An anonymous reader writes "Palm's cat and mouse game with Apple continues. Ignoring the warning from the USB Implementers Forum, with its WebOS 1.2.1 release this morning Palm has restored iTunes media synchronization in its new Pre smartphone — and gone so far as to extend sync to photos. And, according to Digital Daily, it has done this, once again, by using Apple's USB vendor ID. Does the USB-IF have any recourse here? Does Apple?"
I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?)
I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons.
Also, the argument that Apple needs to break compatibility in order to protect itself is complete bullshit. If my Palm doesn't sync with iTunes, I'm going to bitch about it to Palm. Nobody expects iTunes to work.
The fact is compatiblity is already present. Apple allows 3rd parties to sync the iTunes library to their devices and it does it in a documented and supported way. Palm is just deciding to ignore all this functionality and they are breaking the USB spec to do it, just so they can save a few bucks. Now it has gone as far as the USB-IF commenting that Palm is breaking their license agreement (or contract), which in and of itself is illegal. Next step is probably to revoke their license to use and display the USB name and logo on their product's marketing material.
Mark/Space [markspace.com] produce software which syncs Windows CE devices, Palm devices (including the Pre!) and Android devices with the iTunes library.
Mark/Space and BlackBerry use the supported APIs, so they haven't had any problems with Apple disallowing their sync functionality. (Mark/Space's products have been sold for years now.) Palm are just being lazy, because they don't want to have to write and support their own sync code.
They don't allow anybody to sync. What they "allow" by not specifically forbidding, is access to the iTunes library. You can read playlists and such from it. If you want to sync, you need to write your own software to do it, which some companies have. However, only non-DRMd files can be transfered in this way. If you have a song you bought on iTunes that is DRM'd, you cannot sync it except through iTunes, which will only connect to Apple hardware.
Yes, they "allow" it by providing a human readable, documented XML file which is kept updated by iTunes only for the convenience of third parties (iTunes uses it's own, binary database). I'm not sure what more they could do to "allow" third party access to the iTunes database.
No, Apple doesn't write the sync software for you. Why should they? Write your own.
The point about legacy DRMed music is interesting. Do DRMed files work on a Pre synced through iTunes?
If you have a song you bought on iTunes that is DRM'd, you cannot sync it except through iTunes, which will only connect to Apple hardware.
Well it's a good thing iTMS doesn't sell DRM'ed music any more, then, isn't it? And even if you did have such a file, it wouldn't matter if you could sync it anyhow, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T PLAY.
You're right, proof of that is that IE and Safari still add the string Mozilla to their User-Agents.
If that ensures compatibility, of Palm's products, I guess they are making the effort to keep their customers happy (even though iTunes, at least for Windows, is the worst piece of software ever).
I see most comments here are taking the bait and going with what (I'm sure) Palm wants the debate to centre around.
In no particular order, and not to single anyone out, but just to illustrate: "... Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging their own software to look for specific string, and if found cause applications to fail...." "... Or take the easy way, and just introduce proprietary extensions to the protocol, that won't be revealed to third parties...." "... I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?) I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons...."
And so on...
This is not reverse-engineering. This is not circumventing proprietary extensions. This is not hiding code and hunting for it within applications.
This is a Hardware Device ID assigned by the organization that licenses a technology and insures those who use that technology do so in a way that won't, for example, cause a fire, since USB carries power.
The ID is not secret. You can get the hardware device ID of every manufacturer's product from a number of sources, including doing a Properties/Get Info on all the hardware connected to your computer. Software on your device can poll the 3rd party device for the ID string, to, say, load the right driver, or whatever.
"... Apple's concern is that the Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod and people have been calling them about problems with the Pre...."
A post that is much closer to the point. But, we can take it further than that. That post was an example of what could go wrong, with everyone who supports USB. Aside from the fact that this is the highly charged Apple/iTunes/iPod vs The World spin, it's really not about Apple at all.
Many posters have commented (quoted above) about how Palm vs iTunes could play out. And, I'm sure, some of that will come about sooner or later; Palm seems intent on forcing it along with more than a few others. Whatever.
