My Opinion the software should be exclusive to approved products; iPod, iPhone, and previously Apple- approved devices (Moto Rokr). thats it.
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
While I'm an Apple user (have 4 Macs at home) and we use iPods and have 2 iPhones 3G, it is utterly ridiculous that Apple is allowed to break synching abilities for 3rd party audio devices.
Personally, I think Apple is getting a little too big for its britches in the iPod/iTunes world and is becoming increasingly crusty, bullying and Microsoft-like. That's an overall fail for the company for me.
If someone wants to give Apple their money by buying music via iTunes and playing it on some other device, that is the consumer's choice - NOT Apple's.
Ummm... they do! Or didn't you hear about how iTunes was broken on Vista for a few weeks until Apple released the update?
Everytime, Windows, OS X, iTunes, or any other software is updated there is a possibility that new features/changes will result in breaking other parties' interacting software. If the software maker releases API's for plugins than it is up to 3rd party developers to release fixes. If the software maker decides not to release API's, the 3rd party just has to figure out how to hack it again- if they can't tough.
There are two possible scenarios that the complainers could accept:
1. Apple constrains future development directions of iTunes to make sure it doesn't break the Pre or other music players for that matter's interoperability.
2. It release API's so those makers can build it in.
It is stupid and unprecedented to think that Apple should be forced to do either of those two things, just to help out the Pre. The first will stifle innovation and the second will be expensive at no return for Apple.
People will reply, "I just don't want them to break the Palm Pre out of spite!" How exactly will you know if it was done out of spite or not? Many iTunes updates also require iPod's to be updated to continue support.
How will you and I know if Apple did it out of spite, or because they found some bug in the software that needed to be ironed out and the resulting update broke support?
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
While I'm an Apple user (have 4 Macs at home) and we use iPods and have 2 iPhones 3G, it is utterly ridiculous that Apple is allowed to break synching abilities for 3rd party audio devices.
Personally, I think Apple is getting a little too big for its britches in the iPod/iTunes world and is becoming increasingly crusty, bullying and Microsoft-like. That's an overall fail for the company for me.
If someone wants to give Apple their money by buying music via iTunes and playing it on some other device, that is the consumer's choice - NOT Apple's.
That's why there are other CD player manufacturers.
If Sony found something wrong or something to improve upon the current CD standard, and updated their players to a new CD standard, and chose not to release that new information to other CD players, it would be completely within their prerogative to do so.
And I hope Canada's Competition Bureau breaks Apple too.
Palm did a hack to work with iTunes.
All Apple said is that in future interations, they cannot promise the Pre can sync as its not a supported product aka not an iPod. What happens if they redesign some part of the iPod that requires changes to iTunes.. they are not going to keep legacy code for a 3rd paty app. If Pre can keep up with patches, then thats fine. But you cannot make Apple support a 3rd party appliance.
Thats like saying... if M$ send over a new OS say Windows 7, and your app was designed for XP and doesnt work anymore.. what are you going to do? You either get the up to date version or a hack.
Although, if the courts deem that Apple have deliberately crippled iTunes not to work with Pre, then thats a nother matter for the courts.
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
In order to do that, MS would have to change the way it deals with ALL hardware makers, it couldn't just single Apple out. In that case this would be no problem. For example, consider if MS started to charge hardware makers to allow Windows to run on their computers. Apple and every other hardware maker would have to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. Simple as that.
Or if MS decided to make their own hardware and only allow new versions of Windows to run on that. There would be nothing to stop them, and no reason really that anyone should complain. MS just happened to choose a software-focused business model, there's no reason EVERYONE has to choose that model.
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.
It doesn't only extend to apple devices. You can use any device with a mac, you may just need drivers or an app to sync it. Did apple ever promise that iTunes would sync with every MP3 player?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
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.
And it still is. If a phone can't sync with OSX, it's the phone maker's fault for not providing the support. If a phone doesn't ship with Linux, you think that's somehow Linux's fault?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
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.
That would be kind of ridiculous since NO computer is "guaranteed" to work with all devices, be it mac, windows, or linux. If they forced a disclaimer like that they'd have to require it on every computer, not just macs.
Especially since shutting out palm from iTunes would presumably also happen on windows boxes, so OSX isn't even a factor in the situation.
