Palm Files Complaint Against Apple

[deck]

[citation][nom]vizzie[/nom]I'm totally with apple on this one. They invested money to make iTunes and market it into a succesfull platform for buying, syncing etc. media with their mediaplayers and whatnot so they could sell more of those same mediaplayers, Palm didn't invest a cent and wants to steal the benefits of the huge investment by apple.I think apple has every right to profit from it's investment and to stop others form stealing those profits.Palm is abusing the USB standard by making the Pre lie about being an iPod. Apple is just using the USB standard to make this thievery by Palm impossible by checking the part of the USB standard Palm hasn't corrupted (the pre at least doesn't yet claim to have apple as its vendor).[/citation]

The problem is, Apple does the same thing. Their entire OS is built on top of an open source kernel that many people invested heavily in to develop. Apple did not pay a cent for the most fundemental component of its OS. They did not contribute a single line of open source code. IMO they can't have it both ways. You can't steal code from the open source community and then cry foul when someone else does something similar to your code.

But this is all moot anyway, because the real quesion is: is restricting the use of iTunes anti-compentitive. Personally, I don't beleive it to be anti-competitive. But, given the precident that the EU set reagrding Microsoft and IE, clearly iTunes and MacOS is general is in far greater breach of anti-competive laws than IE.

 

[Turas]

Windows, Mac OS, Ubuntu, Redhat, Fedora, a million other distros out. There are tons of choices out there for OS.

 

[T-Bone]

I hate Apple...but Palm has no chance. It's Apple's software, so they decide how it works & what it syncs to. Is it in Apple's best interest to make it interoperable? Well, not really. Apple is a HARDWARE company not a software company, so they need to sell their hardware to make money; they really don't make any money from iTunes.

Anyways, iTunes blows and so does Apple!

 

[avickery]

[citation][nom]deck[/nom]The problem is, Apple does the same thing. Their entire OS is built on top of an open source kernel that many people invested heavily in to develop. Apple did not pay a cent for the most fundemental component of its OS. They did not contribute a single line of open source code. IMO they can't have it both ways. You can't steal code from the open source community and then cry foul when someone else does something similar to your code. But this is all moot anyway, because the real quesion is: is restricting the use of iTunes anti-compentitive. Personally, I don't beleive it to be anti-competitive. But, given the precident that the EU set reagrding Microsoft and IE, clearly iTunes and MacOS is general is in far greater breach of anti-competive laws than IE.[/citation]

Whether you're ill-informed or just apple-bashing, you're just plain wrong. Have you ever heard of Apple OS X? The entire underlying OS, Darwin, is Free Open Source Software.
There is absolutely no anti-competitive behavior going on here. Apple has partnerships for interoperability with other hardware and software vendors. Palm could easily create a working, licensed relationship with Apple, but they chose the low road instead, and used USB ID masquerading as opposed to licensing use. Don't try to confuse the issue for other users.
I'm all for Palm users being able to synch with iTunes. Obviously, so is Palm - but they're trying to game the system. Palm has no explicit right (in fact, this is against Apple's EULA - but I'm sure you haven't read that either) to offer unlicensed interoperability with a 3rd-party developer's proprietary product.
Palm should pony up, admit they made a poor choice, and attempt to license the operability from Apple. Other vendors (RIM - Blackberry devices work with iTunes) have done the same.
Nothing to see here.

 

[dheadley]

The same old MS/IE argument again. Everyone wants to skip over the things that make Apple/iTunes different from MS/IE and and make it the same.

The complaints that led to the MS/IE decision were about MS being a big loser in the browser field to Netscape, so they made IE a part of the OS and pressured PC vendors to not pre-install any other browsers on the systems under penalty of losing their volume discounts/OEM status.

Even AOL and stuff like that which had been coming pre-installed along with all the junk-ware PC venders were putting on the systems were not allowed to be pre-installed. Everything had to be put on the system disk and only an icon that started the install.

