Ultimately there is no way Apple can permanently block Palm, unless Apple is willing to break compatibility with old iPods and implement more sophisticated authentication of new ones. All Apple can do is repeatedly change how iTunes queries the iPod and all Palm has to do is find out what is the right response now. It's just an annoyance to Palm and Palm users. "Join Club Apple and Apple's bouncer will stop throwing you out of the club" isn't the greatest sales pitch ever.
Remember iTunes was introduced some time before the iPod and was initially designed to support third-party devices. The change since then is similar to if a future version of iPhoto worked only with Apple cameras. When Apple sold printers they did not prevent the Mac from working with third-party printers. Too many Apple fans seem willing to embrace the idea that users are cast members in Apple's play. Apple is the user's hired help and the products are purchased by users to serve the user's interests.
Apple could make money by selling third-party support plugins.
Unusual amount of the resident legal and business "experts" cropping up in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Or Miscrosoft could have killed off Macs running Windows by disabling Boot Camp or Paralells. Don't be surprised if it happens. Then will see who cries foul. MS could simply enable this as part of their users contract on Windows 7.
Is there any good reason why Microsoft would actually do that?
They would (if legally installed) be making more money from every Boot Camp Windows user then an OEM licence.
Ultimately there is no way Apple can permanently block Palm, unless Apple is willing to break compatibility with old iPods and implement more sophisticated authentication of new ones.
Not necessarily. Supposing that each iPod/iPhone has a serial number and/or other unique ID and/or characteristic that can be queried (and the iPhones, and I believe at least newer, if not all, iPods, do) they could require that the iPod/iPhone be validated through the iTunes store (like iPhone activation) before it will sync, at least the first time. This would require Palm to copy specific information from Apple manufactured devices and essentially forge them on their devices. If the device has to be registered to sync (e.g., associated with an Apple ID) forging them would be almost impossible to do reliably, and would run into all sorts of legal issues.
That's just one possibility. There are probably a number of ways Apple could permanently stop Palm devices from syncing via the iTunes Application.
As for comparisons to Microsoft and it's actions with IE vs. Netscape, the comparison is wholly invalid.
First of all, Microsoft was (is) a monopolist using its monopoly power in one market (operating systems) to take over another market (web browsers, and, arguably, the Internet); Apple holds no such monopoly position in any market.
Secondly, Windows is an operating system, which, by definition, is supposed to run applications. Subverting that basic purpose to control the Windows' application market -- i.e., undermining the ability of non-Microsoft apps to run -- is an abuse of monopoly power. The iTunes application is not an operating system. Its essentially an iPod/iPhone accessory/tool, that also provides the user with "media center" functions; but its primary purpose, and the reason Apple updates and enhances it, is to sell iPods and iPhones.
Palm has many possible options to provide users with sync capability with their media collections and iTunes libraries that don't involve unsupported hacks to utilize the iTunes application. Apple has no legal, or even ethical, obligation to support or even tolerate these, especially since they undermine iTunes purpose, which is to sell hardware. (This situation is in some ways analogous to the Psystar case.)
If you want to use the iTunes application to sync with your phone or media player, then buy an iPhone or iPod. If you don't want to buy one of those, then don't complain to Apple when you can't sync your media to it using their iTunes application, complain to your hardware vendor, in this case Palm, and tell them to create a solution for you instead of playing games that hurt their users.
Apple doesn't ned to block Palm permanently. Just keep breaking iTunes syncing with every update.
Would frustrate the hell out of Palm users, and raise questions/complaints about Palm's on-again, off-again iTunes sync "feature." Imagine Palm advertising a "feature" that is not only not really theirs, but works only some of the time.
Then again, I believe palm already filed a complaint against Apple, which might just be the beginning of the end of this "feature."
Is there any good reason why Microsoft would actually do that?
Part of the appeal of "switching" is the ability to run both OS's. If you can't run Windoze and all your software that goes with it then why would you switch?
Then again, I believe palm already filed a complaint against Apple, which might just be the beginning of the end of this "feature."
Based on my understanding of Palm's complaint, I don't think that's going anywhere. Apple isn't blocking their devices from being recognized as USB devices (as far as I know) on any system; they are only stopping their specific application software from interacting with them. On the other hand, Palm is misidentifying their devices as another manufacturer's, which is a violation of USB standards. (And possibly a violation of trademark law, as well.)
