* 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!
I was going to respond to your post but after re-reading it I now realize there are no words stupid enough for you to understand so I won't!
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
Yea, for sure. .... Wikipedia is the FIRST place to look for the legal interpretation of all laws ... I understand the supreme court judges use it extensively.
Will the EU make my iPhone work with Nokia's "Comes with Music" service?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
1. An online store where one can purchase media. All music on this store is now DRM free and may be played on a large variety of media devices.
2. A "jukebox" app for managing media from a variety of sources, only one of which is the online music store.
3. A synchronization app for Apple media devices.
I would argue that parts 1 and 2 are open to anyone on the Mac or Windows platform. It is only the third part which is in contention. Persons may purchase on the iTunes store and then move the media to any jukebox/synchronization app they choose. I would argue that Palm has chosen to not provide its users with this app, instead relying on Apple to provide it. As such, they have placed their users experience in the hands of a company that sells competing hardware! Does this seem like a silly business practice to anyone else?
1. An online store where one can purchase media. All music on this store is now DRM free and may be played on a large variety of media devices.
2. A "jukebox" app for managing media from a variety of sources, only one of which is the online music store.
3. A synchronization app for Apple media devices.
I would argue that parts 1 and 2 are open to anyone on the Mac or Windows platform. It is only the third part which is in contention. Persons may purchase on the iTunes store and then move the media to any jukebox/synchronization app they choose. I would argue that Palm has chosen to not provide its users with this app, instead relying on Apple to provide it. As such, they have placed their users experience in the hands of a company that sells competing hardware! Does this seem like a silly business practice to anyone else?
+1
Palm's handling of #3 represents an egregious assault on their own customers' use of the product. It's a critical feature that is controlled and matained by the competition, who has every right to break it or otherwise frustrate its use on Palm's device. Smooth move, Palm, smooth move. The Pre is tanking already and now they pull this stupid stunt.
This whole battle seems like a losing proposition for Palm. Imagine if you bought an iphone and every week or couple of weeks it stopped syncing with your media. Eventually it gets fixed, but sooner or later it stops syncing again. This happens over and over. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, eventually, I'd get tired of this and look for alternate solutions. Even if palm re-enables sync every time, I'd still be pissed if I was a pre user and couldn't get new media onto my phone for a few days or a few weeks every time itunes blocked it. Maybe I"d find some kind of third party software, like the missing sync, or maybe I would go for a new phone. If I went for a new phone, I doubt I'd get the new pre (whatever it was at the time I upgraded), as I know that this hassle is going to continue.
No, not really. Pre user simply has to delay iTunes update until there is Pre firmware that supports new iTunes.
Beside iPhone/iPod specific features (which are not applicable to Pre anyway), there ain't that much reasons to jump on new iTunes anyway.
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!
Go and read the definition of Monopoly.
There are MANY other players and places to purchase music and ways to get that music on to the player. Therefore Apple do NOT have a monopoly as you have a massive choice.
Yes it's obvious that iTunes is a monopoly, there's no way that another piece of software could be more prevalent. take Windows Media Player, it's got nowhere near the market pene...
..oh, hang on.
The Palm pre has no respect for USB standards so why should Apple?
If Apple wanted to run 110 volts down USB to a spoofed iPod why should anyone stop them.
The USB-IF guidelines are obviously meaningless to Palm, why should they care?
btw your contacts, calendar etc are synced with the pre-existing software on your computer, iTunes even gives you a choice of which one to use.
you don't need iTunes to sync that information to another device.
iTunes is NOT a monopoly.
You can buy music from many places on the internet all of which will play on your iPod.
Since you own an iPhone, you know what it is to have a seamless sync experience between all your important data on you computer and your phone. Before the iPhone, there was no such experience. You have come to take it for granted. Companies like Palm would kill for that experience. Clearly, they are willing to steal and risk their reputation for it. iTunes sync is a HUGE deal. Let no one tell you otherwise.