But, it's the method Palm chose that is the real problem. The USB Implementers Forum sees this as the wedge that breaks USB compatibility everywhere. If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Some of that may already be going on, but to have a member of the Forum thumb their nose at the terms of those who insure USB "just works"?
Which is why the USBIF will not let Palm get away with this for much longer.
The questions then becomes what do the USBIF do, and why is Palm insisting on taking this road instead of another? It has as much potential to harm Palm, as a hardware vendor, as anyone else, including Apple.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday October 03, @05:18PM (#29630719)
If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Is that really a problem? If the offshore products are shoddy, people won't use them. If they work well enough, then they work well enough. This isn't about selling the Palm as an Apple iPod.. it's about leveraging the capability of the user's existing software. Palm is not being being advertised as an Apple iPod. Palm is not recommending people complain to Apple about problems with the device, and Apple has no requirement to support it. This isn't about a small no-name company trying to sell an Apell EyePod, after all.
I personally don't see this as any different than a browser spoofing its ID as IE or Firefox to make webpages display right/better, a mouse spoofing its ID to be "Logitech compatible", or Linux spoofing its ID so BIOSs will provide the proper functionality. Obviously iTunes is disabling functionality simply because the the vendor/device ID don't match certain blessed numbers, otherwise Palm would not need to be doing this. All Palm is doing is spoofing those numbers so iTunes won't disable that functionality, and they apparently do enough testing to make sure their product works as advertised.
Apple may not be a monopoly, and this may not run afoul of anti-trust laws, but it reeks of monopolistic (new word?) behavior. Palm's products are functional, and Apple is purposely trying to make them non-functional, for no valid reason.
Good grief. Educate yourself. There have been dozens of comments already pointing out that Apple provides a simple way to access its iTunes library that is free to third-party developers. RIM uses this method for its Blackberry devices.
Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.
Do you really think it's easier for them to write the software to pretend to be an iPod to sync with iTunes than it would be to write software that reads an XML file and cp's a few files that are listed there?
Yes. Yes it is. Especially if your staff is imbedded device programmers. Which may not translate well for good desktop programmers. Changing the identity is probably just changing a string. Writting code for the desktop will need to be testing and work with a slew of different OS's (even just Windows... XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7...) and different default settings. Then you will need to support it over time make sure it is not vulnerable to virus that could make it infect your device...
I am sorry writing software for the masses is much different then writing code for a very select group.
I agree. I accept that Apple is under no obligation to support my Pre usage. But it's a dick move for them to sabotage it.
Here's the thing. I have a computer. I also have iTunes, and Pre. I am giving my Pre express permission to use, on my computer, the Vendor ID code generally used by Apple. And I certainly think that Palm should have the right to help me use their hardware with Apple's software, and I should have the untrammeled right to modify (or to cause to be modified) any existing software on my machine to work properly (or even improperly) with external hardware, as I see fit. Without interference from third parties. Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.
I'm not sure why this is even a debate, it's as if suddenly this topic is inundated with corporate shills for Apple.
[Full disclosure: Although I do have iTunes and a Pre, I would never actually use the Pre as a music player in the first place since the battery is constantly on the verge of dying. And regarding iTunes, the less said the better. I even prefer using WMP.]
Please read the letter USBIF wrote to Palm -- they *expressly* stated that usage of the VID/PID in this manner is a supported and expected function of the USB standard. They are using their VID/PID exactly in the way it was intended for.
It wasn't before iTunes 8.2.1 was released. First it was allowed, then Apple tied the software to the vendor ID, so Palm responded by saying "Hey, I got a better idea: How about you f--- off?" and emulated the vendor ID. To hell with the USB-IF! I applaud Palm for standing up to this: Technology should interoperate as best as it can with other technology, on the simple basis that it's cheaper to not redesign the wheel -- don't engineer what you can just buy is a mantra in most engineering communities, until you get to IT where this kind of anti-social behavior is encouraged. If they don't want to test everything, then fine! Put it in the fine print. The vendorID can then be used for diagnostic purposes as it should -- "Well, we don't support that configuration. Sorry." There's a big difference between departing from interoperability or not testing it because of expense as opposed to intentionally making something not interoperable.
