My friend the hypocrisy it yours. Blackberry and others use XML and on system software to sync their devices with iTunes. Palm did it better by loading the software on the Pre and getting iTunes to sync w/o a middleman on the desktop.
Apple never blocked anyone from accessing the xml files. Palm is not doing that better; they are masquerading as an iPod. That is like saying Pete's serves the same quality of espresso as Starbuck's because Pete's is using Starbuck's coffee, not just their recipe. I know, another torchered metaphor.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
Frankly Apple can take the competition whithout being a bully! BTW there is no secure solution to lock out anything (like ITunes media library) from a private computer when you have root access. If you do not want to spoof as ipod there are many other ways to rip the ITunes library. I think Apple is surely loosing the fight to google and other "open standard champions" if the continue this fight. In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!
@Rankzero (interesting name!). Please read the excellent post directly above yours.
Nobody is forcing you to use an iPod/iPhone. The reason so many people choose to buy that hardware is because usually they enjoy the Apple experience. The Apple Experience costs money and time to develop - it doesn't happen through magical fairies dropping it under the designers pillows each night after sun down. Frankly I cannot see why people think they are somehow entitled to enjoy the Apple Experience if they don't want to pay for its development. Please don't kid yourself - as many posters have pointed out, Apple isn't in the iTunes business to sell music, they are there to sell hardware and the software that is intricately linked to this hardware in a seamless bundle.
There are no issues of anti competitiveness here- if you don't want to use iPhones/iPods then by all means choose another hardware provider, but please don't expect us as Apple users to subsidise your experience by funding the r & d that goes into each piece of Apple hardware & software. There are plenty of other options for you *cough* Zune *cough*.
I don't mean to come across as an arsehole with an ad homimen attack as I haven't met you personally - please interpret my comments as being aimed towards the general populace. Its just so ungainly trying to write to the global 'we'.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
Frankly Apple can take the competition whithout being a bully! BTW there is no secure solution to lock out anything (like ITunes media library) from a private computer when you have root access. If you do not want to spoof as ipod there are many other ways to rip the ITunes library. I think Apple is surely loosing the fight to google and other "open standard champions" if the continue this fight. In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!
Are you for real? Apple should spend their time and money developing their own software and then give it away for free? Apple makes the best product, people have freedom of choice to use them or not. If you don't like their rules then don't buy and use their products. It's that simple. Apple as a corporation is not obligated to do anything to support anything other than their own products. They are not doing anything anti-competitive or illegal. Do you even understand the meaning of those words?
Exactly. People supporting Palm in this are acting like 1) the Pre has a right to the same consideration on the Apple platform / software as an Apple product does; and 2) that this would be good for Apple.
What if I said "Exactly. People supporting Apple in this are acting like 1) the Mac has a right to the same consideration on the Microsoft platform / software as a PC does; and 2) that this would be good for Microsoft."
So should MS be allowed to block iTunes in PC's? Really? Should Windows automatically delete Safari? This is a dangerous argument you are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
As though it would be good for Apple to say, "hey guys, buy whatever phone you want but come and use our great software with it, because afterall, it's free. "
That sounds like what Google, Ubuntu, ZoHo, and others are saying.. Yes, they are different companies but Apple lets others use iTunes for free...
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
Apple doesn't make money on iTunes, it makes money on phones and computers. Why are people buying those phones and computers? Because they offer an experience that is superior to the competition, and a real value for money because (besides quality and longer life of the product) the software bundled with them is easier to use and more productive.
I mostly agree with this although I find it very hard to believe that Apple isn't making money on iTunes. I've seen the 10k. Still don't believe it.
But you are right: they do offer an experience that is superior to the competition in most cases.. But that is no reason to be anti-competitive and lock out other products. That is not the way I want my vendors to act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
If a person chooses a Pre for whatever reason (no local ATT service or something I would imagine), then they need to accept it doesn't have the advantages that an Apple phone using Apple software will have. Get over it. If a person chooses a Pre to spite Apple, then they are just cutting their own nose off and they have bigger issues than just being in the odd position of rejecting an Apple product but eagerly clamoring to get preferential treatment from Apple's free software instead.