Apple isn't "locking out" anyone from the computer. They are just saying that other devices won't necessarily work with iTunes. If it stops working with palm devices, nobody is stopping palm from shipping their own app to sync up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
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.
How does it give them any ammo? You think that "anti-trust" REQUIRES apple to support every third party device in iTunes? I think this was a very smart play by apple, they make it clear that it's not their device so if it stops working it's not their fault. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
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.
There is no "vertical monopoly" to be excused - didn't the iPhone only account for about 1% of all phone sales last year? And if you don't have a monopoly, nothing you do can be considered "anti-trust".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Palm had no choice but to hack. Apple doesn't provide an API for the Pre to tap into.
Absolutely wrong? You don't think palm had the choice of creating their own app? Even one that loaded songs from the iTunes database? Hooking into iTunes with an API is hardly the only option, look at every other mp3 player and phone on the market.
Apple should sell a licensed plugin for itunes that allows the pre to sync. If Palm customers want to use Apples software, let them pay for it.
Better yet, Apple should provide a plugin API in iTunes and let the device manufacturers write their own plugins. Just like third party developers could write iTunes visualizers, they could also write device support plugins for iTunes.
Curious that early versions of iTunes supported third party players:
Well perhaps I'm thinking of this the wrong way. If apple doesn't want to provide customer support of any kind, that is completely understandable and fair. If Apple wants to rewrite their software so the Pre can't sync, simply out of spite, that's shitty.
I guess I don't think of iTunes the way others do. I hate it to be honest.
My friend the basic premise of your argument is way off. Apple tells its 3 rd party vendors that is welcome to make un told millions off of apple products. But there is no guanrantee that apple won't go ahead and change its products spec.s or even sell the same thing as the 3rd party vendor. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT WARN THE 3RD PARTY VENDOR .
Look at the adobe situation.
But my friend that has nothing to do with customer support.
Palm is guilty of misleading its customers, not apple. I also understand you are saying the added exposure would be great . Yes, that's true, Sadly apple is not in the phone app buiness. Apple makes apps for its own iphone.
NOW, CONCERNING APPLE NOT WANTING TO SYNC WITH PALM ?? Well apple spends millions to make sure itunes works seamlessly with windows machines and apple machines. Its spends million more to make sure it also sync's with the iphone and itouch and ipods. In all there generations.
So as you can see that it is very complicated to upgrade itunes, for its own products. Why would they even consider to make sure that palm was ok with there next soft ware update?
3D gaming, openCL, 4 core and 8 core chips GCS are all coming soon to itunes. Palm will have a lot of bricks very soon .
Better yet, Apple should provide a plugin API in iTunes and let the device manufacturers write their own plugins. Just like third party developers could write iTunes visualizers, they could also write device support plugins for iTunes.
Curious that early versions of iTunes supported third party players:
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET.
At the current time, Apple has no incentive to spend the time and money to develop, release, and support that API. iTunes accounts for approximately none of their profit.
Apple backtracked on those other items not to please whiners on forums, but because it became obvious that there was either (a) a market in which to make money on those items or (b) a chance to differentiate their hardware from competitors significantly (thereby making money).
Even if you are a bit idealistic, and think Apple makes stuff just to make great products (as I do to some extent), there is no compelling reason for them to do this.
Finally, if Apple did release such an API, it is MORE likely that iTunes will become a near monopoly. What 3rd party company is going to risk developing their own software in that case? That would stifle innovation (even if not much is going on now, at least the possibility exists.)
This could bring up a lawsuit, and lots of headache.
People keep insisting this, but a lawsuit on what grounds? It's illegal to ship an mp3 app that doesn't support every device? Is there ANY app comparable to iTunes that supports every hardware device?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Actually, you have it backwards. It's Apple that has chosen to not support Windows Media Player, not the other way around.
What about the iPod would make it impossible for WMP to support the iPod if they wanted to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya
I rather think that breaking interoperability should be the illegal thing.
But wouldn't this require every app to support every hardware device? That would be impractical, and would make a huge amount of currently shipping software illegal. You're basically saying it should be illegal to ship an app that doesn't support every device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx
Based on this logic I don't see why Microsoft doesn't make iTunes (on Windows) break on a monthly basis so that they can promote their Zune. Wait, that would be unfair!!!