Not to mention the fact that the standards body doesn't really have any enforcement powers that can be applied to either company.
Part of the appeal of "switching" is the ability to run both OS's. If you can't run Windoze and all your software that goes with it then why would you switch?
To get away from Windows entirely. Which is why a lot of people switch.
It's called the free-rider problem and if you believe in the free enterprise system then you should recognize the free-rider problem as a problem. Or shall we now force Ford to compel their dealers to accept GM cars for servicing even if Ford doesn't want to? Or shall we force the ground crew of American Airlines to assist United Airlines passengers even though American Airlines doesn't want to? Or shall I now be allowed to buy a meal at McDonalds and then get a table at Le Cirq and eat my happy meal there without ordering anything from Le Cirq?
You forget you can also take your Ford to any garage and have it fixed... Or you can flip the problem around - what if Ford forced you to buy Exxon gas and firestone tires... (with RFID they could technically do this, which is scary).
Or look at iTunes as the "gas station". It fills up whoever it wants to. Which begs the question, is itunes a 'gas station', or is it just a marketing tool to sell ipods?
Yes, open standards are good. The problem is that, as stated many times by Apple, and proven by the relatively small profit they make from it, iTunes is not designed as a profit area. Instead, it's designed to sell iPods. Now, with that in mind, why would they, then, open the iTunes store to anyone?
Hasn't that shipped sailed and Apple now makes a tun on money off iTunes? It was only last year they were threatening to stop selling songs if they couldn't make money from it.
I think this is another low for Apple. For all the arguments about Apple spending money to support other peoples devices, would it really cost them anything? After all there's boot camp to run windows but they don't offer any support with it. They could make an API to allow others to connect but only allow basic functions. Although if they did it could be argued then that there giving themselves an advantage in Phones and MP3 players with iTunes. At what point does iTunes stop being an App and start becomes the part of the OS for devices? After all as far as I remember iPhones and iPOD's don't show up in the OS as connected hardware by default.
Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.
Open standards = good.
Remember that Free Software does not mean no cost. Free can mean both open and free of charge. In this sense, I agree that iTunes store should be Freely accessible. Since Apple operates the iTunes store such that it makes little off it (it is a feature for its own products), then any company interfacing it should have free access but only if they pay for it. Then the store would be Free (Access) but not Free (in cost). Apple built it, gambled on it and spent its time making the business deals for it to work so they should receive that benefit.
I'm interested in the legal ramifications of a device claiming to be something else though. I'd imagine this would be a major legal issue and assume Apple is goading Palm into a legal trap... i.e. I dare you to claim X as you are going to get sued for lost revenue and market share (yup, Apple to Palm marketshare)... Good-bye Palm OS by way of the courts. I'd think the court would have to rule that way.
Part of the appeal of "switching" is the ability to run both OS's. If you can't run Windoze and all your software that goes with it then why would you switch?
I consider it highly unlikely that MS would do this. First of all, doing so would require that MS be able to tell that they are running inside a VM, and they cannot easily do so; the entire point of virtual machines is that they appear to the hosted OS exactly like real hardware, so the best they could do is detect the particular configuration that the VM's use, which would have the additional effect of blocking real hardware too. Moreover, even if they could reliably detect that they are running in a VM, they would have a hard time detecting that this VM was running on a Mac without cooperation from the VM vendors (which they are not going to get), so they would need to alter their OS so significantly that it wouldn't run on any virtual machine, and that would upset so many people that I think it unlikely that MS would ever do it.
To make such restrictions work would likely involve the use of hardware embedded authentication, and good luck getting manufacturers to go along with that. It is the very same reason it is possible to hack Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware.
Did you miss the point about "standard interface" in the original poster's message? Apple wouldn't have to support hundreds of devices. They just give a protocol that device manufacturers can use and move on with their lives. It's clearly not that hard to tie into Apple's existing iPod sync protocol except for the fact that Apple has locked the gates to any hardware but their own.
I for one would appreciate Apple and it would make me more likely to stay with a Mac when I go to purchase my next computer. At least on a Mac, iTunes is a pretty integral part of the user experience and I'm not happy with how Apple has tied it to their own hardware. I want to be able to do what I want with my computer. Apple is free to lock down their peripheral hardware (like iPhones and iPods) all they want but I want my computer to do what I want it to do, not what Apple decides it should do.
