Palm has complained to the USB Implementers Forum over the use of Vendor ID numbers by Apple. I presume it is trying to finally sort the iTunes fiasco that is going on at the moment which will cause the Pre to be able to sync and then not and so it will go on. Linux users are also getting sniffy about recent changes and the continuing lack of support for iTunes.
Now, I don’t like to stand up for Apple if I can help it, but part of me thinks that Palm needs to make its own solution rather than hanging on the coat tails of iTunes. The problem is that the solution would no doubt look poor compared to the might of iTunes. Also, why would Apple want to support Linux? It is hardly an area where the users will want to spend any money and the gap between Apple and the Linux community is as big as you can get in the tech world.
For Palm to be attempting to use iTunes shows a complete lack of imagination and only goes to heighten the iTunes brand. It makes Palm look a little bit cheap, but there is underlying logic in having your smartphone sync with the most popular music and video setup on the planet.
Exactly right Shaun. It is this kind of uncertainty around the Pre that hurts it so bad. Buyers need to be confident and assured that their set up will work reliably. I think this hurts the Pre badly.
Make your own solution Palm…
Sid
“but part of me thinks that Palm needs to make its own solution rather than hanging on the coat tails of iTunes. ”
Sorry but there is kind of a double standard here, MS had/has the dominant OS and made it hard for other web browsers to work on their OS and there was rightly an uproar, and even antitrust cases… Now Apple has the dominant online music marketplace,and they intentionally make it hard for other players to work with their system but no uproar, infact most sources seem to attack Palm.
I just find it very strange that I see a trend that there are many people who are anti-MS for their behaviour yet pro-Apple, and of a opinion that Apple is perfectly within their right to intentionally block other companies software from working with theirs.
@Joel, with you on this. iTunes will become like IE, ie a defacto standard for music etc purchase and there needs to enable connectivity for the full diversity of mobile device choices people want to make. Apple is a very agressive commercial organisation, I prefer not to give my money to it.
“Sorry but there is kind of a double standard here…” I guess you are right, but the main point is that Palm need to do more because it will lose out in the end. I never suggested that Apple was right in what it is doing, but to expect Apple to behave differently would be silly- it will always be the way it is and Palm should know that. If Apple is forced to open up that would be great, but ironically probably better for Apple.
Apple has poured countless millions of dollars into the iTunes+iPod ecosystem over the past decade, to say nothing of the developer time and ongoing maintenance of the system, while Palm has invested nothing. I completely agree that this is a cheap move by Palm which reflects badly on the company and its management.
@Joel & Jah ANYONE can develop a music player/sync software that can run on a Mac/PC and access the music stored in the iTunes music library; RIM has already done this on the PC and will soon have a similar solution for the Mac. That’s what Palm should have done, too.
The obligation upon anyone wishing to compete in any arena is to “build a better mousetrap” than your competitors. So far, nobody has stepped up to the plate to compete with Apple because they haven’t had the vision or the willingness to make the kind of investment Apple has.
iTunes wasn’t always the eighty pound gorilla in the room, and Apple didn’t use a monopoly in one area to make it successful in another (as Microsoft tried to do); it just built the best music player and the best software it could and made them available for people on either Mac’s and PC’s. I suppose that makes it a “very aggressive commercial organization”. LOL.
I think Apple are wrong here. I use iTunes now to rip my CDs etc and sync to my iPod .but my car has an mp3 USB input for music. I have to open windows media player on my pc to copy music across to the USB stick because iTunes won’t let me. That’s wrong. All the Pre is doing is the same thing or trying to.
Microsoft were not up in court because they had the dominant IE browser…they were up in Court because they abused their position in a myriad of different ways, forcing 3rd party people to use their software in order to get access to other Microsoft “goodies” in a manner that was grossly unfair. To compare that with Apple and iTunes is wrong and is grasping at fanboy straws. Just whom are Apple forcing into using iTunes in return for other service? For windows users to come on here and bleat about Apple adopting “aggressive” and unfair practices is bizarre.
Apple are entitled to protect their business interests until told otherwise and there may well come a point when that happens. If so, frankly I couldn’t give a monkeys and personally I think they are missing a trick by not allowing Palm to use iTunes.
What about Palm though and their Pre and their supposed “in the cloud” syncing? I find it quite funny that all of a sudden they need to resort to a desktop application for a fairly major part of the devices useage for a lot of people. Oh dear. It’s not like there aren’t different ways of syncing for Pre users…they should try the free and excellent “Double Twist’ for starters.
^^^
Case in point, Apple can do no wrong
All hail the great Apple, and heaven forbid anyone look into (discuss) their holy actions, or they should immediately be labelled as MS fanboys..
