There's been speculation that Palm did this to bait Apple into an anti-trust case and I think today's statement might give them some ammunition. The best play should have been to do nothing.
Perhaps, but you can't sue simply because your device doesn't play nice with someone's hardware. No one has yet to successfully prove that Apple products are a market unto themselves. iTunes may be ubiquitous, but it's not the only solution to managing music on a computer.
I'm an Apple fan as much as the next guy, but I don't understand this. Pre owners are using a free software, and buying Apple's music (most of the time). Besides, why would people buy the Pre over the iPhone? Multiple reasons, many of which are deal breakers for these people. These people could easily use other software and buy their music elsewhere, but they are instead buying it from Apple! If you aren't going to make money off the phone, why turn down the money from the songs?
At least Apple is not officially stopping Palm Pre to work with iTunes. Palm can simply provide a patch anyway. If Palm Pre gets popular enough, Apple might well support Palm Pre, given that iTunes is officially compatible with some other MP3 players.
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!
Apple is a hardware company that uses software to make it's own hardware more appealing. Apple makes very little money off of iTunes other then it helps make it's iPods and iPhones more appealing. Palm is trying to use Apple's software to make it's own hardware more appealing. Not fair. Further, Apple doesn't charge for iTunes or the other software you mention (unless you are upgrading without buying a new computer). If it did, perhaps your argument would hold more weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
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. If Microsoft were to announce that Windows Media Player was only going to allow syncing with Zunes, people on here would be crying foul and screaming about MS's monopolistic policies. I have the same feeling about other pieces of Apple software like iMovie that provides encoding presets only for Apple products and YouTube. Apple's desire for complete control wears a bit thin at times.
If Apple does this, would that limit their users? I mean, it's their right, and its not like they will be hurt, but I think its good business because, for instance, if this happens I'll just use Songbird and buy music through their store instead of iTunes for my Pre. And whats stopping all Pre users to do that? This way, they get more users and customers.
Because when you take into consideration Apple's costs, Apple doesn't make much money off the content it sells. The true value of software like iTunes and iLife applications is making the hardware like Macs, iPods, and the iPhone more appealing because of the way Apple can integrate this software amongst it's hardware products. That is why Apple gives all that software away like ILife for free unless you are not upgrading a Mac. If Palm is allowed to use iTunes, it makes Palm's competing hardware more valuable to the detriment of Apple's hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sk8MusicLife64
I'm an Apple fan as much as the next guy, but I don't understand this. Pre owners are using a free software, and buying Apple's music (most of the time). Besides, why would people buy the Pre over the iPhone? Multiple reasons, many of which are deal breakers for these people. These people could easily use other software and buy their music elsewhere, but they are instead buying it from Apple! If you aren't going to make money off the phone, why turn down the money from the songs?
Some time in the future people are going to look back on this and wonder what the heck was going on given that there is no evidence or statements of any kind from Apple that indicates it "doesn't like Palm" or that it's interested in crushing them with patent lawsuits, or screwing with their sync or anything of the sort. For that matter no one on the Palm side has ever said anything that would make it seem there is some kind of conflict or war between the two companies either.
In short, while we may get off on reading stories like this and there will of course be many angry comments about "the battle" between Pam and Apple over smart phone supremacy, there are still no actual facts to back up this point of view.
Exactly. It will work with the Pre. People just want an excuse to bash Pre or feel good about their iPhone fanboy purchase decision. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that it won't work. I personally would rather have an iPhone but still haven't bought one yet and am still looking at my options including the nice Blackberry Bold on the Docomo carrier here in Japan. Unfortunately production of the Bold was halted because of overheating on Docomo's network
Last I checked iTunes is just an application that runs on OSX. It isn't part of the OS. In fact, Quicktime is Apple's default media player, has been for way before iTunes, and is the backbone for iTunes itself. Apple isn't preventing Palm from creating an Application that syncs with the Mac. The APIs for Quicktime are available for Palm to use.
So if Apple were to make iTunes incompatible with Palm's Pre it isn't being unfairly anti-competitive. Palm has the same opportunity to create a similar application on the Mac also using Quicktime as the backbone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
And I hope Canada's Competition Bureau breaks Apple too.
Apple's spent years promoting Macs as a 'Digital Hub' for electronic devices and never once stated that this only extended to Apple devices.
In fact, Mac OS X was open to virtually all major kinds of phones, cameras and music players right up until Apple bought SoundJam and turned it into iTunes.
If Apple breaks the Pre's ability to sync with iTunes, the Competition Bureau should force Apple to place a disclaimer on all Apple Store windows and its computer marketing materials that Macs are not guaranteed to work with non-Apple devices.
Locking out other devices is the kind of low-brow, Microsoft-like nonsense you do when you can't compete in the real world.
It is beneath Apple, and shouldn't be condoned - especially by Mac users.
Palm had no choice but to hack. Apple doesn't provide an API for the Pre to tap into.