They already provide a way for others to access the iTunes library, Palm were just to lazy to bother.
For all the arguments about Apple spending money to support other peoples devices, would it really cost them anything?
Yes, it would cost them iPod and iPhone sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
They could make an API to allow others to connect but only allow basic functions.
As has been pointed out ad infinitum there is nothing stopping Palm from writing their own application that syncs an iTunes library with their devices. They are just trying to avoid investing their own resources in supporting their users, which is why they don't produce any desktop sync software or capability of any kind, but, for example, force you to hand over your personal information to Google if you want to sync it somewhere.
The iTunes library and the iTunes application are two separate things, like MS Word documents and the MS Word application, or PDF documents and Acrobat.
Hasn't that shipped sailed and Apple now makes a tun on money off iTunes? It was only last year they were threatening to stop selling songs if they couldn't make money from it.
I think this is another low for Apple. For all the arguments about Apple spending money to support other peoples devices, would it really cost them anything? After all there's boot camp to run windows but they don't offer any support with it. They could make an API to allow others to connect but only allow basic functions. Although if they did it could be argued then that there giving themselves an advantage in Phones and MP3 players with iTunes. At what point does iTunes stop being an App and start becomes the part of the OS for devices? After all as far as I remember iPhones and iPOD's don't show up in the OS as connected hardware by default.
Yes, the store costs money to maintain.
Yes, support for hardware and software costs real money.
Yes, boot camp costs money to maintain, i.e. upgrading it to Snow Leopard for one.
Yes, creating an API and maintaining it would cost money. And to do it for the competition...
Yes, OS X can be used without iTunes so it is still just an App.
Wow, were these real questions? No hostility is meant by this post, though it comes across that way.
I must've missed that chapter of the iPod's history where Apple head-faked Windows Media Player so that the iPod could dominate the .mp3 player market.
It looks like Apple is just itching for a fight, which is stupid, since they are clearly on the wrong side of the law. That aside, they should consider the practical public relations issue of a youthful vibrant Obama Justice Department out to save the world from the raging corporate monopolies that have brought our economy to the brink of disaster being pitted in the press against a frail old billionaire who just stole a liver from some poor Tennessee kid so he could move back to California to squeeze a few more pennies out of fanatical Apple fans who naively still think he's the brilliant young idealist who set out to change the world four decades ago. What a difference a few decades and billion dollars makes in a man's principles. People are starting to notice.
Comments
Remember iTunes was introduced some time before the iPod and was initially designed to support third-party devices. The change since then is similar to if a future version of iPhoto worked only with Apple cameras. When Apple sold printers they did not prevent the Mac from working with third-party printers. Too many Apple fans seem willing to embrace the idea that users are cast members in Apple's play. Apple is the user's hired help and the products are purchased by users to serve the user's interests.
Apple could make money by selling third-party support plugins.
Or Miscrosoft could have killed off Macs running Windows by disabling Boot Camp or Paralells. Don't be surprised if it happens. Then will see who cries foul. MS could simply enable this as part of their users contract on Windows 7.
Is there any good reason why Microsoft would actually do that?
They would (if legally installed) be making more money from every Boot Camp Windows user then an OEM licence.
I thought Microsoft was bad...
Ultimately there is no way Apple can permanently block Palm, unless Apple is willing to break compatibility with old iPods and implement more sophisticated authentication of new ones.
Not necessarily. Supposing that each iPod/iPhone has a serial number and/or other unique ID and/or characteristic that can be queried (and the iPhones, and I believe at least newer, if not all, iPods, do) they could require that the iPod/iPhone be validated through the iTunes store (like iPhone activation) before it will sync, at least the first time. This would require Palm to copy specific information from Apple manufactured devices and essentially forge them on their devices. If the device has to be registered to sync (e.g., associated with an Apple ID) forging them would be almost impossible to do reliably, and would run into all sorts of legal issues.
That's just one possibility. There are probably a number of ways Apple could permanently stop Palm devices from syncing via the iTunes Application.
As for comparisons to Microsoft and it's actions with IE vs. Netscape, the comparison is wholly invalid.
First of all, Microsoft was (is) a monopolist using its monopoly power in one market (operating systems) to take over another market (web browsers, and, arguably, the Internet); Apple holds no such monopoly position in any market.