This is a malaise of our profession and we should support every individual, group, and company that tries to get away from it.
iTunes already extends functionality for 3rd parties. Blackberry have iTunes syncing, the proper way, and have had it for quite some time. Ditto for many other 3rd parties. Palm refusing to implement syncing with their device the proper way isn't promoting some kind of compatibility, it's just being lazy. And they are breaking the USB spec to do it, thus introducing non-standard behavior from a device.
Palm isn't doing what it can to provide compatibility, in fact, what they are doing is illegal in that they are breaking their contract with the USB-IF. Contract law is law, and breaking a contract is unlawful, ie illegal.
Contract law is law, and breaking a contract is unlawful, ie illegal.
We can get into a debate over the proper definition of "illegal", but the way you seem to be using it implies that, in the eyes of the law, breaking a contract is somehow discouraged as a matter of public policy. It isn't. Yes, the party you've contracted with can sue you if you breach, but the law actually goes to some lengths to permit breaches of contract to the extent that they promote economic efficiency.
From Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Nowhere is the confusion between moral and legal ideas more manifest than in the law of contract...The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it - and nothing else.
What license? Blackberry pay no license, they just sync with iTunes in the proper manner, by reading and writing the iTunes XML file. Of course, this requires that they write their own sync software.
> If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that
You are factually wrong here. Palm are the only ones that broke the USB spec by sending Apple's vendor ID instead of their own. USB does not connect Pre to iTunes, it connects Pre to OTHER USB DEVICES such as Macs or PC's. Palm has a right to attach to a Mac or a PC, not to iTunes. iTunes itself is not now and has never been a USB device.
Pre can be plugged into Mac or PC and mount as USB mass storage, charge over USB power, and even attach as a USB audio interface or USB mouse if it wants to do that. Nobody is stopping that. However, there is no USB standard for media sync. There's no USB codes to say "I'm a media player with a syncable library." The iPod syncs with iTunes using proprietary commands because they are both part of the same system, not a breeding ground for 3rd parties like Microsoft makes.
Now, maybe there should be a USB standard for media sync. If you think so, you may want to promote that idea. Palm may even want to promote that idea. Apple may even allow USBIF to just standardize what the iPod is already doing, same as MPEG-4 is a standardization of the Apple QuickTime file format, same as the HTML5 canvas tag is a standardization of the Mac OS Dashboard. However, what you're demanding is that Apple create and maintain a 3rd party synchronization scheme without any standardization at all. That's like saying Microsoft should write all the Web standards because IE has 50%+ market share. That is not standardization.
I also have to point out that compatibility is not free. It's incompatibility that is free, and compatibility takes work. The iPod and Mac are both USB-compatible because Apple did the work to make them so, same as Pre required work from Palm to make it USB compatible. They implement the spec and so they can talk to each other using "USB language" and get things done for the user. There are no words for "media sync" in the USB language as yet. They have to be created. It takes fucking work. That work has not been done yet by anyone, least of all Palm. Demanding that we nationalize iTunes is a poor substitute for actual industry co-operation on a media sync standard.
Finally, I have to say that the fact that your little fact-free, law-free, anti-Apple bigotry got a score of 5 on Slashdot says bad things about the technical knowledge of today's Slashdot readers. Truly guys, if you want your Pre to have a particular feature, ASK PALM TO BUILD IT FOR YOU. Do not complain that Apple didn't build it for you. They are not your vendor. They are just a totally uninvolved vendor whose USB ID is being misused. The only action Apple has taken was to improve iTunes' ability to recognize iPods now that another device is pretending to be an iPod.
While I share your opinion that it's Apple's right to block Palm, I just want to mention that, contrary to traditional slashdot wisdom, antitrust law does not require a monopoly. It also prohibits so-called "unfair business practices". Another case where no real monopoly is needed is multi-company collusion, though I admit that such conduct has the effect of a de facto monopoly.
