy despite being in the wrong.
Sadly, in the EU, where they might have a better chance, they're not even selling the Pre!
Personally I believe that as Apple ship iTunes as system software, it should provide a native, built-in support for third party media syncing via a specified protocol that maybe could require licensing fees from the hardware manufacturer to use.
I?ve mentioned that as an option before. With iTunes becoming the de facto way to organize one?s music I think that even with free and easy access to the iTunes files I think that it may behoove Apple to offer a limited connectivity option like the one you mention. This gets non-iDevice users into iTunes and using the iTunes Store, but then prevents them from being able to sync apps and DRM-protected video. I would think this would encourage the iTunes presence and help sway people to get an iDevice in the future so they can get full access to content.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Personally I believe that as Apple ship iTunes as system software, it should provide a native, built-in support for third party media syncing via a specified protocol that maybe could require licensing fees from the hardware manufacturer to use.
I?ve mentioned that as an option before. With iTunes becoming the de facto way to organize one?s music I think that even with free and easy access to the iTunes files I think that it may behoove Apple to offer a limited connectivity option like the one you mention. This gets non-iDevice users into iTunes and using the iTunes Store, but then prevents them from being able to sync apps and DRM-protected video. I would think this would encourage the iTunes presence and help sway people to get an iDevice in the future so they can get full access to content.
iTunes is no more "system software" than iPhoto or any of the other iLife apps or many of the other apps that come with your Mac. Just because it's pre-installed doesn't make it a system component that would be expected to provide some system-wide service.
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
I am very sad that Apple are leveraging this situation to promote sales of their other devices, some of which users don't want (I am never paying a penny to O2 again in my life if I can help it). If I get a Palm Pre in the future because it is provided by the phone company I use and like, I would like to have the seamless experience with the media library software that Apple provide with their computers. Sadly, Apple don't want me to have such an experience, and in fact have deliberately made it impossible. In the end, the consumer loses.
iSync is not seamless. It's adequate for the task, and a reasonable tool for ~2005.
I would like to point out that back in the day, the seamless experience was a unique selling point for Apple, but that was back then, and things are different now. People will still buy iPods because they're great devices. However if they get something else, why should they be punished for buying a Mac and using the Apple provided software that comes with it?
In Windows, I cannot sync my iPod with Windows Media Player (at least natively). It's the same thing.
It's not the same thing. Microsoft doesn't prevent the iPod from syncing in WMP. That's Apple's doing. Any media player manufacturer is free to make their device sync with WMP (though I'm not sure if there's a licensing fee).
This could open the complaint that Apple is unfairly profiteering from iTunes dominance in the market. That Apple should allow 3rd party competitors to have free access to non-DRM iTunes files.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
They already have free and open access to any DRM-free content in the iTunes folders. They can even reverse engineer the iTunes XML database so that ratings, artwork and other aspects of the iTunes app can be used in a 3rd-party application with ease. Apple tweaks the XML file from time to time, but they have never encrypted it or used some funky database for content, like they do with there iPod OS.
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
iTunes is not integral to the functionality of OS X. Mac users are free to use it or not.
I am very sad that Apple are leveraging this situation to promote sales of their other devices, some of which users don't want.
This is Apple's entire business model. Apple does not make much profit from any of its software. Apple gives away for free or sells software at a cheap price to primarily drive sales of its hardware.
iSync is not seamless. It's adequate for the task, and a reasonable tool for ~2005.
They need to make iSync work better. That's not Apple's problem.
I would like to point out that back in the day, the seamless experience was a unique selling point for Apple, but that was back then, and things are different now. People will still buy iPods because they're great devices. However if they get something else, why should they be punished for buying a Mac and using the Apple provided software that comes with it?
I really don't understand this logic.
If you choose to buy a non iPod mp3 player, how are you punished if Apple does not directly support it? Apple has no responsibility to support products from competitors.