Secondly, Windows is an operating system, which, by definition, is supposed to run applications. Subverting that basic purpose to control the Windows' application market -- i.e., undermining the ability of non-Microsoft apps to run -- is an abuse of monopoly power. The iTunes application is not an operating system. Its essentially an iPod/iPhone accessory/tool, that also provides the user with "media center" functions; but its primary purpose, and the reason Apple updates and enhances it, is to sell iPods and iPhones.
Palm has many possible options to provide users with sync capability with their media collections and iTunes libraries that don't involve unsupported hacks to utilize the iTunes application. Apple has no legal, or even ethical, obligation to support or even tolerate these, especially since they undermine iTunes purpose, which is to sell hardware. (This situation is in some ways analogous to the Psystar case.)
If you want to use the iTunes application to sync with your phone or media player, then buy an iPhone or iPod. If you don't want to buy one of those, then don't complain to Apple when you can't sync your media to it using their iTunes application, complain to your hardware vendor, in this case Palm, and tell them to create a solution for you instead of playing games that hurt their users.
Would frustrate the hell out of Palm users, and raise questions/complaints about Palm's on-again, off-again iTunes sync "feature." Imagine Palm advertising a "feature" that is not only not really theirs, but works only some of the time.
Then again, I believe palm already filed a complaint against Apple, which might just be the beginning of the end of this "feature."
Is there any good reason why Microsoft would actually do that?
Part of the appeal of "switching" is the ability to run both OS's. If you can't run Windoze and all your software that goes with it then why would you switch?
Then again, I believe palm already filed a complaint against Apple, which might just be the beginning of the end of this "feature."
Based on my understanding of Palm's complaint, I don't think that's going anywhere. Apple isn't blocking their devices from being recognized as USB devices (as far as I know) on any system; they are only stopping their specific application software from interacting with them. On the other hand, Palm is misidentifying their devices as another manufacturer's, which is a violation of USB standards. (And possibly a violation of trademark law, as well.)
Not to mention the fact that the standards body doesn't really have any enforcement powers that can be applied to either company.
Part of the appeal of "switching" is the ability to run both OS's. If you can't run Windoze and all your software that goes with it then why would you switch?
To get away from Windows entirely. Which is why a lot of people switch.
It's called the free-rider problem and if you believe in the free enterprise system then you should recognize the free-rider problem as a problem. Or shall we now force Ford to compel their dealers to accept GM cars for servicing even if Ford doesn't want to? Or shall we force the ground crew of American Airlines to assist United Airlines passengers even though American Airlines doesn't want to? Or shall I now be allowed to buy a meal at McDonalds and then get a table at Le Cirq and eat my happy meal there without ordering anything from Le Cirq?
You forget you can also take your Ford to any garage and have it fixed... Or you can flip the problem around - what if Ford forced you to buy Exxon gas and firestone tires... (with RFID they could technically do this, which is scary).
Or look at iTunes as the "gas station". It fills up whoever it wants to. Which begs the question, is itunes a 'gas station', or is it just a marketing tool to sell ipods?
Yes, open standards are good. The problem is that, as stated many times by Apple, and proven by the relatively small profit they make from it, iTunes is not designed as a profit area. Instead, it's designed to sell iPods. Now, with that in mind, why would they, then, open the iTunes store to anyone?
Hasn't that shipped sailed and Apple now makes a tun on money off iTunes? It was only last year they were threatening to stop selling songs if they couldn't make money from it.
I think this is another low for Apple. For all the arguments about Apple spending money to support other peoples devices, would it really cost them anything? After all there's boot camp to run windows but they don't offer any support with it. They could make an API to allow others to connect but only allow basic functions. Although if they did it could be argued then that there giving themselves an advantage in Phones and MP3 players with iTunes. At what point does iTunes stop being an App and start becomes the part of the OS for devices? After all as far as I remember iPhones and iPOD's don't show up in the OS as connected hardware by default.
Very poor Apple. Would it really dent your ego so much to open iTunes up to any device through an API? You're behaving like Mircosoft from the bad old days, and that's just not cool.
Open standards = good.
Remember that Free Software does not mean no cost. Free can mean both open and free of charge. In this sense, I agree that iTunes store should be Freely accessible. Since Apple operates the iTunes store such that it makes little off it (it is a feature for its own products), then any company interfacing it should have free access but only if they pay for it. Then the store would be Free (Access) but not Free (in cost). Apple built it, gambled on it and spent its time making the business deals for it to work so they should receive that benefit.