It's a fair question to debate the morality of blocking interoperatability. I like Apple, and it seems wrong for Palm to get a free ride on Apple's work, but where would the PC world be without interoperatability and standards? Why not allow printer manufactures to block third-party ink and toner suppliers? It's not easy, and anyone with too firm an opinion on this has probably not thought it through.
But again, Apple does offer interoperability, in a documented and supported way. Palm not using said interop mechanisms doesn't mean they don't exist. Going so far as to break the USB spec to not use the proper and documented way is getting even more ridiculous and shows that they will stoop to any low to save a buck.
IANAL *BUT* I do believe that Palm can legally do whatever they like with the USB-compatible ports but what they might be doing wrong is continuing to call the port USB. to be USB to must meet the specs, and palm is breaking those specs so might be in trademark violation of the USB name and logo. They could just name the port something else and maintain compatability but I done think it is legit to call the port a USB port.
I do believe that Palm can legally do whatever they like with the USB-compatible ports but what they might be doing wrong is continuing to call the port USB.
Unless USB-IF ties the USB patent license to the USB logo license.
Or USB-IF could revoke the patent license because Palm is not following their regulations. Then Palm can be sued for patent infringement.
Which'll never happen. Palm may not have the best product now, but they had several years' head start on just about everyone. Can you imagine how many iPhone features are covered by Palm patents?
If Apple sues Palm, or if they start a proxy war through the USB-IF, they might as well move their company from California to East Texas, because they'll spend the rest of their lives in patent litigation.
Brief answer: Yes, a mere figment. The Apple Newton is recognizably an ancestor to the current iPhone/iPod touch. The Psion products from the late 80's are more like pocket calculators with an attitude. Apple created the category of PDA's at least a decade too early and dropped it because of the product being commercially untenable at the time. Remarkably they managed to sneak back in under the pretense of creating media players and arrived just as the needed technology and infrastructure matured.
To be less brief in my dismissal of Psion compare the API's and development system that Apple provided for third party developers for the Newton versus what Psion had. The difference was much more than slight.
If apple does offer "interoperability, in a documented and supported way" why does palm (And Linux) have to reverse-enginer the protocol that Apple use??
He means for other devices to sync with iTunes music libraries, which other devices can do by reading the plaintext iTunes XML database. You are confusing that with Apple's attempts to stop people using software other than iTunes to sync iPods.
I have to agree. There would be only one reason for Palm to need to resort to USB ID spoofing. That would be because iTunes treats non-Apple devices differently and probably quite poorly. So in order to get the level of functionality out of iTunes, Palm has to "lie" to iTunes about what it is.
We have seen similar behavior from other vendors and software makers in the past, but quite notably in instant messenger clients and servers, web browsers and in Windows networking.
Suppose MS introduced a new executable format, and as part of that you had to specify vendor in the executable. However people notice something: If MS or one of their partners are specified as the vendor, the app runs at full speed. If anyone else is specified as the vendor, the app gets slowed down by the OS. So, other companies take to marking their apps as being made by MS, so that they don't run slower.
Would they be wrong to do this? Should MS be allowed to harm their apps on purpose?
This is the same sort of thing Apple is doing. It isn't a case of Apple saying "We don't support 3rd party devices, we aren't going to help make your stuff work." That would be fine. It is a case of them putting in an artificial check for the specific purpose of breaking compatibility with a competitors device.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday October 03, @03:21PM (#29629719)
I have to agree. There would be only one reason for Palm to need to resort to USB ID spoofing. That would be because iTunes treats non-Apple devices differently and probably quite poorly
The iTunes softwaredoes treat non-Apple devices differently. It ignores them. Apple doesn't want to support other hardware with their syncing software, and aren't legally required to do so.
What they did instead was provide an API so anyone can access the media in your iTunes library. Plenty of other devices are able to access that library using the documented method, including the PS3 and Xbox 360 (3rd party software broadcasts your library through a UPnP server).
So there is more than one reason Palm "has" to resort to USB ID spoofing. And that additional reason is their laziness and cheapness about developing their own syncing software as stated above. This has been a long-standing problem with Palm devices. They gave up producing Mac sync software in particular from almost day one of their history, necessitating the development of third party tools such as "The Missing Sync for Palm".