It's coming to the UK soon. Anyway, I believe that the US also has such laws, but I'm not going to do the research at 2am.
But it is not in the UK so Palm nor you can claim that they are doing in accordance with the local laws. In this country, there is no law against making software that only works with your hardware products, like PALM DESKTOP! This is true no matter how popular the product becomes.
The issue is Palm's Pre using Apple's USB vendor number to trick iTunes, which is a blatant violation of the USB-F regulations. Basically, it's a hacker move - not something a legitimate company should be doing - and it's illegal. Apple allows third party devices to sync with iTunes (ex. the BlackBerry Desktop Sync Application), but for whatever reason Palm chose not to go that route. Palm is in deep $#!T here.
And, if I misunderstood your post, I apologize.
Illegal? Name the country. The USB-F publishes standards and allows companies to use their logo. If they don't want Palm to use their logo, they can send them a letter and Palm will stop. BFD.
They are not a government. They do not have any authority. Their opinion is somewhat important and I am disappointed in their stance but that does not mean Palm is doing something "illegal."
Palm is definitely not in deep S#!T here. You wish.
What a great feature Palm offers their Pre sufferers: Intermittent and unreliable iTunes syncing. This, along with near total App-Lack?, an antique mechanical keyboard perpetually stuck in vertical mode, no soft keyboard at all, a cheap plastic screen that's reportedly quite the nasty scratch magnet, and flimsy, junky-feeling overall build-quality - all backed by a company that's so running on fumes that they can't even manage to come up with their own software to legally sync with iTunes. No wonder they're having trouble selling their crappy, app-less fake iPhones.
What a great feature Palm offers their Pre sufferers: Intermittent and unreliable iTunes syncing. This, along with near total App-Lack?, an antique mechanical keyboard perpetually stuck in vertical mode, no soft keyboard at all, a cheap plastic screen that's reportedly quite the nasty scratch magnet, and flimsy, junky-feeling overall build-quality - all backed by a company that's so running on fumes that they can't even manage to come up with their own software to legally sync with iTunes. No wonder they're having trouble selling their crappy, app-less fake iPhones.
@Rankzero (interesting name!). Please read the excellent post directly above yours.
Nobody is forcing you to use an iPod/iPhone. The reason so many people choose to buy that hardware is because usually they enjoy the Apple experience. The Apple Experience costs money and time to develop - it doesn't happen through magical fairies dropping it under the designers pillows each night after sun down. Frankly I cannot see why people think they are somehow entitled to enjoy the Apple Experience if they don't want to pay for its development. Please don't kid yourself - as many posters have pointed out, Apple isn't in the iTunes business to sell music, they are there to sell hardware and the software that is intricately linked to this hardware in a seamless bundle.
There are no issues of anti competitiveness here- if you don't want to use iPhones/iPods then by all means choose another hardware provider, but please don't expect us as Apple users to subsidise your experience by funding the r & d that goes into each piece of Apple hardware & software. There are plenty of other options for you *cough* Zune *cough*.
I don't mean to come across as an arsehole with an ad homimen attack as I haven't met you personally - please interpret my comments as being aimed towards the general populace. Its just so ungainly trying to write to the global 'we'.
I beg to differ!
* ITunes does not sell hardware! For any one user of an ipod there are three potential users that would buy ipods if they could use it without the stupid ITunes requirement! Just let it work as a USB mass storage device. And, lots and lots of users complain about ITunes. I think ITunes works fine but that should be up to anyone.
* Apple is making money selling music, a simple fact you can check in the quarterly reports. So the argument to only sell music from Itunes store to ipod/apple/iphone owners is discriminating and anti-competetive. You wait and se what the courts in EU will say. And the issue is about size, this apply to any shop/system once they get a large market share. What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?