You missing some words there, it should be "Before the iPhone, there was no such experience on the Mac.". And even then, it isn't true, iSync is seamless...
You missing some words there, it should be "Before the iPhone, there was no such experience on the Mac.". And even then, it isn't true, iSync is seamless...
I had a PC back in the day as well as Hotsync. iTunes is far and away better than HS on its best day. iSync is better than HS on its best day. If iTunes was not the best of breed, Palm would not be staking everything on it. They are risking everything for iTunes, not HS, not Palm Desktop.
If you doubt how important iTunes sync is, just visit the Precentral.net site. Some openly admit they bought the Pre because it could sync using iTunes. This is a big deal and a big moment in tech history. Can't wait to see how it ends.
[QUOTE=Rankzero;1492886]Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.
Are you going to provide the evidence to above statement, since you used the word 'fact'!
- there is no "iTunes" lock-in. This is what Palm want's us to think, but In fact, there is a public and documented iTunes API that is used by a number of competitors.
- Palm is doing itself not a favor by demonstrating that they are not capable to do what others have done, and tying themselves to sneaky use competitors software
While I think that Apple easily could sue them, why should they? It feels as shady as it is to disguise your "iPod-Killer" as an iPod. Using your competitors name to identify your device certainly is enough to get drawn to court for a number of legal reasons.
IMO it shows quite some desperation, and I think that they go belly-up before a court could rule on that matter.
I'm not sure the USB-IF needs to do anything but declare Palm to be in violation of their agreement.
That might be enough to prevent the Pre from being advertised as supporting USB. A recall and destruction of product packaging and advertising literature that declares the Pre as supporting USB might also be necessary. If Palm continued to advertise the Pre as having USB, a charge of false advertising might be brought against the company, which is where Apple could get involved directly or maybe even indirectly (and quietly) by funding legal action by the USB-IF.
Depending on the terms of the USB agreement, a flagrant violation might even prevent Palm's advertising any device they manufacture as being USB.
My vivid imagination suggests the USB agreement might further prevent component manufacturers from selling "USB" components to any manufacturer that is deemed to be in violation of the agreement. Hopefully for Palm's sake, they've figured these things out, though.
Well said sir. I believe it is the case that, if you want to be able to sport the various USB logos and and say you are USB compliant etc., you have to abide by the specification, otherwise your right to use the logos can be revoked.
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.
No, as the effective controller of the computing market, Microsoft cannot do this. Because of it's dominant position (and the openness of the platform from a third-party perspective) they have to play by different rules.
Microsoft have made there dominant position by allowing ALL third-party software run on Windows. They have no legal way to block software, as this would be anti-competitive (especially if the software competed with something of theirs).
I wonder, did Palm actually approach Apple to make some contractual agreement to use iTunes?
There are other non-Apple devices which can sync with iTunes but Apple has come to a business agreement with those manufacturers.
I thought of a method with which Apple can block out the Pre syncing - release firmware updates for the iPods which the Pre imitates, then make the next iTunes sync only with those iPods with that firmware version. The Pre, unable to run iPod firmware, will be left out in the cold.
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.
...So if you can drag it what is so good about not allowing a synch routine work for all players?
"Synch routines" are allowed. Palm can write as many as they like. They can go crazy with it. They can show us how creative they really are. Many posters are saying they could write a synch routine. The XML file is right there. Couldn't be easier.
Maybe you are asking what is so good about Apple not allowing seamless integration with other hardware from within iTunes? I guess that really is the question here, isn't it? That's what we have been discussing for five pages.
Most of you many posts seem to be about how bad it is of Apple not to let Palm masquerade its Pre's as iPods, and how good it would be for Apple to allow others to use their creativity without any effort or licensing. And yet many of the replies to your posts are answering exactly what is so good about it. Apple are making their iPhone a desirable product that works well.
