Why doesn't Palm just arrange a license deal with Apple? Then, Apple could benefit from the success of their rival.
I was thinking the same thing but it should be on a per handset basis.
I actually find the setup a bit funny though. First you had a whole load of people supporting the Pre long before it came out saying how Apple should be running scared. Now it latches onto one of the reasons why the iphone/ipod is so popular and those same people are saying 'awww, Apple please don't cut us off'. Why not? They took a deliberate stance of criticizing Apple's products and bought the products of a competitor. They have no loyalty to Apple so Apple owes them nothing.
Of course there are accusations of vendor lock-in but those come up when the consumer doesn't get what they want. Apple have a responsibility to provide iphone/ipod users who pay more for products a better experience than people who buy Pres and Zunes and the ipod music player/itunes integration is a big part of that.
But why? What business model would this support for Apple? If Apple were to do this, what then would stop the manufacturers of other devices from also leveraging the iTunes store, and what would then differentiate Apple's own MP3 players from those produced by rivals?
iTunes is not a profit machine. Estimates for operating profit for iTunes that I have seen are perhaps 10% of sales. The point of iTunes is to entice people to purchase iPods, iPhones, etc.
I understand all of that. Profit is profit, though, right? Apple's integration is always going to be tighter for its own products, and the app store is pretty much a no-go zone for obvious reasons. There's no longer any DRM processes to protect (as far as I recall), and in some jurisdictions it is already legal to make things interoperable (Australia is close, but not quite there yet), without the consent of the copyright owner (computer programs as protected by copyright in Australia). For the last point, why leave people guessing? Let them do it the right way. Yes, I understand you're not in Australia but our IP laws are necessarily aligning with the US' due to our 'Free' Trade Agreement (where we get to export our beef and you get to do pretty much what you please). Anyway, that's a little tangential.
10% profit on music sales is a pretty solid performance if I am not mistaken. Why not amp up sales?
My opinion is that it's piss poor decision on Apple's part. iTunes is a central piece of OS X software and as such should not be locked to Apple's hardware alone.
True, but
1) Apple has no obligation to ensure an unauthorised device is able to sync with iTunes. You buy into the whole "iTunes package" knowing it only works a certain way.
2) The XML file of the iTunes library is there to allow third-party applications to sync music that the user has in iTunes via other software.
3) Why should Apple incur the burden and costs associated with supporting syncing of unauthorised devices? Who knows what unexpected behaviour will be produced by these devices?
Why doesn't Palm just arrange a license deal with Apple? Then, Apple could benefit from the success of their rival. There really is a market big enough, given that the iPhone is exclusive to a single carrier in a given market, for most countries. I know that iTunes isn't really a money maker for Apple, but the more sold, the more profitable it would be on top of the license fees.
Sure.
BUT, think about it. If apple licenses iTunes compatability to their customers, they have to make sure that new updates work with all the devices made by their licensees.
Think about what that would mean: They would have to spend extra time testing between updates and they would have to let their partners know what iTunes was doing long before their official announcement.
This is very un-Apple like. Apple's whole business model involves secrecy until the dramatic rollout of new software or hardware. Besides the free PR this supplies, it also helps keep them ahead of their competition .
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
Apple is simply making a warning statement so Pre users don't blame them and sour against all Apple products if they have problems with their non-Apple product sync'ing with iTunes.
yes
Quote:
The more devices that use iTunes the more money Apple could make. Believe it or not, some people hate Apple like some people hate Microsoft and avoid buying their products. iTunes is free so if these Pre users weren't going to get an iPhone then why not try to get something from them through iTunes.
But remember, Apple is not making much money from iTunes, EXCEPT that it leads people to buy Apple hardware. If people could use iTunes for free but buy competitors products, then Apple is actually loosing twice, in a sense.
This 'decision' has nothing to do with jamming Palm or any other competing hardware vendor, and everything to do with Apple wanting to make it perfectly clear that though users are free to do what they want with their non-Apple devices, Apple is not going to support them if there's a problem, and that the user does this at their own risk. They're not saying they're going to break it, they're saying, 'if for whatever reason it breaks, don't come crying to us'.
Are you sure?