Simliar to the reasoning above, you might say that Palm was in violation of anti-trust, since they had the most popular PDA of the time, and didn't support non-Windows platforms, forcing Apple and Linux users to reverse engineer the device's protocol and file structure.
The iTunes software does treat non-Apple devices differently. It ignores them. Apple doesn't want to support other hardware with their syncing software, and aren't legally required to do so.
Actually, iTunes has built in support for a limited number of 3rd party hardware devices. Some of that is legacy support carried over from the old SoundJam app that iTunes evolved from. (I have an old Rio 500 which used SoundJam for sync, and later iTunes.)
There are also some phones other than the iPhone hat legitimately sync with iTunes, such as the Moto ROKR and SLVR. (I own a SLVR also.)
Apple may not be legally required to support other devices with iTunes, but they have in the past and they could probably be convinced to do so in the future. It might cost some money, but I'm sure an arrangement could be made.
Totally agreed that Palm is being lazy and cheap by not writing their own sync software, or paying for someone else's product.
Reading the XML file doesn't support playlists? Really?
There sure is lots of information under the following headings in my XML file for some reason (brackets have been altered to get past the HTML tag filter):
Please be quiet if you don't know what you are talking about. There really is no excuse for palm being too lazy or incompetent to develop their own syncing software.
BSD specifically allows the use that NeXT and then Apple put their operating system to. You say "stolen" but that is nothing whatsoever like the truth.
You say Apple give nothing back unless threatened. I point to Darwin, which was open sourced right from the day the public beta was released, and ever since.
You're strong on rhetoric, but very short on substance. That you were modded insightful saddens me, as Slashdot used to be a little more accurate than this.
Microsoft's not a monopoly either, but they were still accused of monopolistic practices and forced by the EU to open their Windows setup to multiple browsers (the "choose your browser" install popup). If Apple continues down this path, considering the iStore and iTunes represent 85% of all online music sales, then they too will be forced to open-up their software by the EU or the US DOJ.
So:
Is there a method Palm can use to import my iStore-purchased music into their devices, and not break the law or USB-IF rules?
Is there a method Palm can use to import my iStore-purchased music into their devices, and not break the law or USB-IF rules?
Yes, there is, and yes, it's documented and supported, and yes, other 3rd parties are using it right now (Blackberry). iTunes keeps a copy of its database as an XML file which is kept up to date. The files themselves are stored on your hard drive and their location is written to this XML file. Any software can read in this file and then sync to any device it wants. Many 3rd parties are already doing it, be it stand-alone syncing software (doubletwist, The Missing Sync) or vendor provided syncing solutions (Blackberry's media desktop).
You're missing the point. Palm isn't (I don't think?) trying to claim that Apple is required to remain compatible with third-party devices. Palm is claiming that Apple is required to not intentionally DISABLE third-party devices for the sole purpose of remaining the only company with a device that can sync with your software.
Look, it's one thing to unintentionally break functionality due to a change your API in order to offer new features or functionality, and because you don't want to spend your resources supporting third-party devices. But it's quite another to intentionally break them just because you don't want them to use your software.
Ubiquitous car analogy: You buy a Honda Civic and your alternator breaks. Joe's Alternators has a third-party alternator that will work fine and is cheaper/has better features/whatever, but the next time you take your car in for service, they update your vehicles firmware, and now the alternator won't work. If Honda accidentally disabled the alternator because all of their new alternators have been updated to a tighter spec, hey; that's life. But does Honda have the right to disable all third-party alternators just because they want you to buy *their* alternator? Isn't that the very definition of anti-competitive?
So you're saying Apple has more market share thanks to a better product ? Isn't that how competition works ?
But more to the point, monopolies aren't just about market share, they are about a control position in a market. If tomorrow Apple decided to try and lock out other vendors, consumers have dozens of alternatives they can use and Apple will just be a bad memory.