No pun intended, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
An OS is intended to support any app written for it, that's what is promised.
iTunes is an app created to support a specific set of hardware, that's exactly what is promised. Just like many other apps each designed to support one hardware device.
Do you complain that the software that came with your Epson printer doesn't also support a Canon printer?
This happens all the time, I'm not sure why people are upset ONLY when apple does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
Obviously companies in a position of monopoly are expected to behave rather better than those with tiny marketshares. Look at the hoops Microsoft has to jump through with Internet Explorer on Windows. Apple should have to do the same with iTunes.
Except that Apple just has a large market share, they're not a monopoly. Or has a court somewhere found them to be one (like they found with MS)?
Especially now that Apple is selling phones, they DO have a tiny phone marketshare, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
I'm not sure why they'd want to, or how they would actually do it. Windows is designed to run on any PC hardware, not designed to run on one specific device, and it's sold as an independent product, not given out as a freebie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Who in their right mind says "I'm buying a Pre because it can sync with iTunes"?
Obviously, Palm thinks those people are out there or they wouldn't have taken that route, and advertised it as a selling point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VertiGoGo
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
Bzzt. Wrong answer.
CD is an open format, anyone can make CD's and anyone can make players. iTunes was never promised to be an app that would sync with every mp3 player, from the beginning it was made clear that it would support whatever apple chose to support. Many many apps work exactly the same way and nobody bats an eye.
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
While I'm an Apple user (have 4 Macs at home) and we use iPods and have 2 iPhones 3G, it is utterly ridiculous that Apple is allowed to break synching abilities for 3rd party audio devices.
Personally, I think Apple is getting a little too big for its britches in the iPod/iTunes world and is becoming increasingly crusty, bullying and Microsoft-like. That's an overall fail for the company for me.
If someone wants to give Apple their money by buying music via iTunes and playing it on some other device, that is the consumer's choice - NOT Apple's.
That is not what apple said . Apple said if it makes updates to its products there is no guarantee that 3rd party devices will work. How does that make apple a bully ? Apple has always had this policy .
IN FACT every tech company has this policy. You are trying to make apple responsible for palm's pre phone plan. And apple Is saying to palm and the world that do what you want at your own risk.
If I was you i would take my 25 apple products you hate so much and sell them on ebay .
How will you and I know if Apple did it out of spite, or because they found some bug in the software that needed to be ironed out and the resulting update broke support?
Brilliant point that nobody has mentioned.
Since palm is doing a hack, it IS absolutely possible that apple will update the app and that pre support gets broken purely by coincidence. If support goes away, we can all speculate, but nobody outside the company would know if it was an intentional block or an inadvertent loss of support.
In such a case,
1) Should apple have to test with palm devices and have to go to extra work to make sure they don't break support?
2) Some people will assume intentional blocking on the part of Apple, is that really fair to Apple?
3) Some people will assume that iTunes is buggy and will accuse apple of writing a bad app, is that fair to apple either?
I like the suggestion made earlier of not blocking support, but instead putting up a message with a disclaimer/warning along the lines of "this may work with a third party device, but we haven't tested and can't guarantee that it won't corrupt your phone - if you have problems, please contact your phone/mp3 vendor for support. Sync? Yes/No".
the more I read about this, the more I come to realize that people are making too much of this. Admittedly, at first I thought Apple's statement was a clear message saying "We won't allow this, expect it to not work very soon." What they are actually saying is, "If you're a Pre owner and don't know how to sync, don't call us, we won't provide support."
At 9to5mac they did a poll asking people if Apple should BLOCK the Pre from iTunes (and for whatever reason, the majority said yes.) This isn't even the issue at hand. Sites like 9to5mac are pushing this issue to points where it doesn't even need to go.
Misinterpretation of this news has fueled pointless discussions across the internet.
the more I read about this, the more I come to realize that people are making too much of this. Admittedly, at first I thought Apple's statement was a clear message saying "We won't allow this, expect it to not work very soon." What they are actually saying is, "If you're a Pre owner and don't know how to sync, don't call us, we won't provide support."