Those are criminal acts, and they deserve to be punished for them. Its no different than Intel paying PC builders to drop AMD systems for kick-backs/volume discounts or if needed threats of being cut-off from supply.

I personally don't care one way or the other about IE being bundled with windows, but tell me why anyone has to be fair to MS in the first place when MS was never fair with anyone else. I truly believe that companies that practice unfair business practices SHOULD be treated unfairly. If you abuse the system to gain a huge market share you SHOULD be treated in a way that prevents you from easily maintaining that share.

 

[Guest]

If the lazy American consumer would open their eyes and see that there are music programs other than iTunes out there then this wouldn't even be an issue. iTunes limits what you can do and is a total pile of shit with large libraries. It may look cool and it may make you feel cool but really there are better options out there.

 

[konjiki7]

iTunes is often bundles with other mp3 players and some phones as well. Apple allows these devices to work but not the one that’s a serous competitive threat.

 

[Honis]

"One of the things that makes the Pre so attractive to users is its out of the box iTunes syncing."

What makes the Pre so attractive is that its not an iCrap backed by a company that takes years to respond to its user base.

 

[doron]

I couldn't care less about apple, palm, microsoft, intel, amd etc. I care about myself - the consumer. That's why I support palm as should we all in this specific matter where one company deliberately keeps us from enjoying a specific product from another company. We are the most important factor here, a fact that most people tend to forget.

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]konjiki7[/nom]iTunes is often bundles with other mp3 players and some phones as well. Apple allows these devices to work but not the one that’s a serous competitive threat.[/citation]
Those other devices paid money to Apple to license their device to work with iTunes software. As avickery already pointed out, Palm needs to simply pony up and buy the license from Apple like all those other vendors. Palm is essentially hacking its firmware to make the software think its a genuine Apple product. How can anyone with half a brain think that is OK? If someone hacks their Windows 7 system into thinking its a genuine Lenovo product so that they can use the Levono OEM master key, is that OK? That sounds illegal to me.

 

[avickery]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]OMG! Someone else who understands the point!If Apple allows iTunes to work on Windows as well as OSX, it should allow it to transfer to non-Apple devices as well as iPods.It is a double standard, the only reason they let iTunes work on Windows is because they want coverage. The Pre doesn't have a lot of coverage so this is just them 'sneering' at Palm.[/citation]

No, this is about Palm not licensing the use of iTunes with Apple. Blackberry and other devices work normally, because RIM and other makers worked with Apple to provide support and interoperability.

There is no double-standard. Palm is not playing by the rules.

 

[lowguppy]

Apple has crossed a line. Using a protocol designed to promote compatibility to enforce exclusivity is unacceptable.

 

[feenyxfire]

First I'll tell you a story to tell you another story. MS stopped bundling Netscape with Windows and started bundling IE around 1996 (as did Mac OS, with some palms greased by MS) and immediately snagged huge marketshare from Netscape, because people were most likely to use what they already had versus spending (sometimes hours) downloading a different browser off the internet - never mind the fact that the Netscape version at that time had started to lag in its compatibility with newer code like javascript (a fact people tend to forget) and tended to run very slowly and/or crash with 'fancier' webpages, but that's an argument for another day. As Netscape fell out of vogue and the MS/Apple IE deal ended around 2002, Apple developed Safari as a competing product and bundled Safari (instead of IE) with Mac OS: a move IDENTICAL to that of MS/IE, but because it wasn't successful, Apple didn't get sued like MS did (10 years after the fact...)

HOWEVER... with the expansion of broadband internet, downloading new software became a cakewalk. The fact that MS bundled IE with Windows become almost completely irrelevant, except where users were locked out by NETWORK ADMINS (not MS) from using a different browser. Yet this is the era in which MS got sued, while at the same time hemorrhaging IE marketshare to, well, basically everyone, to the tune of about 5% a year. While I think that suing MS so late after the damage it did was already starting to reverse in a big way is ridiculous, that's what happened, and thus the same rules should apply to other companies.