Again, if Apple advises customers prior to purchase that its OS generally does not work with non-Apple phones or music players, they can do whatever they want.
But don't spend years pitching your wares as 'a Digital Hub for all your devices' and then lock out everybody else once people buy into your operating system. That's bait and switch.
Apple may be a Music and MP3 player vendor, but that business is separate from their function as a computer vendor. If Apple decides to really rev the camera in the iPhone, is it okay for them to then lock Canon and Nikon out of iPhoto?
We've cursed Microsoft for far, far less. This is just a time for Mac users to be consistent.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I can pick from any number of auto insurance companies.
Frank what you are missing here is that 'iTunes' is not equivalent in any way to 'Mac OS' or 'Macintosh'. You are essentially arguing that for a single Apple software program to be incompatible with a single non-Apple device means that the whole platform is closed and must be noted as such. That line of reasoning requires a real stretch, and that is putting it lightly.
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.
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.
Palm has the same opportunity to create a similar application on the Mac also using Quicktime as the backbone.
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.
This could bring up a lawsuit, and lots of headache.
Instead start a licensing program with certified to work with iTunes label on licensed hardware.
And for unlicensed devices don't attempt to intentionally break them.
Does Apple want to lose the public's goodwill?
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.
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.
Exactly. If Pre works fine with iTunes more people will use iTunes and probably more iTMS sales, and in the future they might even consider an iPod or iPhone.
Palm had no choice but to hack. Apple doesn't provide an API for the Pre to tap into.
Again, if Apple advises customers prior to purchase that its OS generally does not work with non-Apple phones or music players, they can do whatever they want.
But don't spend years pitching your wares as 'a Digital Hub for all your devices' and then lock out everybody else once people buy into your operating system. That's bait and switch.
Apple may be a Music and MP3 player vendor, but that business is separate from their function as a computer vendor. If Apple decides to really rev the camera in the iPhone, is it okay for them to then lock Canon and Nikon out of iPhoto?
We've cursed Microsoft for far, far less. This is just a time for Mac users to be consistent.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I can pick from any number of auto insurance companies.
Apple does not need to say that the OS does not work with devices, because it DOES.
iTunes is NOT part of the OS. iTunes is not part of the OS.
The Pre will still appear in the finder and therefore it is operational under the OS.
Why the hell should Apple have to develop there software and provide support for every music device released? They could not afford to do it.
Apple does not need to say that the OS does not work with devices, because it DOES.
iTunes is NOT part of the OS. iTunes is not part of the OS.
The Pre will still appear in the finder and therefore it is operational under the OS.
Why the hell should Apple have to develop there software and provide support for every music device released? They could not afford to do it.
Perhaps it could be easier for Apple to document their synching process, expose it through APIs and that would be the end of the matter? They don't have to develop, nor support, squat.
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. If Microsoft were to announce that Windows Media Player was only going to allow syncing with Zunes, people on here would be crying foul and screaming about MS's monopolistic policies. I have the same feeling about other pieces of Apple software like iMovie that provides encoding presets only for Apple products and YouTube. Apple's desire for complete control wears a bit thin at times.
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'.
Perhaps it could be easier for Apple to document their synching process, expose it through APIs and that would be the end of the matter? They don't have to develop, nor support, squat.
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.
Comments
There's been speculation that Palm did this to bait Apple into an anti-trust case and I think today's statement might give them some ammunition. The best play should have been to do nothing.
Perhaps, but you can't sue simply because your device doesn't play nice with someone's hardware. No one has yet to successfully prove that Apple products are a market unto themselves. iTunes may be ubiquitous, but it's not the only solution to managing music on a computer.
My two cents.
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. If Microsoft were to announce that Windows Media Player was only going to allow syncing with Zunes, people on here would be crying foul and screaming about MS's monopolistic policies. I have the same feeling about other pieces of Apple software like iMovie that provides encoding presets only for Apple products and YouTube. Apple's desire for complete control wears a bit thin at times.
Anyway, whatever happens, it happens.
I'm an Apple fan as much as the next guy, but I don't understand this. Pre owners are using a free software, and buying Apple's music (most of the time). Besides, why would people buy the Pre over the iPhone? Multiple reasons, many of which are deal breakers for these people. These people could easily use other software and buy their music elsewhere, but they are instead buying it from Apple! If you aren't going to make money off the phone, why turn down the money from the songs?
My two cents.
More manufactured controversy ...
Some time in the future people are going to look back on this and wonder what the heck was going on given that there is no evidence or statements of any kind from Apple that indicates it "doesn't like Palm" or that it's interested in crushing them with patent lawsuits, or screwing with their sync or anything of the sort. For that matter no one on the Palm side has ever said anything that would make it seem there is some kind of conflict or war between the two companies either.
In short, while we may get off on reading stories like this and there will of course be many angry comments about "the battle" between Pam and Apple over smart phone supremacy, there are still no actual facts to back up this point of view.