At 9to5mac they did a poll asking people if Apple should BLOCK the Pre from iTunes (and for whatever reason, the majority said yes.) This isn't even the issue at hand. Sites like 9to5mac are pushing this issue to points where it doesn't even need to go.
Misinterpretation of this news has fueled pointless discussions across the internet.
Apple isn't blocking it, correct.
Apple's timing of this support page, however, suggests that they will not only not support 3rd party devices in this area, but might also be construed as a clear statement that competitors wishing to use this service might at any times have their method of connection to iTunes broken. Ergo, better to use an iPhone than anything else.
Normally such a support page is no big deal. It's buried among other support pages. But in the wake of Palm's highly-publicized efforts to get iTunes connectivity, Apple knew that its innocuous little boilerplate support statement would be quickly picked up by the online media and blogosphere, and just spread. Apple is counting on this to be construed as much as a declaration of its position re the competition as it is a support statement. It's not meant to be anything more than a disclaimer, but Apple knows how we think, and expects that the statement will gain a momentum and new meaning of its own.
The message is hidden in plain slight. Unbelievably clever, and very Apple.
This thread is a virtual fountain of misinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun
Good luck with that.
ah, socialism.
That's not socialism. The Competition Bureau exists to enforce that the Capitalist system is not perverted by illegal monopoly actions. Call Obama, he'll tell you how regulation is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun
but in the business arena, to say that a government body needs to come in and force a private company to allow others to benefit from their innovation, is socialism poorly implemented.
See above. By this kind of logic, we all owe Microsoft an apology. (And no, we really don't.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You're either willfully ignorant or a troll or both. I can easily sync my older palm products to my mac.
Gee that was hard. Of course, Palm Desktop is less nice than iTunes but that's because Palm puts less effort into their sync program. But it does sync with iCal and Address Book through what? iSync. An apple app in OSX for syncing.
For an old palm Tungsten I bought The Missing Sync and promptly broke it but it will sync to Entourage (at least the older Entourage).
What else can you use? Sync Services...an API designed for folks to build sync tools for the mac. Which is part of the OS unlike iTunes.
I sync my Treo 650 with Missing Sync too. But wilfully ignoring that iTunes has pretty much monopoly status in the music downloading business is where you go off track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
Yeah, doesn't Redmond have the right to say that Windows shouldn't be used on an Intel Mac?
What if they 'broke' iTunes while promoting whatever jumbled code monster they've built for Zune?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
That is the stupidest thingi have ever heard .
1/ MSFT IS A MAJOR stock holder in apple
2 MS hase made There office/word software for mac for a long time . How could they ever stop all those millions from using what they already own ? And if they stopped support for mac versions of Windows office/word. worse case scenirio is mac users would switch to bootcamp . after many years .
3/exactly how could anyone shut off anything ??? tell me ?
MS isn't even in minor stockholder in Apple and it's funny that this point isn't even the most misguided part of that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Especially since shutting out palm from iTunes would presumably also happen on windows boxes, so OSX isn't even a factor in the situation.
Apple isn't "locking out" anyone from the computer. They are just saying that other devices won't necessarily work with iTunes. If it stops working with palm devices, nobody is stopping palm from shipping their own app to sync up.
Again, if Redmond used this excuse to blacklist iPods from Windows, this board would go all kinds of crazy. I've used a Mac exclusively since the first Classic days, which is probably why I remember what Arrogant Apple was like when 10% marketshare came around.
Music management is now a key feature of smartphones. By locking out other vendors from iTunes, Apple is absolutely restricting competition on the Mac OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
There is no "vertical monopoly" to be excused - didn't the iPhone only account for about 1% of all phone sales last year? And if you don't have a monopoly, nothing you do can be considered "anti-trust".
What's iTunes' marketshare in the music catalogue and download business?
This is a discussion about iTunes, not the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Absolutely wrong? You don't think palm had the choice of creating their own app? Even one that loaded songs from the iTunes database? Hooking into iTunes with an API is hardly the only option, look at every other mp3 player and phone on the market.
Good idea, but wouldn't that be called "hacking into iTunes" as well?
Comments
My Opinion the software should be exclusive to approved products; iPod, iPhone, and previously Apple- approved devices (Moto Rokr). thats it.