* Apple does not own my media, (nor adresses, calendar events etc) that I have in my ITunes library! If I previously used ipods and was forced to use ITunes then it is my property and I can make use of it ANY WAY I WANT.
Conclusively, Apple's mobile venture is much about lock in and it is an UGLY path of keeping customer in the "hog hen" once hooked. In contrast, Apple's computer venture used to be about freedom, remembering the 1984 Mac video (most of you here do not remember that?) about how we should not be controlled and brain washed. Now it is Apple creating a IPhone App Censorship-Nanny-state!
palm is clearly in violation of their usb license, but i don't think there is much the usb board can do about it.
Seems that the USB board could sue them as being in violation of the terms Palm agreed to when they requested a vendor ID. The USB board could revoke Palm's USB vendor ID and prevent them from making any future requests.
* ITunes does not sell hardware! For any one user of an ipod there are three potential users that would buy ipods if they could use it without the stupid ITunes requirement! Just let it work as a USB mass storage device. And, lots and lots of users complain about ITunes. I think ITunes works fine but that should be up to anyone.
* Apple is making money selling music, a simple fact you can check in the quarterly reports. So the argument to only sell music from Itunes store to ipod/apple/iphone owners is discriminating and anti-competetive. You wait and se what the courts in EU will say. And the issue is about size, this apply to any shop/system once they get a large market share. What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?
* Apple does not own my media, (nor adresses, calendar events etc) that I have in my ITunes library! If I previously used ipods and was forced to use ITunes then it is my property and I can make use of it ANY WAY I WANT.
Conclusively, Apple's mobile venture is much about lock in and it is an UGLY path of keeping customer in the "hog hen" once hooked. In contrast, Apple's computer venture used to be about freedom, remembering the 1984 Mac video (most of you here do not remember that?) about how we should not be controlled and brain washed. Now it is Apple creating a IPhone App Censorship-Nanny-state!
You argument about Apple being anti-competitive is probably from emotional standpoint, since how can a company be anti-competitive, if you have a choice. People know the business model of Apple and you can choose to buy a Zune or some other player to listen to your music. You also have a choice to purchase songs from other electronic retail outlets, e.g. Amazon, Wal Mart etc.
So you choose to purchase a iPod or iPhone and understand that from beginning the link to iTunes and would that comes with. Now you want EU to basically tell Apple:
You MUST offer sync ability to other electronic devices, ever though YOU have a choice not use Apple's apps and hardware.
From beginning everyone knew what Apple's business model was, so I can not see how Apple are being discriminating, since consumer has a choice. Apple have no monopoly because other companies play in their market, its just Apple play better. Is that Apple's fault no and are Apple stopping companies illegally from being competitive NO.
As for your example 'What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?' very poor example actually in no way the same at what Apple is undertaking at moment.
YOU understood the consumer model, Apple was offering you when you bought the music from their store and now, you want to change their model, since it does not suit your requirements. Then go to another music store online and make a choice!
Illegal? [...] that does not mean Palm is doing something "illegal."
Quite right! If anything, Palm is merely in breach of contract.
Quote:
Palm is definitely not in deep S#!T here.
Not unless and until Palm is sued. Palm might be found liable for damages and assessed an even greater punitive fine for flagrantly breaching their contract. No biggie.
Not at all the same thing! Google is "replacing some of the core functions of iPhone" by writing its own program. So yeah, you can "make a 'phone call'" with a Google app; and you can with Skype and Truphone and I suppose others.
Google is not hacking the iPhone so that when you go to the regular built-in phoning function and make a phone call you can do it through Google instead of your regular carrier on your SIM card account.
