USB Forum Rules Against Palm in Apple Dispute

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
103
0
18,630
[citation][nom]HolyCrusader[/nom]Both sides have valid arguements. iTunes can be considered a monopoly, especially since there's a number of songs/artists/albums that are 'exclusive' to iTunes, and thus mandate an Apple product (if you go by the Apple handbook).[/citation]Exclusive to the iTunes Store doesn't mean you can only play the music on an iPod or other Apple device. You have to use iTunes to buy it, but once it's purchased, it's simply an AAC file and you can load it on any device that can play AAC+ (AAC-HE) files. No DRM on current music selections, and you and upgrade any old DRM encumbered music files from the iTunes store to DRM free versions for $0.30/song.

iTunes software serves 3 purposes:
1. An interface to browse and purchase music and video from the iTunes Store.
2. A playback system for music and videos.
3. Management of Apple iPod/iPhone devices (including firmware updates, music and video synchronization between computer and Apple devices).

Apple gives away the iTunes software and is not blocking Palm users from doing either of the first 2, only the 3rd. The built-in iTunes/iPod synchronization is designed for and supported exclusively on Apple devices. Palm simply needs to create or buy their own synchronization piece. Whether that piece is a separate application or if it's one that integrates into iTunes is a design choice for Palm.

iTunes is not a monopoly, either the software or the store. Nor is iPod a monopoly. In each case, Apple is the largest competitor in each market, but there are serious, viable competitors in each.
 

Grims

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2008
102
0
18,630
[citation][nom]bydesign[/nom]Why would anyone use this, just stick with DRM free Mp3's. iTunes is for dummies.[/citation]

iTunes is DRM free, dummy :)
 

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
103
0
18,630
[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]So this USB-IF is run by...ah, here we go, board of directors.Oh my. This list is...[/citation]Board of Directors

The USB-IF, Inc. Board of Directors is composed of the following companies and their designated representative Directors:

Hewlett-Packard Company - Alan Berkema
Intel Corporation - Jeff Ravencraft
LSI Corporation - Dave Thompson
Microsoft Corporation - Fred Bhesania
NEC Corporation - Steve Roux
ST-Ericsson - Geert Knapen
Corporate Officers

The USB-IF, Inc. Corporate Officers are:

Chairman/President - Jeff Ravencraft, Intel Corporation
Vice-President - Geert Knapen, ST-Ericsson
Secretary - Geert Knapen, ST-Ericsson
Treasurer - Alan Berkema, Hewlett-Packard Company

 

jdpraise

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
3
0
18,510
Wow, Apple is one to talk about using others peoples software but thats another story.
Isn't this exactly what microsoft was sued for in the EU, not letting other people play nice with its software? As well as norton and the other anti-virus software companies when microsoft plugged the holes in Vista and wouldn't release kernal information to make thier products work? Why is Apple allowed to do this when if it was another company most people would be screaming for a lawsuit.
 

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
103
0
18,630
[citation][nom]jdpraise[/nom]Isn't this exactly what microsoft was sued for in the EU, not letting other people play nice with its software? As well as norton and the other anti-virus software companies when microsoft plugged the holes in Vista and wouldn't release kernal information to make thier products work?[/citation]No, it's very different.

1. iTunes is not integrated into the OS, you can remove it completely. In fact, you can use it on Windows. IE can't be removed from Windows.
2. iTunes is only necessary to buy items from the iTunes store or to sync an iPod/iPhone. Once you've purchased music or videos, you can play them on any media player you choose. They're not restricting access to the content regardless of what media player or platform you use.
3. Apple isn't preventing or limiting Palm (or anyone else) from selling, giving away, or installing software on a machine. MS was preventing Symantec, et al from installing their security software on Vista.
4. Apple isn't harming an existing market (as MS was with Symantec, et al)
5. Apple doesn't have the market power to assert "monopoly-like" influence over the market or their competitors.

If Apple were preventing Palm and others from installing their own sync software, or if they were removing the ability to use non Apple software or devices, then it would be similar. It's not.

Apple has done nothing to harm Palm or Palm customers. Palm tried to take a shortcut by emulating an iPod rather than do the work of developing their own sync software and it has backfired on them and their customers. Taking shortcuts in a competitive market place will often hurt you in the long run. Now it's time for Palm to put on their big boy pants, write (or buy) their own sync software, and start acting like a company that can actually compete. Until they do that, they're just whining and throwing a tantrum like a 5 year old.
 

geoffs

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2007
103
0
18,630
For everyone who still says that MS would get sued for doing this, let me point out several examples where MS does exactly the same thing:

1. Zune software works only with Microsoft Zunes.
2. The ZunePass subscription music system will only work with a Zune.
3. You can't have live synchronization with MS Exchange Server, unless you license ActiveSync from Microsoft, and you still might have to write (or port) the sync software yourself if you're not using a Windows based device.

Frankly, the whole Zune situation is far worse than anything Apple has even been accused of doing. First, they created and promoted the "Plays for Sure" system and they got other vendors to develop and sell devices. Then, they effectively killed that system, screwing the vendors, and the buyers. Then, they started selling their own competing products and won't allow any competitors access to their services. But, I digress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.