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
While I'm an Apple user (have 4 Macs at home) and we use iPods and have 2 iPhones 3G, it is utterly ridiculous that Apple is allowed to break synching abilities for 3rd party audio devices.
Personally, I think Apple is getting a little too big for its britches in the iPod/iTunes world and is becoming increasingly crusty, bullying and Microsoft-like. That's an overall fail for the company for me.
If someone wants to give Apple their money by buying music via iTunes and playing it on some other device, that is the consumer's choice - NOT Apple's.
Everytime, Windows, OS X, iTunes, or any other software is updated there is a possibility that new features/changes will result in breaking other parties' interacting software. If the software maker releases API's for plugins than it is up to 3rd party developers to release fixes. If the software maker decides not to release API's, the 3rd party just has to figure out how to hack it again- if they can't tough.
There are two possible scenarios that the complainers could accept:
1. Apple constrains future development directions of iTunes to make sure it doesn't break the Pre or other music players for that matter's interoperability.
2. It release API's so those makers can build it in.
It is stupid and unprecedented to think that Apple should be forced to do either of those two things, just to help out the Pre. The first will stifle innovation and the second will be expensive at no return for Apple.
People will reply, "I just don't want them to break the Palm Pre out of spite!" How exactly will you know if it was done out of spite or not? Many iTunes updates also require iPod's to be updated to continue support.
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
While I'm an Apple user (have 4 Macs at home) and we use iPods and have 2 iPhones 3G, it is utterly ridiculous that Apple is allowed to break synching abilities for 3rd party audio devices.
Personally, I think Apple is getting a little too big for its britches in the iPod/iTunes world and is becoming increasingly crusty, bullying and Microsoft-like. That's an overall fail for the company for me.
If someone wants to give Apple their money by buying music via iTunes and playing it on some other device, that is the consumer's choice - NOT Apple's.
That's why there are other CD player manufacturers.
If Sony found something wrong or something to improve upon the current CD standard, and updated their players to a new CD standard, and chose not to release that new information to other CD players, it would be completely within their prerogative to do so.
And I hope Canada's Competition Bureau breaks Apple too.
Palm did a hack to work with iTunes.
All Apple said is that in future interations, they cannot promise the Pre can sync as its not a supported product aka not an iPod. What happens if they redesign some part of the iPod that requires changes to iTunes.. they are not going to keep legacy code for a 3rd paty app. If Pre can keep up with patches, then thats fine. But you cannot make Apple support a 3rd party appliance.
Thats like saying... if M$ send over a new OS say Windows 7, and your app was designed for XP and doesnt work anymore.. what are you going to do? You either get the up to date version or a hack.
Although, if the courts deem that Apple have deliberately crippled iTunes not to work with Pre, then thats a nother matter for the courts.
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
But you have to pay for Windows... iTunes is free..
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
In order to do that, MS would have to change the way it deals with ALL hardware makers, it couldn't just single Apple out. In that case this would be no problem. For example, consider if MS started to charge hardware makers to allow Windows to run on their computers. Apple and every other hardware maker would have to decide whether they wanted to pay or not. Simple as that.
Or if MS decided to make their own hardware and only allow new versions of Windows to run on that. There would be nothing to stop them, and no reason really that anyone should complain. MS just happened to choose a software-focused business model, there's no reason EVERYONE has to choose that model.
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.
It doesn't only extend to apple devices. You can use any device with a mac, you may just need drivers or an app to sync it. Did apple ever promise that iTunes would sync with every MP3 player?
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.
And it still is. If a phone can't sync with OSX, it's the phone maker's fault for not providing the support. If a phone doesn't ship with Linux, you think that's somehow Linux's fault?
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.
That would be kind of ridiculous since NO computer is "guaranteed" to work with all devices, be it mac, windows, or linux. If they forced a disclaimer like that they'd have to require it on every computer, not just macs.
Especially since shutting out palm from iTunes would presumably also happen on windows boxes, so OSX isn't even a factor in the situation.
Apple isn't "locking out" anyone from the computer. They are just saying that other devices won't necessarily work with iTunes. If it stops working with palm devices, nobody is stopping palm from shipping their own app to sync up.
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.