People are saying the Google app should be approved because the carrier should be open to competition -- that since you are already paying ATT for "unlimited data", you should be able to use your data bandwidth in this way. How is this making Apple look bad? These apps add value to the iPhone. It makes ATT service look bad. Now, if Google was trying to sell its hardware Gphone or whatever by using as a selling point that it syncs fully and smoothly with iTunes just as though it was an iPhone, I think there would be a little bit of a problem.
If Apple said, "hey we can give you Google Maps and Google search on your iPod or iPhone without the ads, because we have figured out how to hack straight into Google's servers without using their publicly released APIs, then you can bet there would be a problem!
There is no double standard, because people are calling for Palm to do the same as Google (and as Blackberry has already done with your iTunes library) -- WRITE THEIR OWN PROGRAM. Good grief, how hard is that to understand!
Palm is not only trying to access your library, which is legitimate and allowed by Apple; they are trying to take advantage of the user experience that Apple has carefully crafted and developed for its own devices. They want the automatic sync with smart playlists, and unwatched podcasts, and everything else. These are part of the selling point and differentiation of Apple's iPods and iPhones. And Palm is using Apple's uniquely assigned USB ID to achieve it.
Others have shown why some of your opinions are not faultless, but just add this:
Why is Apple not approving the app and requesting Google to make it web based app, similarly to Skype. If Google Voice and Skype were the same would not Apple approve the app?
Comments
My friend the hypocrisy it yours. Blackberry and others use XML and on system software to sync their devices with iTunes. Palm did it better by loading the software on the Pre and getting iTunes to sync w/o a middleman on the desktop.
Apple never blocked anyone from accessing the xml files. Palm is not doing that better; they are masquerading as an iPod. That is like saying Pete's serves the same quality of espresso as Starbuck's because Pete's is using Starbuck's coffee, not just their recipe. I know, another torchered metaphor.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
Frankly Apple can take the competition whithout being a bully! BTW there is no secure solution to lock out anything (like ITunes media library) from a private computer when you have root access. If you do not want to spoof as ipod there are many other ways to rip the ITunes library. I think Apple is surely loosing the fight to google and other "open standard champions" if the continue this fight. In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!
@Rankzero (interesting name!). Please read the excellent post directly above yours.
Nobody is forcing you to use an iPod/iPhone. The reason so many people choose to buy that hardware is because usually they enjoy the Apple experience. The Apple Experience costs money and time to develop - it doesn't happen through magical fairies dropping it under the designers pillows each night after sun down. Frankly I cannot see why people think they are somehow entitled to enjoy the Apple Experience if they don't want to pay for its development. Please don't kid yourself - as many posters have pointed out, Apple isn't in the iTunes business to sell music, they are there to sell hardware and the software that is intricately linked to this hardware in a seamless bundle.
There are no issues of anti competitiveness here- if you don't want to use iPhones/iPods then by all means choose another hardware provider, but please don't expect us as Apple users to subsidise your experience by funding the r & d that goes into each piece of Apple hardware & software. There are plenty of other options for you *cough* Zune *cough*.
I don't mean to come across as an arsehole with an ad homimen attack as I haven't met you personally - please interpret my comments as being aimed towards the general populace. Its just so ungainly trying to write to the global 'we'.
Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is quite legal (in progressive countries anyway) if undertaken in a specific manner.
I would expect that the law would override an ad-hoc "forum".
Which of these progressive countries is the Pre being sold?
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
Frankly Apple can take the competition whithout being a bully! BTW there is no secure solution to lock out anything (like ITunes media library) from a private computer when you have root access. If you do not want to spoof as ipod there are many other ways to rip the ITunes library. I think Apple is surely loosing the fight to google and other "open standard champions" if the continue this fight. In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!
Are you for real? Apple should spend their time and money developing their own software and then give it away for free? Apple makes the best product, people have freedom of choice to use them or not. If you don't like their rules then don't buy and use their products. It's that simple. Apple as a corporation is not obligated to do anything to support anything other than their own products. They are not doing anything anti-competitive or illegal. Do you even understand the meaning of those words?