Mac Voyer gives an answer in post 171:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
I had a PC back in the day as well as Hotsync. iTunes is far and away better than HS on its best day. iSync is better than HS on its best day. If iTunes was not the best of breed, Palm would not be staking everything on it. They are risking everything for iTunes, not HS, not Palm Desktop.
If you doubt how important iTunes sync is, just visit the Precentral.net site. Some openly admit they bought the Pre because it could sync using iTunes. This is a big deal and a big moment in tech history. Can't wait to see how it ends.
ANother answer is that it gives Palm and Pre owners a good chance to grow up and learn a life lesson: you don't get something for nothing; not every choice brings every reward: you have to make intelligent choices and live with them.
Sorry but using Internet explorer as an example is flawed every way you look at it. IE would disable other browsers that would be anti competition, since internet is not owned by MS. Apple own iTunes and Device ID, which Palm are using. Apple have every right to disable the Palm Pre, since it is using their device ID, which is no no by USB IF. Why don't Palm do what everyone esle does and develop a sync software. No its too easy to do it cheaply and then cry foul.
Sorry mate but Apple are not suing because it would raise awareness to Palm Pre, free publicity at Apple's expense. Noticed all the crying has come from Palm, wonder why.
Actually using IE as an example is perfect. MS fought hard to keep other browsers from being used on windows and not all websites were viewable on firefox at first. And if burgulars are gonna be shot then shoot steve jobs first. He created his whole empire by stealing from xerox. And hmmmm a device that constantly has to be updated to stop doing something apple doesn't like, sounds a lot like a jailbroken iphone to me since there are way more of them than there are palm pres. Do jailbreakers get tired of jailbreaking their iphones every time apple locks them out? The answer is no. Apple will not sue and I suspect palm continues doing what its doing as evidence against apple.
Comments
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!
I was going to respond to your post but after re-reading it I now realize there are no words stupid enough for you to understand so I won't!
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82#Tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
Yea, for sure. .... Wikipedia is the FIRST place to look for the legal interpretation of all laws ... I understand the supreme court judges use it extensively.
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82#Tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
1. An online store where one can purchase media. All music on this store is now DRM free and may be played on a large variety of media devices.
2. A "jukebox" app for managing media from a variety of sources, only one of which is the online music store.
3. A synchronization app for Apple media devices.
I would argue that parts 1 and 2 are open to anyone on the Mac or Windows platform. It is only the third part which is in contention. Persons may purchase on the iTunes store and then move the media to any jukebox/synchronization app they choose. I would argue that Palm has chosen to not provide its users with this app, instead relying on Apple to provide it. As such, they have placed their users experience in the hands of a company that sells competing hardware! Does this seem like a silly business practice to anyone else?
iTunes consists of three distinct parts:
1. An online store where one can purchase media. All music on this store is now DRM free and may be played on a large variety of media devices.
2. A "jukebox" app for managing media from a variety of sources, only one of which is the online music store.
3. A synchronization app for Apple media devices.
I would argue that parts 1 and 2 are open to anyone on the Mac or Windows platform. It is only the third part which is in contention. Persons may purchase on the iTunes store and then move the media to any jukebox/synchronization app they choose. I would argue that Palm has chosen to not provide its users with this app, instead relying on Apple to provide it. As such, they have placed their users experience in the hands of a company that sells competing hardware! Does this seem like a silly business practice to anyone else?
+1
Palm's handling of #3 represents an egregious assault on their own customers' use of the product. It's a critical feature that is controlled and matained by the competition, who has every right to break it or otherwise frustrate its use on Palm's device. Smooth move, Palm, smooth move. The Pre is tanking already and now they pull this stupid stunt.
This whole battle seems like a losing proposition for Palm. Imagine if you bought an iphone and every week or couple of weeks it stopped syncing with your media. Eventually it gets fixed, but sooner or later it stops syncing again. This happens over and over. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, eventually, I'd get tired of this and look for alternate solutions. Even if palm re-enables sync every time, I'd still be pissed if I was a pre user and couldn't get new media onto my phone for a few days or a few weeks every time itunes blocked it. Maybe I"d find some kind of third party software, like the missing sync, or maybe I would go for a new phone. If I went for a new phone, I doubt I'd get the new pre (whatever it was at the time I upgraded), as I know that this hassle is going to continue.