How does it give them any ammo? You think that "anti-trust" REQUIRES apple to support every third party device in iTunes? I think this was a very smart play by apple, they make it clear that it's not their device so if it stops working it's not their fault. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
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.
There is no "vertical monopoly" to be excused - didn't the iPhone only account for about 1% of all phone sales last year? And if you don't have a monopoly, nothing you do can be considered "anti-trust".
Palm had no choice but to hack. Apple doesn't provide an API for the Pre to tap into.
Absolutely wrong? You don't think palm had the choice of creating their own app? Even one that loaded songs from the iTunes database? Hooking into iTunes with an API is hardly the only option, look at every other mp3 player and phone on the market.
Apple should sell a licensed plugin for itunes that allows the pre to sync. If Palm customers want to use Apples software, let them pay for it.
Better yet, Apple should provide a plugin API in iTunes and let the device manufacturers write their own plugins. Just like third party developers could write iTunes visualizers, they could also write device support plugins for iTunes.
Curious that early versions of iTunes supported third party players:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET.
Well perhaps I'm thinking of this the wrong way. If apple doesn't want to provide customer support of any kind, that is completely understandable and fair. If Apple wants to rewrite their software so the Pre can't sync, simply out of spite, that's shitty.
I guess I don't think of iTunes the way others do. I hate it to be honest.
My friend the basic premise of your argument is way off. Apple tells its 3 rd party vendors that is welcome to make un told millions off of apple products. But there is no guanrantee that apple won't go ahead and change its products spec.s or even sell the same thing as the 3rd party vendor. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT WARN THE 3RD PARTY VENDOR .
Look at the adobe situation.
But my friend that has nothing to do with customer support.
Palm is guilty of misleading its customers, not apple. I also understand you are saying the added exposure would be great . Yes, that's true, Sadly apple is not in the phone app buiness. Apple makes apps for its own iphone.
NOW, CONCERNING APPLE NOT WANTING TO SYNC WITH PALM ?? Well apple spends millions to make sure itunes works seamlessly with windows machines and apple machines. Its spends million more to make sure it also sync's with the iphone and itouch and ipods. In all there generations.
So as you can see that it is very complicated to upgrade itunes, for its own products. Why would they even consider to make sure that palm was ok with there next soft ware update?
3D gaming, openCL, 4 core and 8 core chips GCS are all coming soon to itunes. Palm will have a lot of bricks very soon .
Have a great day dude .
9
Better yet, Apple should provide a plugin API in iTunes and let the device manufacturers write their own plugins. Just like third party developers could write iTunes visualizers, they could also write device support plugins for iTunes.
Curious that early versions of iTunes supported third party players:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET.
At the current time, Apple has no incentive to spend the time and money to develop, release, and support that API. iTunes accounts for approximately none of their profit.
Apple backtracked on those other items not to please whiners on forums, but because it became obvious that there was either (a) a market in which to make money on those items or (b) a chance to differentiate their hardware from competitors significantly (thereby making money).
Even if you are a bit idealistic, and think Apple makes stuff just to make great products (as I do to some extent), there is no compelling reason for them to do this.
Finally, if Apple did release such an API, it is MORE likely that iTunes will become a near monopoly. What 3rd party company is going to risk developing their own software in that case? That would stifle innovation (even if not much is going on now, at least the possibility exists.)
This could bring up a lawsuit, and lots of headache.
People keep insisting this, but a lawsuit on what grounds? It's illegal to ship an mp3 app that doesn't support every device? Is there ANY app comparable to iTunes that supports every hardware device?
Actually, you have it backwards. It's Apple that has chosen to not support Windows Media Player, not the other way around.
What about the iPod would make it impossible for WMP to support the iPod if they wanted to?
I rather think that breaking interoperability should be the illegal thing.
But wouldn't this require every app to support every hardware device? That would be impractical, and would make a huge amount of currently shipping software illegal. You're basically saying it should be illegal to ship an app that doesn't support every device.
Based on this logic I don't see why Microsoft doesn't make iTunes (on Windows) break on a monthly basis so that they can promote their Zune. Wait, that would be unfair!!!
No pun intended, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
An OS is intended to support any app written for it, that's what is promised.
iTunes is an app created to support a specific set of hardware, that's exactly what is promised. Just like many other apps each designed to support one hardware device.