Exactly. People supporting Palm in this are acting like 1) the Pre has a right to the same consideration on the Apple platform / software as an Apple product does; and 2) that this would be good for Apple.
What if I said "Exactly. People supporting Apple in this are acting like 1) the Mac has a right to the same consideration on the Microsoft platform / software as a PC does; and 2) that this would be good for Microsoft."
So should MS be allowed to block iTunes in PC's? Really? Should Windows automatically delete Safari? This is a dangerous argument you are making.
As though it would be good for Apple to say, "hey guys, buy whatever phone you want but come and use our great software with it, because afterall, it's free. "
That sounds like what Google, Ubuntu, ZoHo, and others are saying.. Yes, they are different companies but Apple lets others use iTunes for free...
Apple doesn't make money on iTunes, it makes money on phones and computers. Why are people buying those phones and computers? Because they offer an experience that is superior to the competition, and a real value for money because (besides quality and longer life of the product) the software bundled with them is easier to use and more productive.
I mostly agree with this although I find it very hard to believe that Apple isn't making money on iTunes. I've seen the 10k. Still don't believe it.
But you are right: they do offer an experience that is superior to the competition in most cases.. But that is no reason to be anti-competitive and lock out other products. That is not the way I want my vendors to act.
If a person chooses a Pre for whatever reason (no local ATT service or something I would imagine), then they need to accept it doesn't have the advantages that an Apple phone using Apple software will have. Get over it. If a person chooses a Pre to spite Apple, then they are just cutting their own nose off and they have bigger issues than just being in the odd position of rejecting an Apple product but eagerly clamoring to get preferential treatment from Apple's free software instead.
Uh, whose the fanboy? lol
Which of these progressive countries is the Pre being sold?
It's coming to the UK soon. Anyway, I believe that the US also has such laws, but I'm not going to do the research at 2am.
It's coming to the UK soon. Anyway, I believe that the US also has such laws, but I'm not going to do the research at 2am.
But it is not in the UK so Palm nor you can claim that they are doing in accordance with the local laws. In this country, there is no law against making software that only works with your hardware products, like PALM DESKTOP! This is true no matter how popular the product becomes.
The issue is Palm's Pre using Apple's USB vendor number to trick iTunes, which is a blatant violation of the USB-F regulations. Basically, it's a hacker move - not something a legitimate company should be doing - and it's illegal. Apple allows third party devices to sync with iTunes (ex. the BlackBerry Desktop Sync Application), but for whatever reason Palm chose not to go that route. Palm is in deep $#!T here.
And, if I misunderstood your post, I apologize.
Illegal? Name the country. The USB-F publishes standards and allows companies to use their logo. If they don't want Palm to use their logo, they can send them a letter and Palm will stop. BFD.
They are not a government. They do not have any authority. Their opinion is somewhat important and I am disappointed in their stance but that does not mean Palm is doing something "illegal."
Palm is definitely not in deep S#!T here. You wish.
What a great feature Palm offers their Pre sufferers: Intermittent and unreliable iTunes syncing. This, along with near total App-Lack?, an antique mechanical keyboard perpetually stuck in vertical mode, no soft keyboard at all, a cheap plastic screen that's reportedly quite the nasty scratch magnet, and flimsy, junky-feeling overall build-quality - all backed by a company that's so running on fumes that they can't even manage to come up with their own software to legally sync with iTunes. No wonder they're having trouble selling their crappy, app-less fake iPhones.
---------------------
Spot-on.
MacDailyNews Take:
What a great feature Palm offers their Pre sufferers: Intermittent and unreliable iTunes syncing. This, along with near total App-Lack?, an antique mechanical keyboard perpetually stuck in vertical mode, no soft keyboard at all, a cheap plastic screen that's reportedly quite the nasty scratch magnet, and flimsy, junky-feeling overall build-quality - all backed by a company that's so running on fumes that they can't even manage to come up with their own software to legally sync with iTunes. No wonder they're having trouble selling their crappy, app-less fake iPhones.