No, not really. Pre user simply has to delay iTunes update until there is Pre firmware that supports new iTunes.
Beside iPhone/iPod specific features (which are not applicable to Pre anyway), there ain't that much reasons to jump on new iTunes anyway.
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!
Go and read the definition of Monopoly.
There are MANY other players and places to purchase music and ways to get that music on to the player. Therefore Apple do NOT have a monopoly as you have a massive choice.
Yes it's obvious that iTunes is a monopoly, there's no way that another piece of software could be more prevalent. take Windows Media Player, it's got nowhere near the market pene...
..oh, hang on.
The Palm pre has no respect for USB standards so why should Apple?
If Apple wanted to run 110 volts down USB to a spoofed iPod why should anyone stop them.
The USB-IF guidelines are obviously meaningless to Palm, why should they care?
btw your contacts, calendar etc are synced with the pre-existing software on your computer, iTunes even gives you a choice of which one to use.
you don't need iTunes to sync that information to another device.
iTunes is NOT a monopoly.
You can buy music from many places on the internet all of which will play on your iPod.
Since you own an iPhone, you know what it is to have a seamless sync experience between all your important data on you computer and your phone. Before the iPhone, there was no such experience. You have come to take it for granted. Companies like Palm would kill for that experience. Clearly, they are willing to steal and risk their reputation for it. iTunes sync is a HUGE deal. Let no one tell you otherwise.
You missing some words there, it should be "Before the iPhone, there was no such experience on the Mac.". And even then, it isn't true, iSync is seamless...
You missing some words there, it should be "Before the iPhone, there was no such experience on the Mac.". And even then, it isn't true, iSync is seamless...
I had a PC back in the day as well as Hotsync. iTunes is far and away better than HS on its best day. iSync is better than HS on its best day. If iTunes was not the best of breed, Palm would not be staking everything on it. They are risking everything for iTunes, not HS, not Palm Desktop.
If you doubt how important iTunes sync is, just visit the Precentral.net site. Some openly admit they bought the Pre because it could sync using iTunes. This is a big deal and a big moment in tech history. Can't wait to see how it ends.
No, not really. Pre user simply has to delay iTunes update until there is Pre firmware that supports new iTunes.
The average Pre user won't realize this. Unless of course Palm advises them not to in an advisory e-mail. I'd love to read their explanation.
Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.
Are you going to provide the evidence to above statement, since you used the word 'fact'!
http://hunter.pairsite.com/blogs/20091004/
Bottomline:
- there is no "iTunes" lock-in. This is what Palm want's us to think, but In fact, there is a public and documented iTunes API that is used by a number of competitors.
- Palm is doing itself not a favor by demonstrating that they are not capable to do what others have done, and tying themselves to sneaky use competitors software
While I think that Apple easily could sue them, why should they? It feels as shady as it is to disguise your "iPod-Killer" as an iPod. Using your competitors name to identify your device certainly is enough to get drawn to court for a number of legal reasons.
IMO it shows quite some desperation, and I think that they go belly-up before a court could rule on that matter.
Kabe
I'm not sure the USB-IF needs to do anything but declare Palm to be in violation of their agreement.
That might be enough to prevent the Pre from being advertised as supporting USB. A recall and destruction of product packaging and advertising literature that declares the Pre as supporting USB might also be necessary. If Palm continued to advertise the Pre as having USB, a charge of false advertising might be brought against the company, which is where Apple could get involved directly or maybe even indirectly (and quietly) by funding legal action by the USB-IF.
Depending on the terms of the USB agreement, a flagrant violation might even prevent Palm's advertising any device they manufacture as being USB.