Do you complain that the software that came with your Epson printer doesn't also support a Canon printer?
This happens all the time, I'm not sure why people are upset ONLY when apple does it.
Obviously companies in a position of monopoly are expected to behave rather better than those with tiny marketshares. Look at the hoops Microsoft has to jump through with Internet Explorer on Windows. Apple should have to do the same with iTunes.
Except that Apple just has a large market share, they're not a monopoly. Or has a court somewhere found them to be one (like they found with MS)?
Especially now that Apple is selling phones, they DO have a tiny phone marketshare, right?
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
I'm not sure why they'd want to, or how they would actually do it. Windows is designed to run on any PC hardware, not designed to run on one specific device, and it's sold as an independent product, not given out as a freebie.
Who in their right mind says "I'm buying a Pre because it can sync with iTunes"?
Obviously, Palm thinks those people are out there or they wouldn't have taken that route, and advertised it as a selling point.
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
Bzzt. Wrong answer.
CD is an open format, anyone can make CD's and anyone can make players. iTunes was never promised to be an app that would sync with every mp3 player, from the beginning it was made clear that it would support whatever apple chose to support. Many many apps work exactly the same way and nobody bats an eye.
The flood of Canadian;s coming south for medical care doesn't bode well for canada's health care system.
Sources please? 'cause this boy ain't buying what your sellin'
Completely disagree with you. That's like Sony saying that after they update their next batch of CD players it's possible non Sony CDs might not work.
While I'm an Apple user (have 4 Macs at home) and we use iPods and have 2 iPhones 3G, it is utterly ridiculous that Apple is allowed to break synching abilities for 3rd party audio devices.
Personally, I think Apple is getting a little too big for its britches in the iPod/iTunes world and is becoming increasingly crusty, bullying and Microsoft-like. That's an overall fail for the company for me.
If someone wants to give Apple their money by buying music via iTunes and playing it on some other device, that is the consumer's choice - NOT Apple's.
That is not what apple said . Apple said if it makes updates to its products there is no guarantee that 3rd party devices will work. How does that make apple a bully ? Apple has always had this policy .
IN FACT every tech company has this policy. You are trying to make apple responsible for palm's pre phone plan. And apple Is saying to palm and the world that do what you want at your own risk.
If I was you i would take my 25 apple products you hate so much and sell them on ebay .
dude dell loves you .
How will you and I know if Apple did it out of spite, or because they found some bug in the software that needed to be ironed out and the resulting update broke support?
Brilliant point that nobody has mentioned.
Since palm is doing a hack, it IS absolutely possible that apple will update the app and that pre support gets broken purely by coincidence. If support goes away, we can all speculate, but nobody outside the company would know if it was an intentional block or an inadvertent loss of support.
In such a case,
1) Should apple have to test with palm devices and have to go to extra work to make sure they don't break support?
2) Some people will assume intentional blocking on the part of Apple, is that really fair to Apple?
3) Some people will assume that iTunes is buggy and will accuse apple of writing a bad app, is that fair to apple either?
I like the suggestion made earlier of not blocking support, but instead putting up a message with a disclaimer/warning along the lines of "this may work with a third party device, but we haven't tested and can't guarantee that it won't corrupt your phone - if you have problems, please contact your phone/mp3 vendor for support. Sync? Yes/No".
Sources please? 'cause this boy ain't buying what your sellin'
I was joking.Ease up dude i love the far north.
Peace
9
At 9to5mac they did a poll asking people if Apple should BLOCK the Pre from iTunes (and for whatever reason, the majority said yes.) This isn't even the issue at hand. Sites like 9to5mac are pushing this issue to points where it doesn't even need to go.
Misinterpretation of this news has fueled pointless discussions across the internet.
But you have to pay for Windows... iTunes is free..
similar to how when you buy a canon camera it comes with photo software. It exists for the benefit of the hardware
the more I read about this, the more I come to realize that people are making too much of this. Admittedly, at first I thought Apple's statement was a clear message saying "We won't allow this, expect it to not work very soon." What they are actually saying is, "If you're a Pre owner and don't know how to sync, don't call us, we won't provide support."