---------------------
Spot-on.
Where can I find that? www.applefanboi.com?
@Rankzero (interesting name!). Please read the excellent post directly above yours.
Nobody is forcing you to use an iPod/iPhone. The reason so many people choose to buy that hardware is because usually they enjoy the Apple experience. The Apple Experience costs money and time to develop - it doesn't happen through magical fairies dropping it under the designers pillows each night after sun down. Frankly I cannot see why people think they are somehow entitled to enjoy the Apple Experience if they don't want to pay for its development. Please don't kid yourself - as many posters have pointed out, Apple isn't in the iTunes business to sell music, they are there to sell hardware and the software that is intricately linked to this hardware in a seamless bundle.
There are no issues of anti competitiveness here- if you don't want to use iPhones/iPods then by all means choose another hardware provider, but please don't expect us as Apple users to subsidise your experience by funding the r & d that goes into each piece of Apple hardware & software. There are plenty of other options for you *cough* Zune *cough*.
I don't mean to come across as an arsehole with an ad homimen attack as I haven't met you personally - please interpret my comments as being aimed towards the general populace. Its just so ungainly trying to write to the global 'we'.
I beg to differ!
* ITunes does not sell hardware! For any one user of an ipod there are three potential users that would buy ipods if they could use it without the stupid ITunes requirement! Just let it work as a USB mass storage device. And, lots and lots of users complain about ITunes. I think ITunes works fine but that should be up to anyone.
* Apple is making money selling music, a simple fact you can check in the quarterly reports. So the argument to only sell music from Itunes store to ipod/apple/iphone owners is discriminating and anti-competetive. You wait and se what the courts in EU will say. And the issue is about size, this apply to any shop/system once they get a large market share. What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?
* Apple does not own my media, (nor adresses, calendar events etc) that I have in my ITunes library! If I previously used ipods and was forced to use ITunes then it is my property and I can make use of it ANY WAY I WANT.
Conclusively, Apple's mobile venture is much about lock in and it is an UGLY path of keeping customer in the "hog hen" once hooked. In contrast, Apple's computer venture used to be about freedom, remembering the 1984 Mac video (most of you here do not remember that?) about how we should not be controlled and brain washed. Now it is Apple creating a IPhone App Censorship-Nanny-state!
according this article at precentral.net
http://www.precentral.net/how-palm-r...sync-webos-121
the pre now identifies itself as an ipod video:
USB Product ID: 0x1209
USB Vendor ID: 0x05ac (Apple, Inc)
Manufacturer: Apple Inc.
palm is clearly in violation of their usb license, but i don't think there is much the usb board can do about it.
Seems that the USB board could sue them as being in violation of the terms Palm agreed to when they requested a vendor ID. The USB board could revoke Palm's USB vendor ID and prevent them from making any future requests.
Where can I find that? www.applefanboi.com?
http://www.applefanboi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/
Apparently not.
No ... Republican.
I had been wondering, so they are not the same thing after all!
How do you like your Intel based G4?
Oh cruel
http://www.applefanboi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/
Apparently not.
It's a joke son - ya' missed it.
- Foghorn Leghorn
I beg to differ!
* ITunes does not sell hardware! For any one user of an ipod there are three potential users that would buy ipods if they could use it without the stupid ITunes requirement! Just let it work as a USB mass storage device. And, lots and lots of users complain about ITunes. I think ITunes works fine but that should be up to anyone.
* Apple is making money selling music, a simple fact you can check in the quarterly reports. So the argument to only sell music from Itunes store to ipod/apple/iphone owners is discriminating and anti-competetive. You wait and se what the courts in EU will say. And the issue is about size, this apply to any shop/system once they get a large market share. What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?