My vivid imagination suggests the USB agreement might further prevent component manufacturers from selling "USB" components to any manufacturer that is deemed to be in violation of the agreement. Hopefully for Palm's sake, they've figured these things out, though.
Well said sir. I believe it is the case that, if you want to be able to sport the various USB logos and and say you are USB compliant etc., you have to abide by the specification, otherwise your right to use the logos can be revoked.
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.
No, as the effective controller of the computing market, Microsoft cannot do this. Because of it's dominant position (and the openness of the platform from a third-party perspective) they have to play by different rules.
Microsoft have made there dominant position by allowing ALL third-party software run on Windows. They have no legal way to block software, as this would be anti-competitive (especially if the software competed with something of theirs).
There are other non-Apple devices which can sync with iTunes but Apple has come to a business agreement with those manufacturers.
I thought of a method with which Apple can block out the Pre syncing - release firmware updates for the iPods which the Pre imitates, then make the next iTunes sync only with those iPods with that firmware version. The Pre, unable to run iPod firmware, will be left out in the cold.
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.
Interesting reply, but why has Vonage been approved on iPhone http://www.macworld.com/article/1431...onage_app.html and Google Voice not been approved as yet?
...So if you can drag it what is so good about not allowing a synch routine work for all players?
"Synch routines" are allowed. Palm can write as many as they like. They can go crazy with it. They can show us how creative they really are. Many posters are saying they could write a synch routine. The XML file is right there. Couldn't be easier.
Maybe you are asking what is so good about Apple not allowing seamless integration with other hardware from within iTunes? I guess that really is the question here, isn't it? That's what we have been discussing for five pages.
Most of you many posts seem to be about how bad it is of Apple not to let Palm masquerade its Pre's as iPods, and how good it would be for Apple to allow others to use their creativity without any effort or licensing. And yet many of the replies to your posts are answering exactly what is so good about it. Apple are making their iPhone a desirable product that works well.
Mac Voyer gives an answer in post 171:
I had a PC back in the day as well as Hotsync. iTunes is far and away better than HS on its best day. iSync is better than HS on its best day. If iTunes was not the best of breed, Palm would not be staking everything on it. They are risking everything for iTunes, not HS, not Palm Desktop.
If you doubt how important iTunes sync is, just visit the Precentral.net site. Some openly admit they bought the Pre because it could sync using iTunes. This is a big deal and a big moment in tech history. Can't wait to see how it ends.
ANother answer is that it gives Palm and Pre owners a good chance to grow up and learn a life lesson: you don't get something for nothing; not every choice brings every reward: you have to make intelligent choices and live with them.
Sorry but using Internet explorer as an example is flawed every way you look at it. IE would disable other browsers that would be anti competition, since internet is not owned by MS. Apple own iTunes and Device ID, which Palm are using. Apple have every right to disable the Palm Pre, since it is using their device ID, which is no no by USB IF. Why don't Palm do what everyone esle does and develop a sync software. No its too easy to do it cheaply and then cry foul.
Sorry mate but Apple are not suing because it would raise awareness to Palm Pre, free publicity at Apple's expense. Noticed all the crying has come from Palm, wonder why.
Actually using IE as an example is perfect. MS fought hard to keep other browsers from being used on windows and not all websites were viewable on firefox at first. And if burgulars are gonna be shot then shoot steve jobs first. He created his whole empire by stealing from xerox. And hmmmm a device that constantly has to be updated to stop doing something apple doesn't like, sounds a lot like a jailbroken iphone to me since there are way more of them than there are palm pres. Do jailbreakers get tired of jailbreaking their iphones every time apple locks them out? The answer is no. Apple will not sue and I suspect palm continues doing what its doing as evidence against apple.
Do jailbreakers get tired of jailbreaking their iphones every time apple locks them out? The answer is no.
Do jailbreakers amount to a significant part of the iPhone market... and does Apple care about them? The answer is no.