At 9to5mac they did a poll asking people if Apple should BLOCK the Pre from iTunes (and for whatever reason, the majority said yes.) This isn't even the issue at hand. Sites like 9to5mac are pushing this issue to points where it doesn't even need to go.
Misinterpretation of this news has fueled pointless discussions across the internet.
Apple isn't blocking it, correct.
Apple's timing of this support page, however, suggests that they will not only not support 3rd party devices in this area, but might also be construed as a clear statement that competitors wishing to use this service might at any times have their method of connection to iTunes broken. Ergo, better to use an iPhone than anything else.
Normally such a support page is no big deal. It's buried among other support pages. But in the wake of Palm's highly-publicized efforts to get iTunes connectivity, Apple knew that its innocuous little boilerplate support statement would be quickly picked up by the online media and blogosphere, and just spread. Apple is counting on this to be construed as much as a declaration of its position re the competition as it is a support statement. It's not meant to be anything more than a disclaimer, but Apple knows how we think, and expects that the statement will gain a momentum and new meaning of its own.
The message is hidden in plain slight. Unbelievably clever, and very Apple.
Good luck with that.
ah, socialism.
That's not socialism. The Competition Bureau exists to enforce that the Capitalist system is not perverted by illegal monopoly actions. Call Obama, he'll tell you how regulation is a good thing.
but in the business arena, to say that a government body needs to come in and force a private company to allow others to benefit from their innovation, is socialism poorly implemented.
See above. By this kind of logic, we all owe Microsoft an apology. (And no, we really don't.)
You're either willfully ignorant or a troll or both. I can easily sync my older palm products to my mac.
http://kb.palm.com/wps/portal/kb/com.../33219_en.html
Gee that was hard. Of course, Palm Desktop is less nice than iTunes but that's because Palm puts less effort into their sync program. But it does sync with iCal and Address Book through what? iSync. An apple app in OSX for syncing.
For an old palm Tungsten I bought The Missing Sync and promptly broke it but it will sync to Entourage (at least the older Entourage).
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2824
What else can you use? Sync Services...an API designed for folks to build sync tools for the mac. Which is part of the OS unlike iTunes.
I sync my Treo 650 with Missing Sync too. But wilfully ignoring that iTunes has pretty much monopoly status in the music downloading business is where you go off track.
Don't stop there- imagine if Microsoft shut off all Macs from using Windows (the real biggest name in the industry) - not pretty.
Yeah, doesn't Redmond have the right to say that Windows shouldn't be used on an Intel Mac?
What if they 'broke' iTunes while promoting whatever jumbled code monster they've built for Zune?
That is the stupidest thingi have ever heard .
1/ MSFT IS A MAJOR stock holder in apple
2 MS hase made There office/word software for mac for a long time . How could they ever stop all those millions from using what they already own ? And if they stopped support for mac versions of Windows office/word. worse case scenirio is mac users would switch to bootcamp . after many years .
3/exactly how could anyone shut off anything ??? tell me ?
MS isn't even in minor stockholder in Apple and it's funny that this point isn't even the most misguided part of that post.
Especially since shutting out palm from iTunes would presumably also happen on windows boxes, so OSX isn't even a factor in the situation.
Apple isn't "locking out" anyone from the computer. They are just saying that other devices won't necessarily work with iTunes. If it stops working with palm devices, nobody is stopping palm from shipping their own app to sync up.
Again, if Redmond used this excuse to blacklist iPods from Windows, this board would go all kinds of crazy. I've used a Mac exclusively since the first Classic days, which is probably why I remember what Arrogant Apple was like when 10% marketshare came around.
Music management is now a key feature of smartphones. By locking out other vendors from iTunes, Apple is absolutely restricting competition on the Mac OS.
There is no "vertical monopoly" to be excused - didn't the iPhone only account for about 1% of all phone sales last year? And if you don't have a monopoly, nothing you do can be considered "anti-trust".
What's iTunes' marketshare in the music catalogue and download business?
This is a discussion about iTunes, not the iPhone.
Absolutely wrong? You don't think palm had the choice of creating their own app? Even one that loaded songs from the iTunes database? Hooking into iTunes with an API is hardly the only option, look at every other mp3 player and phone on the market.
Good idea, but wouldn't that be called "hacking into iTunes" as well?