07-24-2009, 11:24 PM
raz wrote:
Rather than Zune, consider ActiveX where MS re-engineered Java to run exclusively on Windows. They lost an anti-trust action to Sun.
If I remember correctly the only thing they lost was the right to use the Java trademarked name for their non-Java product. Microsoft attempted to harm Java's portability by producing a "Java" that only worked on Windows. Sun said that they weren't allowed to call it Java. There was no anti-trust involved.
The End User License Agreement for the iTunes software states that the software must only be used with Apple-approved hardware.
Palm chose not to go the legal route and work with Apple to become a licensee so that their devices will properly work with iTunes. Palm chose not to provide their own friendly interface software that will read the XML data of the iTunes library files.
What is the harm in having any old device connect to iTunes?
Why wouldn't Apple simply open it up to any random music player pretends to be an iPod?
Answer: Aside from undercutting the revenue stream (iTunes is free only because Apple makes money on iPods), another real problem is that iTunes wouldn't always work properly. Customers would be frustrated and iTunes' reputation would be tarnished. In the same way that Apple only allows Mac OS X to run on Apple-approved hardware, Apple needs to keep the iTunes connectivity restricted for quality control.
Consider that none of the DRM files in the iTunes library will be usable on a Palm Pre. Right there we have a problem. The consumer expects that iTunes will "just work", and it doesn't. Does the consumer blame Palm? Maybe. Or maybe the blame is put on iTunes.
If you purchased the iTunes software, I can imagine being frustrated that they are locking you out of connecting another device that you purchased. But iTunes is provided for free. It is only done so to add value to owning an iPod (where Apple makes the real money --- commissions on iTunes Store sales are only to cover the overhead).