I mean I am sure that Apple would take this line if there was a lawsuit, but we don't really know what Apple is saying. Many people think they are saying "Don't expect us to let the Pre hack continue--buy a Pre at your own risk!"
reverse engineering something is one thing, but just hacking your product to work on it?
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. They reverse engineered what it takes to make iTunes sync to their device.
I can't see why any consumer would support Apple blocking Palm. Note that a lot of laws (including the DMCA) explicitly make reverse engineering legal, if it is for interoperability purposes. This is clearly for interoperability.
Sadly, what Apple is threatening is probably also legal (IANAL). I rather think that breaking interoperability should be the illegal thing. It's bad for consumers in all sorts of ways, as it stifles competition, and it makes various devices less useful.
And that is a key point - thank you for making it. just to take it a little further, even, suppose Palm did build a synching application for the Mac. Would we demand it also synch iPods and iPhones? Should Sony's synch utility synch Zune's and other non-Sony hardware? As a mater of fact, shouldn't everyone's software support everyone's hardware?
When you start following the premise out to its logical conclusion, it becomes apparent very quickly how nonsensical it is.
You couldn't demand Palm provided those features. But if, say, Apple provided a way for iPods to sync with Palm's software, I'd expect them not to take any deliberate steps to block that.
Quote:
iTunes is NOT part of the OS. iTunes is not part of the OS.
The difficulty here is that it's a de-facto standard. iTunes has a nice API for other software to communicate with it, and nearly everything to do with media on the Mac (such as third party shareware) communicates with the iTunes library. So while it's not technically a core part of the OS, it is bundled with it, and many other programs talk to it.
Honestly, it blows me away that a big company would produce a piece of hardware that pretty much relies on someone else's software to do "it's thing".... Palm, catch a clue and have some coffee...!! Apple isn't going to let you use their software. Why should they? They are in competition with Palm and there is no reason to share Itunes as a sync method. What are all of these palm owners going to do when suddenly they can't sync their "pre?" I hope it turns into a class action law suit that gets serious media coverage just for pure entertainment purposes! Stupid PALM!
Your comment makes no sense. Any company that makes hardware accessories for Macs (and/or PCs) "relies on someone else's software." The announced Tom Tom iPhone attachment relies on the iPhone's hardware and software to do "it's thing." This isn't exactly some new development in the computer industry, in fact it's a pretty standard operating practice.
iTunes is the default media player for every Mac sold. As such, it seems pretty reasonable to me that it should support more than just Apple hardware and not immediately lock users into Apple's walled garden. Apple could add DLNA support to OS X and/or iTunes to allow an array of media devices to easily interact with Macs, but instead the only default OS X option is the rather poor AppleTV. And the fact that iTunes still supports older models of iPods seems like a clear indication that if Pre syncing "mysteriously" breaks in a future release, it will be a deliberate action of Apple's part to cut off access.
My opinion is that it's piss poor decision on Apple's part. iTunes is a central piece of OS X software and as such should not be locked to Apple's hardware alone. .
but...osx is locked to apple hardware...that's the whole concept...that's their whole business model. they're not a software company...their whole thing is integrated software and hardware. and they wouldn't keep the reputation they have if they broke that model.
Apple has always held this stance regarding 3rd party interoperability. It doesn't single out any one device on the web page as there are many MP3 devices which work in some fashion with iTunes.
I am sure there is also a page regarding using the iPod and iPhone with other devices which states they cannot guarantee that it will continue to work when they do device updates. Apparently this was targeted at Microsoft for the Xbox 360.
They are just covering their asses so they don't get sued if they make changes to software and or devices which break compatibility with un-licensed and untested 3rd party devices/software.
If Palm used Apple trade secrets to make the Pre work with iTunes, they should pay for that in court. That being said, it does not excuse a vertical monopoly.
what about a vertical monopoly needs to be excused? to my understanding, it's perfectly legal since it does not prevent anyone from providing competition via their own vertical monopoly
His comment was rather silly, but yours doubly so.
Our Canadian "socialism" (which it isn't) means that you won't have to take out a second mortgage on your home when you get your tonsils removed. Health care in Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, with most services provided by private entities. It certainly isn't what it once was, but it still functions.