In this case Apple said upfront they are going to block pre owners from using itunes this way and they did in the very next update, pretty clearly intentionally. That is aggresive, so is some of the stuff below.. I never said MS was perfect and Apple was evil (like you seem to say in reverse) just that they BOTH behave in this way and it is strange how there are so many apple FANBOYS (sorry had to throw that back at you) who refuse to except anyone critically looking into Apple’s pratices as they rightly do for MS, Intel etc etc etc..
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/6/3/more-anti-competitive-antics.aspx
Another great one was Apple vs Psystar, they put OSX on non-Apple hardware. Apple sued them into bunkcrupcy to protect their anti-competitiv advantage. As I said Psystar ended up going into chapter 11 bankcrupcy but in Feb this year won the case against Apple.. Now will we see more companies around the world do what Psystar did? or are they too scared to spend untold millions defending themselves from Apple in court?
All I am trying to say is Apple is no angel either, not that MS is god and Apple is the devil..
“Another great one was Apple vs Psystar, they put OSX on non-Apple hardware. Apple sued them into bunkcrupcy to protect their anti-competitiv advantage. As I said Psystar ended up going into chapter 11 bankcrupcy but in Feb this year won the case against Apple.. Now will we see more companies around the world do what Psystar did? or are they too scared to spend untold millions defending themselves from Apple in court?”
This entire paragraph is just littered with anti-Apple prejudice and half-truths. How can taking someone to court for breaching clearly stated licensing agreements be described as protecting an “anti-competitive advantage”. What on earth does that even mean? Please explain.
As reported in Computer World in February:
“In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead argue that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware.”
I guess that’s what you mean by “won the case against Apple”?
Sitting squarely on the fence, the moral rights or wrongs are neither here nor there. If apple has broken the vendor ID agreement they signed up to then they either withdraw or go back to complying.
As an opinion though I think palm were foolish. They aren’t the first non-apple company to sync via iTunes (I had a plug in which worked with an Archos device a couple of years back) but they do seem to have shouted the loudest about it. It was inevitable that they would be shut out as soon as apple found an excuse.
I’m not sure what Palm’s complaint is against Apple, but it Palm itself is acting in direct violation of the USB licensing agreement, as highlighted by Dieter Bohn at Precentral:
“The Pre is now telling your computer that the vendor who made it is Apple. The change here is that with previous versions of webOS, the Vendor ID was “0 × 0830 (Palm Inc.).” So while previously the Pre identified itself as a “mass storage device” called an iPod, now it’s identifying itself as a “mass storage device manufactured by Apple” called an iPod.”
Again – I think palm are being foolish
Lazyboy: I guess that’s what you mean by “won the case against Apple”?
I wasn’t talking about the counter suit that Psystar brought against Apple but the original Apple case against Psystar to protect their ‘hardware monopoly’ in which they failed to get the courts to enforce their licencing policy. i.e. Psystar are allowed legally to put legitimate copies of OSX on non-apple hardware, despite Apples opinion on the matter. The Psystar case against Apple is another matter…
Though as I said the company does have a lot of financial troubles since the law suits.. And I wouldn’t imagine many other companies trying the same thing any time soon..
If it wasn’t ‘anti-competitive’ and was a clear breach of the ‘licensing agreements’ as you said, why did the courts not enforce Apples agreement? why did they order psystar can continue to produce their own machines with OSX?
Joel, you clearly said in your original post that Psystar “won the case”. Please provide evidence for this assertion – a link would do. Somehow, I think you’ll find that a problem.
In fact, Apple is still trying to get Psystar into court to press home its case, but Psystar went into chapter 11 bankruptcy which put a stay on legal proceedings and has allowed the firm to continue making Mac clones.
From OS News June 11:
“We’ve got some news in the Apple vs. Psystar tragedy that’s been unfolding before our eyes for months now. We all know the gist: Psystar sells machines with Mac OS X pre-installed, while the EULA states that’s not allowed. Apple then took this stuff to court, and in the meantime, Psystar went into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. The news today is that Apple has filed a complaint stating that this Chapter 11 thing is just a shield that allows Psystar to continue its business practices, which Apple deems as illegal.
The motion from Apple asks that the court have the legal proceedings against Psystar continue despite the clone maker being under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection. Under Chapter 11, legal proceedings are put on hold (‘stay’), but at the same time, Psystar can continue to sell Mac clones…”
Is that what you mean by Psystar “won the case” or “Psystar are allowed legally to put legitimate copies of OSX on non-apple hardware, despite Apples opinion on the matter…”
The truth is, the courts have not made a decision on this. Why do you keep saying that they have?