They already have free and open access to any DRM-free content in the iTunes folders. They can even reverse engineer the iTunes XML database so that ratings, artwork and other aspects of the iTunes app can be used in a 3rd-party application with ease. Apple tweaks the XML file from time to time, but they have never encrypted it or used some funky database for content, like they do with there iPod OS.
Yes I know. I'm saying if Apple charged a licensing fee for access to these files, people would complain.
Gotcha. It did seem that you of all people wouldn?t have known that. I should re-read it.
People will always complain about something. Apple can say it?s support the access within iTunes itself, but if they don?t want to then they can access the files freely through the OS. I don?t think the EU would have a problem with that as there are a couple different options from them to choose from.
The device/vendor spoof has always struck me as Palm's "Plan B". Palm pressed very hard to get the Pre and WebOS out as soon as they did, and the results are impressive. As with any project on a strict timeline, Palm certainly made some compromises. Missing sync software seems like a cutback.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Palm began developing a different solution a while ago: to rely on iTunes alone is certainly poor planning. The real surprise has been Palm's reaction. Maybe, as others have said, all the hand waving was just to buy more time.
I think part of the reason Palm has not created their own sync application is that the company is running on fumes. Their current assets barely cover their current liabilities and most of the capital they have comes from venture capitalists, who are hoping for the Palm OS based devices to be successful enough to cause another company to make a rich bid to acquire Palm. The repeated spoofing of the vendor ID is a low cost way to keep the functionality long enough to get a buy out.
They are definitely running on fumes and hoping for a buyout. However, I think this is definitely Plan A. Palm has, over the years, backed off support of sync more and more. With the Pre, they finally eliminated all support of their own for sync. You can't even back the thing up to your computer and if you want to sync it with anything, you have to hand over all your information to a 3rd-party. In fact, some of the major features they've hyped about the Pre are really just their way of getting out of actually supporting sync.
EDIT: Which, actually, as I think about it, supports the idea that they are only angling for a buyout. No "messy" desktop software baggage to go with it. You buy Palm, you get the Pre and webOS, and you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
The letter also said that Apple's use of the vendor ID to limit iTunes syncing to proprietary hardware like the iPhone and iPod is within the rules of the USB-IF. It specifically said that Apple's actions are not "improper."
PREcisely!
In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software.
I am very sad that Apple are leveraging this situation to promote sales of their other devices, some of which users don't want (I am never paying a penny to O2 again in my life if I can help it). If I get a Palm Pre in the future because it is provided by the phone company I use and like, I would like to have the seamless experience with the media library software that Apple provide with their computers. Sadly, Apple don't want me to have such an experience, and in fact have deliberately made it impossible. In the end, the consumer loses.
iSync is not seamless. It's adequate for the task, and a reasonable tool for ~2005.
I would like to point out that back in the day, the seamless experience was a unique selling point for Apple, but that was back then, and things are different now. People will still buy iPods because they're great devices. However if they get something else, why should they be punished for buying a Mac and using the Apple provided software that comes with it?
"In my opinion, in 2009, it is the software that Mac users utilise to manage their media. It comes with the operating system. It's system software."
In fact it DOES NOT come with the OS ... it comes with the computer, BIG DIFFERENCE. Many thousands of windoze users access iTunes everyday without using Mac OS .. check facts before stating your opinion please.
"If I get a Palm Pre in the future because it is provided by the phone company I use and like, I would like to have the seamless experience with the media library software that Apple provide with their computers. Sadly, Apple don't want me to have such an experience, and in fact have deliberately made it impossible. In the end, the consumer loses."
The only consumer who loses in this scenario is the ones like you, who "want their cake and eat it too" ... they want Palm but they want it to be like "an Apple experience" ... Please tell me that you can understand that this is not Apple's problem, but rather, it is Palm's problem. If you want an Apple experience ... just buy Apple, like hundreds of thousands of consumers who live in the real world.