Why should Palm stop? Apple wants everyone to buy their music from iTunes then they tell them you can only sync that music if you own an iPod. That is some BS right there. I say go Palm, Apple has no right to lock customers out of syncing just because they don't own an iPod. You buy music on iTunes you should be able to sync it with whatever you want.
I can purchase any music I want as an .mp3 through any browser in the world, and play it on whatever hardware I want with no requirements or lock-downs whatsoever. It boggles my mind that anyone would put up with iTunes. It actually makes my head hurt trying to understand it.
iTunes is proprietary software designed to sync music with Apple's hardware platform. If it's not Apple it's not authorised to sync with iTunes.
No argument, no discussion, end of.
And why the hell would you be buying music from iTunes if you DIDN'T have Apple hardware? There's 101 different places to buy your music from so you'd have to be some kind of moron to buy from Apple then complain you can't sync it with a non-Apple device.
iTunes sucks. I'm with Zelog on this one. Now, if Apple wants to create a closed ecosystem where their hardware only works with their software and is the only way to play music bought from their store, it should hurt Apple like it did in the 90's. I see why Palm wants to ride along with Apple, but really Apple should be left to itself and be allowed to fall behind as the rest of us move on to open platforms and stores.
This all just feels like a Giant Dick measuring contest, seeing who's willing to be the biggest douchebag and have their aforementioned douchebaggery somehow justified. Apple is restrictive and supports DRM. Palm wants to market their hardware to people already lazy enough to use iTunes for their music. ( Go to Amazon or somewhere else for goodness sake, or better yet go support the bands you love live so they get all the profit from the album sale ). Both companies need to grow up.
I agree it's stupid to give any money to Apple, but just because you were stupid enough to buy a song on iTunes, it DOES NOT mean you should have to pay a few hundred more on an iPod or iPhone.
What if you did own an iPod, but 18 months later the battery died? Refusing to give apple more money you just left your iTunes songs sitting idle on your computer. Now, Palm releases a fancy new phone, and low and behold, it also has the ability to sync with your songs. That sounds like a win win to the consumer.
BUT WAIT!!! Apple, not content to stick with the 99cents per song and $300+ they already got from you for a defective iPod, they disable synching to your brand new phone with a software fix, simply because they think they can! What right does Apple have to do that? Why should you be forced to buy another piece of hardware with a defective battery when you already own hardware that can synch with your music?
For one, I'm hoping this action results in Apple losing their USB license (they violated the terms of the USB licensing contract when they restricted iTunes via the USB identifier, something expressly prohibited). Of course, no legal body will investigate Apple for anti-trust (Google, Microsoft, etc.. are just bigger fish), but they should.
What you guys are missing is the fact that there are a lot of people who bought their music from itunes and are now stuck with using it on their older ipod or itouch. A lot of those same users don't want or cannot afford the iPhone | AT&T duo so they go with Sprint. So should they be forced to carry their phone and ipod?
It's about time. I own neither an iturd nor do I run any crApple software... But to hinder the use of usb devices from other companies is a violation of your rights as a consumer. Basically it's like saying you can't use Emril spice in any pot or pan that's not made by Emril... think about it. How ticked would you be if you bought a CD produced by Sony and it wouldn't play in any cd player except those made by $ony? Any opposing opinion is nullified by simple logic.
I really don't understand why so many people that are obviously smart enough to surf the web, register on this site and check their email to verify it so they can post reply's to this thread, can't comprehend that their music is not locked down to using an iPod.
I have never owned an iPod, apple computer or any other PMP but I have purchased some music from iTunes recently and play it on my Samsung Omnia phone. I have to say the whole experience from purchase to listening to music on my phone was about as complicated as being able to post on most tech sites.
[citation][nom]etichi[/nom]@hellwigI think the USB-IF said Palm is in violation of the membership by doing this. Not Apple.[/citation]
I think you're right. Palm accused Apple, but was themselves found guilty of violating the policy for spoofing Apple's USB vendor ID to begin with. Still, USB is about what the attached device can support, not who made it. I don't like Apple using an open standard to create a closed system (not that they did any different with BSD, AAC, etc.. etc..).