Exactly. It will work with the Pre. People just want an excuse to bash Pre or feel good about their iPhone fanboy purchase decision. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that it won't work. I personally would rather have an iPhone but still haven't bought one yet and am still looking at my options including the nice Blackberry Bold on the Docomo carrier here in Japan. Unfortunately production of the Bold was halted because of overheating on Docomo's network
I'm very happy about all this competition.
So if Apple were to make iTunes incompatible with Palm's Pre it isn't being unfairly anti-competitive. Palm has the same opportunity to create a similar application on the Mac also using Quicktime as the backbone.
And I hope Canada's Competition Bureau breaks Apple too.
Apple's spent years promoting Macs as a 'Digital Hub' for electronic devices and never once stated that this only extended to Apple devices.
In fact, Mac OS X was open to virtually all major kinds of phones, cameras and music players right up until Apple bought SoundJam and turned it into iTunes.
If Apple breaks the Pre's ability to sync with iTunes, the Competition Bureau should force Apple to place a disclaimer on all Apple Store windows and its computer marketing materials that Macs are not guaranteed to work with non-Apple devices.
Locking out other devices is the kind of low-brow, Microsoft-like nonsense you do when you can't compete in the real world.
It is beneath Apple, and shouldn't be condoned - especially by Mac users.
Palm had no choice but to hack. Apple doesn't provide an API for the Pre to tap into.
Again, if Apple advises customers prior to purchase that its OS generally does not work with non-Apple phones or music players, they can do whatever they want.
But don't spend years pitching your wares as 'a Digital Hub for all your devices' and then lock out everybody else once people buy into your operating system. That's bait and switch.
Apple may be a Music and MP3 player vendor, but that business is separate from their function as a computer vendor. If Apple decides to really rev the camera in the iPhone, is it okay for them to then lock Canon and Nikon out of iPhoto?
We've cursed Microsoft for far, far less. This is just a time for Mac users to be consistent.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I can pick from any number of auto insurance companies.
Frank what you are missing here is that 'iTunes' is not equivalent in any way to 'Mac OS' or 'Macintosh'. You are essentially arguing that for a single Apple software program to be incompatible with a single non-Apple device means that the whole platform is closed and must be noted as such. That line of reasoning requires a real stretch, and that is putting it lightly.
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.
Palm has the same opportunity to create a similar application on the Mac also using Quicktime as the backbone.
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.
They are riding a free advertising. It's all so more people switch to smartphones. Both Apple and Palm win.
This could bring up a lawsuit, and lots of headache.
Instead start a licensing program with certified to work with iTunes label on licensed hardware.
And for unlicensed devices don't attempt to intentionally break them.
Does Apple want to lose the public's goodwill?
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.
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.
Exactly. If Pre works fine with iTunes more people will use iTunes and probably more iTMS sales, and in the future they might even consider an iPod or iPhone.
Well, we knew it was coming...
I have to say when it actually happens I will feel bad for the Pre owners who get caught up in it...
Why feel bad, they must know it is an unsupported device.
Palm need to provide their own software and store, etc.
Why should they be able to hang off the work that another supplier has done.
Apple has spent a great deal of time, money and effort developing iTunes and the store, and it is for the iPod, not other devices.
Palm had no choice but to hack. Apple doesn't provide an API for the Pre to tap into.
Again, if Apple advises customers prior to purchase that its OS generally does not work with non-Apple phones or music players, they can do whatever they want.
But don't spend years pitching your wares as 'a Digital Hub for all your devices' and then lock out everybody else once people buy into your operating system. That's bait and switch.
Apple may be a Music and MP3 player vendor, but that business is separate from their function as a computer vendor. If Apple decides to really rev the camera in the iPhone, is it okay for them to then lock Canon and Nikon out of iPhoto?
We've cursed Microsoft for far, far less. This is just a time for Mac users to be consistent.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I can pick from any number of auto insurance companies.
Apple does not need to say that the OS does not work with devices, because it DOES.
iTunes is NOT part of the OS. iTunes is not part of the OS.
The Pre will still appear in the finder and therefore it is operational under the OS.
Why the hell should Apple have to develop there software and provide support for every music device released? They could not afford to do it.
Apple does not need to say that the OS does not work with devices, because it DOES.
iTunes is NOT part of the OS. iTunes is not part of the OS.
The Pre will still appear in the finder and therefore it is operational under the OS.
Why the hell should Apple have to develop there software and provide support for every music device released? They could not afford to do it.
Perhaps it could be easier for Apple to document their synching process, expose it through APIs and that would be the end of the matter? They don't have to develop, nor support, squat.
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. If Microsoft were to announce that Windows Media Player was only going to allow syncing with Zunes, people on here would be crying foul and screaming about MS's monopolistic policies. I have the same feeling about other pieces of Apple software like iMovie that provides encoding presets only for Apple products and YouTube. Apple's desire for complete control wears a bit thin at times.
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'.
Perhaps it could be easier for Apple to document their synching process, expose it through APIs and that would be the end of the matter? They don't have to develop, nor support, squat.
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.