PALMing..the ball!. . .Palm declares war on Apple. . .

[DRR]

Can you play downloads from the iTMS on a Pre?

[DRR]

vision63 wrote:
Like I said, it's that "same" as if Apple required you to use one video camera with iMovie. How would that be reasonable?

About as reasonable as only being able to use the Pre with Sprint or the iPhone with AT&T?

[vision63]

DRR wrote:
Can you play downloads from the iTMS on a Pre?

Yep. Remember they removed the DRM from the tracks. Earlier tracks not until the DRM is removed.

[vision63]

DRR wrote:
[quote=vision63]
Like I said, it's that "same" as if Apple required you to use one video camera with iMovie. How would that be reasonable?

About as reasonable as only being able to use the Pre with Sprint or the iPhone with AT&T?
The next battle.

[TheTominator]

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).

[vision63]

TheTominator wrote:
[quote=raz]
Rather than Zune, consider ActiveX where MS re-engineered Java to run exclusively on Windows. They lost an anti-trust action to Sun.

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).
iTunes should "just work" with other players. Perhaps not as intimately. Just like iMovie should "just work" with any video camera etc., within the specs of it's hardware and software. The customer is generally aware that their faux-pod didn't come from Apple. If it doesn't work, that's their problem. We all know "why" Apple is proprietary regarding their iTunes marketplace. Number one, they wanted to ensure their success in that arena, then they want to dominate it. Mission Accomplished. Now they're being monopolistic and it needs to end.

[DRR]

vision63 wrote:

iTunes should "just work" with other players. Perhaps not as intimately. Just like iMovie should "just work" with any video camera etc., within the specs of it's hardware and software. The customer is generally aware that their faux-pod didn't come from Apple. If it doesn't work, that's their problem. We all know "why" Apple is proprietary regarding their iTunes marketplace. Number one, they wanted to ensure their success in that arena, then they want to dominate it. Mission Accomplished. Now they're being monopolistic and it needs to end.

I don't understand the logic here. iTunes is not the only media management program in town. If you have a Pre, nobody is twisting your arm into using iTunes to put music on that device.

Can you explain to me why you believe Apple needs to make their software compatible with other manufacturer's devices, rather than, the consumer simply taking responsibility for the limitations of what they purchase?

For example, if I had a Zune Pass subscription account, I can't put that music on my iPhone. It'll never happen. Is that Microsoft's fault that I can't? Or my responsibility as a consumer to buy into a system that works for me?

edit: clarity

[vision63]

DRR wrote:
[quote=vision63]

iTunes should "just work" with other players. Perhaps not as intimately. Just like iMovie should "just work" with any video camera etc., within the specs of it's hardware and software. The customer is generally aware that their faux-pod didn't come from Apple. If it doesn't work, that's their problem. We all know "why" Apple is proprietary regarding their iTunes marketplace. Number one, they wanted to ensure their success in that arena, then they want to dominate it. Mission Accomplished. Now they're being monopolistic and it needs to end.

I don't understand the logic here. iTunes is not the only media management program in town. If you have a Pre, nobody is twisting your arm into using iTunes to put music on that device.

Can you explain to me why you believe Apple needs to make their software compatible with other manufacturer's devices, rather than, the consumer simply taking responsibility for the limitations of what they purchase?

For example, if I had a Zune Pass subscription account, I can't put that music on my iPhone. It'll never happen. Is that Microsoft's fault that I can't? Or my responsibility as a consumer to buy into a system that works for me?

edit: clarity
As I mentioned earlier, there "are" several ways to sync the Palm Pre to a computer without using iTunes. I suggested that issue should be removed from the table because if Palm developed sync software, it would be redundant to what already exists.

In this case DRR, Apple has not made their software compatible with the Pre, they've made iTunes "incompatible." Palm simply made their phone "compatible." Your responsibility as a consumer is to do what you feel is right for you. If you're satisfied with buying a Macintosh and having your player not work with their software, that's great. I and many others believe that Apple should open up.

Like I said, if you hooked up your Canon video camera and it was "made" incompatible with iMovie, you don't think that would bother you? Why is iTunes and other players any different?

[richorlin]

I think everyone is missing the point. It's not whether Apple should open up iTunes or whether it is acting like a monopoly. I think the real problem here is the way Palm has gone about making the Pre compatible. They have masked the actual "signature" of the hardware and have fooled iTunes into thinking that a real iPod has connected. I'm not a lawyer and I certainly don't play one on TV but I don't see the legality of that action. Sounds like patent infringement to me and Apple is within their rights to block the Pre if that it how it is connecting to iTunes.

[vision63]

richorlin wrote:
I think everyone is missing the point. It's not whether Apple should open up iTunes or whether it is acting like a monopoly. I think the real problem here is the way Palm has gone about making the Pre compatible. They have masked the actual "signature" of the hardware and have fooled iTunes into thinking that a real iPod has connected. I'm not a lawyer and I certainly don't play one on TV but I don't see the legality of that action. Sounds like patent infringement to me and Apple is within their rights to block the Pre if that it how it is connecting to iTunes.

I think there is a method to the madness. They're too smart to be dumb. Remember the individuals involved.