Your comment makes no sense. Any company that makes hardware accessories for Macs (and/or PCs) "relies on someone else's software." The announced Tom Tom iPhone attachment relies on the iPhone's hardware and software to do "it's thing." This isn't exactly some new development in the computer industry, in fact it's a pretty standard operating practice.
ITunes is the default media player for every Mac sold. As such, it seems pretty reasonable to me that it should support more than just Apple hardware and not immediately lock users into Apple's walled garden. Apple could add DLNA support to OS X and/or iTunes to allow an array of media devices to easily interact with Macs, but instead the only default OS X option is the rather poor AppleTV. And the fact that iTunes still supports older models of iPods seems like a clear indication that if Pre syncing "mysteriously" breaks in a future release, it will be a deliberate action of Apple's part to cut off access.
No it you who have made no sence here at all . Itunes is the default media player on only 8 percent of all computers?
ITUNES is built and run by apple. It is owned by apple, It signed or abides by no agreements.
You all can blab on forever, but that won't change the facts . Apple out of the kindness of its heart warned the market that it won't supporting 3rd party devices.
Also no one forced anything on anyone. Of the 92 percent of where itunes is installed, IT WAS NOT THE DEFAUT MEDIA PLAYER. Someone choose itunes over ms media player. Over 200 million people made this choice .
Comments
Why doesn't Palm just arrange a license deal with Apple? Then, Apple could benefit from the success of their rival.
I was thinking the same thing but it should be on a per handset basis.
I actually find the setup a bit funny though. First you had a whole load of people supporting the Pre long before it came out saying how Apple should be running scared. Now it latches onto one of the reasons why the iphone/ipod is so popular and those same people are saying 'awww, Apple please don't cut us off'. Why not? They took a deliberate stance of criticizing Apple's products and bought the products of a competitor. They have no loyalty to Apple so Apple owes them nothing.
Of course there are accusations of vendor lock-in but those come up when the consumer doesn't get what they want. Apple have a responsibility to provide iphone/ipod users who pay more for products a better experience than people who buy Pres and Zunes and the ipod music player/itunes integration is a big part of that.
But why? What business model would this support for Apple? If Apple were to do this, what then would stop the manufacturers of other devices from also leveraging the iTunes store, and what would then differentiate Apple's own MP3 players from those produced by rivals?
iTunes is not a profit machine. Estimates for operating profit for iTunes that I have seen are perhaps 10% of sales. The point of iTunes is to entice people to purchase iPods, iPhones, etc.
I understand all of that. Profit is profit, though, right? Apple's integration is always going to be tighter for its own products, and the app store is pretty much a no-go zone for obvious reasons. There's no longer any DRM processes to protect (as far as I recall), and in some jurisdictions it is already legal to make things interoperable (Australia is close, but not quite there yet), without the consent of the copyright owner (computer programs as protected by copyright in Australia). For the last point, why leave people guessing? Let them do it the right way. Yes, I understand you're not in Australia but our IP laws are necessarily aligning with the US' due to our 'Free' Trade Agreement (where we get to export our beef and you get to do pretty much what you please). Anyway, that's a little tangential.
10% profit on music sales is a pretty solid performance if I am not mistaken. Why not amp up sales?
Well, the fact that Windows Media Player does NOT support the iPod, means your little argument just became null and void.
Actually, you have it backwards. It's Apple that has chosen to not support Windows Media Player, not the other way around.
My opinion is that it's piss poor decision on Apple's part. iTunes is a central piece of OS X software and as such should not be locked to Apple's hardware alone.
True, but
1) Apple has no obligation to ensure an unauthorised device is able to sync with iTunes. You buy into the whole "iTunes package" knowing it only works a certain way.
2) The XML file of the iTunes library is there to allow third-party applications to sync music that the user has in iTunes via other software.
3) Why should Apple incur the burden and costs associated with supporting syncing of unauthorised devices? Who knows what unexpected behaviour will be produced by these devices?
Why doesn't Palm just arrange a license deal with Apple? Then, Apple could benefit from the success of their rival. There really is a market big enough, given that the iPhone is exclusive to a single carrier in a given market, for most countries. I know that iTunes isn't really a money maker for Apple, but the more sold, the more profitable it would be on top of the license fees.
Sure.