I'm interested in the legal ramifications of a device claiming to be something else though. I'd imagine this would be a major legal issue and assume Apple is goading Palm into a legal trap... i.e. I dare you to claim X as you are going to get sued for lost revenue and market share (yup, Apple to Palm marketshare)... Good-bye Palm OS by way of the courts. I'd think the court would have to rule that way.
Part of the appeal of "switching" is the ability to run both OS's. If you can't run Windoze and all your software that goes with it then why would you switch?
I consider it highly unlikely that MS would do this. First of all, doing so would require that MS be able to tell that they are running inside a VM, and they cannot easily do so; the entire point of virtual machines is that they appear to the hosted OS exactly like real hardware, so the best they could do is detect the particular configuration that the VM's use, which would have the additional effect of blocking real hardware too. Moreover, even if they could reliably detect that they are running in a VM, they would have a hard time detecting that this VM was running on a Mac without cooperation from the VM vendors (which they are not going to get), so they would need to alter their OS so significantly that it wouldn't run on any virtual machine, and that would upset so many people that I think it unlikely that MS would ever do it.
To make such restrictions work would likely involve the use of hardware embedded authentication, and good luck getting manufacturers to go along with that. It is the very same reason it is possible to hack Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware.
Did you miss the point about "standard interface" in the original poster's message? Apple wouldn't have to support hundreds of devices. They just give a protocol that device manufacturers can use and move on with their lives. It's clearly not that hard to tie into Apple's existing iPod sync protocol except for the fact that Apple has locked the gates to any hardware but their own.
I for one would appreciate Apple and it would make me more likely to stay with a Mac when I go to purchase my next computer. At least on a Mac, iTunes is a pretty integral part of the user experience and I'm not happy with how Apple has tied it to their own hardware. I want to be able to do what I want with my computer. Apple is free to lock down their peripheral hardware (like iPhones and iPods) all they want but I want my computer to do what I want it to do, not what Apple decides it should do.
They already provide a way for others to access the iTunes library, Palm were just to lazy to bother.
For all the arguments about Apple spending money to support other peoples devices, would it really cost them anything?
Yes, it would cost them iPod and iPhone sales.
They could make an API to allow others to connect but only allow basic functions.
As has been pointed out ad infinitum there is nothing stopping Palm from writing their own application that syncs an iTunes library with their devices. They are just trying to avoid investing their own resources in supporting their users, which is why they don't produce any desktop sync software or capability of any kind, but, for example, force you to hand over your personal information to Google if you want to sync it somewhere.
The iTunes library and the iTunes application are two separate things, like MS Word documents and the MS Word application, or PDF documents and Acrobat.
Hasn't that shipped sailed and Apple now makes a tun on money off iTunes? It was only last year they were threatening to stop selling songs if they couldn't make money from it.
I think this is another low for Apple. For all the arguments about Apple spending money to support other peoples devices, would it really cost them anything? After all there's boot camp to run windows but they don't offer any support with it. They could make an API to allow others to connect but only allow basic functions. Although if they did it could be argued then that there giving themselves an advantage in Phones and MP3 players with iTunes. At what point does iTunes stop being an App and start becomes the part of the OS for devices? After all as far as I remember iPhones and iPOD's don't show up in the OS as connected hardware by default.
Yes, the store costs money to maintain.
Yes, support for hardware and software costs real money.
Yes, boot camp costs money to maintain, i.e. upgrading it to Snow Leopard for one.
Yes, creating an API and maintaining it would cost money. And to do it for the competition...
Yes, OS X can be used without iTunes so it is still just an App.
Wow, were these real questions? No hostility is meant by this post, though it comes across that way.
I must've missed that chapter of the iPod's history where Apple head-faked Windows Media Player so that the iPod could dominate the .mp3 player market.
Serves them right for advertising iTunes as a feature.
No sympathy for them at all.
It's behaviour just like this that ensures I will never buy an iPhone again.
I thought Microsoft was bad...
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
Apple allows other apps to look in the iTunes data (and iPhoto, Address Book, iCal, Mail).
Palm could make their own syncing app if they want to - RIM did it.
and that is why RIM is where they are and Palm is not
Hopefully Palm is spending this time playing retard by creating their own syncing app.