* Apple does not own my media, (nor adresses, calendar events etc) that I have in my ITunes library! If I previously used ipods and was forced to use ITunes then it is my property and I can make use of it ANY WAY I WANT.
Conclusively, Apple's mobile venture is much about lock in and it is an UGLY path of keeping customer in the "hog hen" once hooked. In contrast, Apple's computer venture used to be about freedom, remembering the 1984 Mac video (most of you here do not remember that?) about how we should not be controlled and brain washed. Now it is Apple creating a IPhone App Censorship-Nanny-state!
You argument about Apple being anti-competitive is probably from emotional standpoint, since how can a company be anti-competitive, if you have a choice. People know the business model of Apple and you can choose to buy a Zune or some other player to listen to your music. You also have a choice to purchase songs from other electronic retail outlets, e.g. Amazon, Wal Mart etc.
So you choose to purchase a iPod or iPhone and understand that from beginning the link to iTunes and would that comes with. Now you want EU to basically tell Apple:
You MUST offer sync ability to other electronic devices, ever though YOU have a choice not use Apple's apps and hardware.
From beginning everyone knew what Apple's business model was, so I can not see how Apple are being discriminating, since consumer has a choice. Apple have no monopoly because other companies play in their market, its just Apple play better. Is that Apple's fault no and are Apple stopping companies illegally from being competitive NO.
As for your example 'What if amazon only would sell to hispanics?' very poor example actually in no way the same at what Apple is undertaking at moment.
YOU understood the consumer model, Apple was offering you when you bought the music from their store and now, you want to change their model, since it does not suit your requirements. Then go to another music store online and make a choice!
Illegal? [...] that does not mean Palm is doing something "illegal."
Quite right! If anything, Palm is merely in breach of contract.
Palm is definitely not in deep S#!T here.
Not unless and until Palm is sued. Palm might be found liable for damages and assessed an even greater punitive fine for flagrantly breaching their contract. No biggie.
Not at all the same thing! Google is "replacing some of the core functions of iPhone" by writing its own program. So yeah, you can "make a 'phone call'" with a Google app; and you can with Skype and Truphone and I suppose others.
Google is not hacking the iPhone so that when you go to the regular built-in phoning function and make a phone call you can do it through Google instead of your regular carrier on your SIM card account.
People are saying the Google app should be approved because the carrier should be open to competition -- that since you are already paying ATT for "unlimited data", you should be able to use your data bandwidth in this way. How is this making Apple look bad? These apps add value to the iPhone. It makes ATT service look bad. Now, if Google was trying to sell its hardware Gphone or whatever by using as a selling point that it syncs fully and smoothly with iTunes just as though it was an iPhone, I think there would be a little bit of a problem.
If Apple said, "hey we can give you Google Maps and Google search on your iPod or iPhone without the ads, because we have figured out how to hack straight into Google's servers without using their publicly released APIs, then you can bet there would be a problem!
There is no double standard, because people are calling for Palm to do the same as Google (and as Blackberry has already done with your iTunes library) -- WRITE THEIR OWN PROGRAM. Good grief, how hard is that to understand!
Palm is not only trying to access your library, which is legitimate and allowed by Apple; they are trying to take advantage of the user experience that Apple has carefully crafted and developed for its own devices. They want the automatic sync with smart playlists, and unwatched podcasts, and everything else. These are part of the selling point and differentiation of Apple's iPods and iPhones. And Palm is using Apple's uniquely assigned USB ID to achieve it.
Others have shown why some of your opinions are not faultless, but just add this:
Why is Apple not approving the app and requesting Google to make it web based app, similarly to Skype. If Google Voice and Skype were the same would not Apple approve the app?
Nothing syncs with iTunes. Companies can access the xml data and create their own solutions, but not directly with iTunes.
Sure they can & do.
Creative Nomad, SonicBlue Rio RioVolt, Nike psa Play, Nakamichi Soundspace and the Motorola Razr all sync directly with iTunes, not the .xml.