BUT, think about it. If apple licenses iTunes compatability to their customers, they have to make sure that new updates work with all the devices made by their licensees.
Think about what that would mean: They would have to spend extra time testing between updates and they would have to let their partners know what iTunes was doing long before their official announcement.
This is very un-Apple like. Apple's whole business model involves secrecy until the dramatic rollout of new software or hardware. Besides the free PR this supplies, it also helps keep them ahead of their competition .
Apple is simply making a warning statement so Pre users don't blame them and sour against all Apple products if they have problems with their non-Apple product sync'ing with iTunes.
yes
The more devices that use iTunes the more money Apple could make. Believe it or not, some people hate Apple like some people hate Microsoft and avoid buying their products. iTunes is free so if these Pre users weren't going to get an iPhone then why not try to get something from them through iTunes.
But remember, Apple is not making much money from iTunes, EXCEPT that it leads people to buy Apple hardware. If people could use iTunes for free but buy competitors products, then Apple is actually loosing twice, in a sense.
This 'decision' has nothing to do with jamming Palm or any other competing hardware vendor, and everything to do with Apple wanting to make it perfectly clear that though users are free to do what they want with their non-Apple devices, Apple is not going to support them if there's a problem, and that the user does this at their own risk. They're not saying they're going to break it, they're saying, 'if for whatever reason it breaks, don't come crying to us'.
Are you sure?
I mean I am sure that Apple would take this line if there was a lawsuit, but we don't really know what Apple is saying. Many people think they are saying "Don't expect us to let the Pre hack continue--buy a Pre at your own risk!"
reverse engineering something is one thing, but just hacking your product to work on it?
Actually, it's exactly the same thing. They reverse engineered what it takes to make iTunes sync to their device.
I can't see why any consumer would support Apple blocking Palm. Note that a lot of laws (including the DMCA) explicitly make reverse engineering legal, if it is for interoperability purposes. This is clearly for interoperability.
Sadly, what Apple is threatening is probably also legal (IANAL). I rather think that breaking interoperability should be the illegal thing. It's bad for consumers in all sorts of ways, as it stifles competition, and it makes various devices less useful.
Amorya
And that is a key point - thank you for making it. just to take it a little further, even, suppose Palm did build a synching application for the Mac. Would we demand it also synch iPods and iPhones? Should Sony's synch utility synch Zune's and other non-Sony hardware? As a mater of fact, shouldn't everyone's software support everyone's hardware?
When you start following the premise out to its logical conclusion, it becomes apparent very quickly how nonsensical it is.
You couldn't demand Palm provided those features. But if, say, Apple provided a way for iPods to sync with Palm's software, I'd expect them not to take any deliberate steps to block that.
iTunes is NOT part of the OS. iTunes is not part of the OS.
The difficulty here is that it's a de-facto standard. iTunes has a nice API for other software to communicate with it, and nearly everything to do with media on the Mac (such as third party shareware) communicates with the iTunes library. So while it's not technically a core part of the OS, it is bundled with it, and many other programs talk to it.
To invest in a palm. Why should apple support this if palm had a music store would palm
Make it avaiable to iPod? Palm is being lazy and probably
Doesn't have the money to do so
Parasite
So when a pre owner has a problem with iTunes who do
They call? Exactly
The Palm Parasite
Alot of you guys missed the boat here.
Over 80 percent of all itunes users are on window machines.
So stop saying how apple is only tied into apple products.
Palm has made a large error in promoting there pre as an itunes device.
Anyone can use itunes.
NO one can advise apple how to write the future code for itunes.
Why is that ?
Who owns itunes. ?
Who Takes the multi billion dollar risk with itunes ??
Duh
9
Honestly, it blows me away that a big company would produce a piece of hardware that pretty much relies on someone else's software to do "it's thing".... Palm, catch a clue and have some coffee...!! Apple isn't going to let you use their software. Why should they? They are in competition with Palm and there is no reason to share Itunes as a sync method. What are all of these palm owners going to do when suddenly they can't sync their "pre?" I hope it turns into a class action law suit that gets serious media coverage just for pure entertainment purposes! Stupid PALM!