Wait, how does this apply to Apple? Thank you for reading this far. MS (eventually) got sued record amounts for using its market dominance in one area (the operating system) to promote a 'separate' product (the browser), i.e. one that could be used independently of the other. Apple is using its market dominance with iTunes (currently a massive 70%) to promote the iPod/iPhone (a separate product) by dictating what third-party hardware can and cannot sync with the software. (Never mind Apple's lockout on OS X and third-party BUILT hardware, as "Apple brand" desktops/laptops use many of the same IDENTICAL parts as PCs, but tweaked just enough so that they aren't swappable.) Licensing is just a sham to cover up the fact that the software would easily work with just about any hardware if it weren't for Apple using bits of DRM code to try to force people to pay. The fact that Palm was able to easily tweak the USB-ID and all of a sudden it works should be evidence enough that Apple is just throwing its weight around and extorting money.

This is the EXACT same practice of market dominance abuse that MS got sued for with its actions with IE back in 1996. By gently (yet not so gently) 'encouraging' consumers to use Apple music players and smartphones with iTunes (and clandestinely raising prices on everybody else's hardware by forcing manufacturers to buy licenses in this case), Apple is manipulating the market of a separate product by its dominance in another market: this is textbook monopolistic practice. It's all about using one market to manipulate another... and it's illegal.

 

[tenor77]

Hey Palm, get in line.

 

[Gryphyn]

I gotta side with Palm, Apple is being unfair.

 

[randerson]

I think that if I legally download music I should be able put it on any device I want. Otherwise they only encourage people to pirate music.

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]randerson[/nom]I think that if I legally download music I should be able put it on any device I want. Otherwise they only encourage people to pirate music.[/citation]
You're right, you should be able to do that legally. And, legally, in order to do that, the vendor you bought your device from should be paying Apple the license fee to use their device with their software, not hacking their own device to illegally get around license.

 

[speedemon]

its sad that you cant do your OWN thing and be good at it

I agree with apple, their software, their hardware, simple

Palm needs to get their own software and what not. apple doesnt want to play with you, why do you keep knocking at the door

 

[geoffs]

Got mixed feelings about this one. Someone compared this to MS having to make Windows documentation (and some code) available to third parties. That's not a valid comparison. I much better comparison is MS refusing to share info to sync with Exchange Server. MS will now let you license the activesync technology, but unless you license it, they will go out of their way to break any synchronization with Exchange that you may develop independently.

I think Apple is on solid legal ground using their USB vendor ID to tie their software (iTunes) to their hardware. If you don't allow that, then all someone has to do copy your hardware is make a work alike and tell users to use your driver. Nearly every driver for PCI/PCIe devices (except "reference" drivers from chip manufacturers) are tied to one vendor ID to prevent exactly that situation. Likewise, drivers and software that provide enhanced functionality for various USB devices (mice, keyboards, flash drives, video capture devices, sound cards, etc) are all tied to the vendor's USB Vendor ID. Nothing new here.

Apple is also safe in that you can purchase non-DRM'd music/video files from the iTunes Music Store using iTunes software, and those files can be copied to any device that you can connect to your machine, you just can't use iTunes to copy the info to the device unless it's an Apple device. You have to copy the file to your device using the OS copy utilities or a synchronization/copy utility provided by your device manufacturer.

That said, I wish Apple would back off on this one at least enough to offer an "iTunes synchronization" technology that other device vendors could license (similar to MS licensing ActiveSync to Apple).

Personally, I prefer iTunes and the iPod to any other software or player I've seen, but not everyone does. Apple needs to find a way to make money off those users (e.g. by selling music/videos from iTMS and/or licensing synchronization technology).

 

[Guest]

To get an insight, you might want to read this: http/www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/27/why-apple-is-killing-the-pre-via-itunes/