Your comment makes no sense. Any company that makes hardware accessories for Macs (and/or PCs) "relies on someone else's software." The announced Tom Tom iPhone attachment relies on the iPhone's hardware and software to do "it's thing." This isn't exactly some new development in the computer industry, in fact it's a pretty standard operating practice.
iTunes is the default media player for every Mac sold. As such, it seems pretty reasonable to me that it should support more than just Apple hardware and not immediately lock users into Apple's walled garden. Apple could add DLNA support to OS X and/or iTunes to allow an array of media devices to easily interact with Macs, but instead the only default OS X option is the rather poor AppleTV. And the fact that iTunes still supports older models of iPods seems like a clear indication that if Pre syncing "mysteriously" breaks in a future release, it will be a deliberate action of Apple's part to cut off access.
Syncing with iTunes gives pre value and decreases the perceived barrier for some
To invest in a palm. Why should apple support this if palm had a music store would palm
Make it avaiable to iPod? Palm is being lazy and probably
Doesn't have the money to do so
Parasite
So when a pre owner has a problem with iTunes who do
They call? Exactly
The ghost busters ? lol
GREAT point .
9
My opinion is that it's piss poor decision on Apple's part. iTunes is a central piece of OS X software and as such should not be locked to Apple's hardware alone. .
but...osx is locked to apple hardware...that's the whole concept...that's their whole business model. they're not a software company...their whole thing is integrated software and hardware. and they wouldn't keep the reputation they have if they broke that model.
Apple has always held this stance regarding 3rd party interoperability. It doesn't single out any one device on the web page as there are many MP3 devices which work in some fashion with iTunes.
I am sure there is also a page regarding using the iPod and iPhone with other devices which states they cannot guarantee that it will continue to work when they do device updates. Apparently this was targeted at Microsoft for the Xbox 360.
They are just covering their asses so they don't get sued if they make changes to software and or devices which break compatibility with un-licensed and untested 3rd party devices/software.
And I hope Canada's Competition Bureau breaks Apple too.
Good luck with that.
ah, socialism.
They aren't saying they're going to lock anyone out. They aren't saying 3rd parties can't use iTunes.
All they are saying is that updates to iTunes down the road might break sync functionality with unsupported devices.
They won't lock out iTunes syncing, just make it a big PITA to use a 3rd party device with iTunes on occasion. Clever. And standard at the same time.
This might act as just enough of a deterrence.
If Palm used Apple trade secrets to make the Pre work with iTunes, they should pay for that in court. That being said, it does not excuse a vertical monopoly.
what about a vertical monopoly needs to be excused? to my understanding, it's perfectly legal since it does not prevent anyone from providing competition via their own vertical monopoly
Good luck with that.
ah, socialism.
His comment was rather silly, but yours doubly so.
Our Canadian "socialism" (which it isn't) means that you won't have to take out a second mortgage on your home when you get your tonsils removed. Health care in Canada is funded and delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, with most services provided by private entities. It certainly isn't what it once was, but it still functions.
Your comment makes no sense. Any company that makes hardware accessories for Macs (and/or PCs) "relies on someone else's software." The announced Tom Tom iPhone attachment relies on the iPhone's hardware and software to do "it's thing." This isn't exactly some new development in the computer industry, in fact it's a pretty standard operating practice.
ITunes is the default media player for every Mac sold. As such, it seems pretty reasonable to me that it should support more than just Apple hardware and not immediately lock users into Apple's walled garden. Apple could add DLNA support to OS X and/or iTunes to allow an array of media devices to easily interact with Macs, but instead the only default OS X option is the rather poor AppleTV. And the fact that iTunes still supports older models of iPods seems like a clear indication that if Pre syncing "mysteriously" breaks in a future release, it will be a deliberate action of Apple's part to cut off access.
No it you who have made no sence here at all . Itunes is the default media player on only 8 percent of all computers?
ITUNES is built and run by apple. It is owned by apple, It signed or abides by no agreements.
You all can blab on forever, but that won't change the facts . Apple out of the kindness of its heart warned the market that it won't supporting 3rd party devices.
Also no one forced anything on anyone. Of the 92 percent of where itunes is installed, IT WAS NOT THE DEFAUT MEDIA PLAYER. Someone choose itunes over ms media player. Over 200 million people made this choice .