This is very true. I own an iPhone because Safari is pretty much the best mobile browser in a phone out there and because the app store is fantastic. As a music/video player though? It's WAY Behind the curve. It's not even funny. Apple makes players that are low on features and high on price. Here's some glaring omissions that pretty much every competitor has in players that have half the cost:
1) No transcoding. These days, most players will just play DivX natively. Not only do you have to transcode every file for the Iphone/Ipod touch/etc --- but apple doesn't even give you the software for it. Seroiusly. iTunes does not support transcoding from any of the most common internet video codecs/formats. About all it can convert on its own is mpeg/uncompressed avi/quicktime into h.264. This is ridiculous. Not only are they lacking in key functionality, but they force you to find third party software to overcome this deficit.
2) Hard drive mode support. Almost every other player lets you just view your video/mp3 files on the device as a hard drive and copy files back and forth as you see fit without using ANY software other than your operating system. You want to sync your files? Use iTunes. Nevermind that it's one of the buggiest/bloated/unintuitive/god awful pieces of software I've ever used. You're stuck with it.
3) Audio codecs. Apple players don't even support half of the codecs that other players support. Again, this is part of their strategy to lock you into the "itunes" universe.
I could rant for days, but I won't. The iPod touch is a great device, for separate reasons. But Apple does not make good mp3 players. They make some aesthetically pleasing, but very expensive ones and that's just about the nicest thing you can say about them. While my iPhone does frustrate me as a media player, it's "good enough" that I don't bother owning another player. But believe me, if I only wanted a music player, Apple wouldn't even be considered for a second -- and yet somehow, even excluding the iPod touch, they dominate that market. It's not because of superior products.
They established any early monopoly when they bought all pretty much all the 1.5inch hard drives and were, as a direct result, the only company making a small-form factor high-storage mp3 player at the time. Nobody else could offer the same amount of storage without making the player significantly larger. Even though their player was inferior in any number of other ways, this sold ipods. It got Apple a monopoly they still enjoy today, and believe me, they aren't "playing nice" in their efforts to keep it. They're not above using anti-competitive (though perhaps still legal, IANAL) tactics in order keep that monopoly. This whole Pre/iTunes syncing affair is merely one of them.
Apple is complaining because it signed a contract with the USB IF and paid a great deal of money/legal expense/time/hoop jumping to obtain a USB vendor ID: a unique identifier for their company, assured by the USB IF that any device that reports this little code is an Apple product.
They're not complaining about competition. They even offer a way to use third party music players sync and work with iTunes - they just don't include in the instructions and API "copy our vendor ID and pretend to be an iPod".
The actual legal standard for a monopoly is the ability to set prices without regard to the offerings of competitors. MS was ruled a monopoly on PC OSes because they could set the price of Windows at several hundred dollars (retail) and ~$50.00 for OEMs even though their competition, (linux, the various open source BSDs, etc.) cost zero dollars.
In order for Apple to be ruled a monopoly in the digital music player market, they would need to be proven to have the ability to set the prices for ipods without regard for the price of other music players. This would be a very tough sell in a court of law.
The argument that iTunes has any sort of monopoly would be even tougher because it is free, and the legal definition relates to *inflated* price of the supposed monopoly holder's offering.
The argument that the iTunes music store is any sort of monopoly would similarly have to rely on Apple being able to price their song offings at an exorbitantly high level. Again this would be a very tough sell.
So, from an anti-trust perspective, it would be very hard for Palm or anyone else to argue that Apple is a monopoly.
Paul may (or may not) have a legal argument for using Apple's vendor ID from the perspective of interoperability, but the monopoly argument is not very likely to fly for the simple reason that Apple has real competitors in all these areas. These competitors' products are not prices so wildly below Apple's that Apple could be considered a legal monopoly in any of these three areas (digital music player, pc software for organizing/playing/purchasing digital music, online sales of digital music).
Apple is just winning because their offerings are preferred by the buying public, not because they've got any sort of lock-in strangle hold on the market.
That's just it: They're issuing updates to explicitly BREAK interoperability. On two markets they have a 'monopoly' similar to MS with windows - portable MP3 players and online music downloads. That stinks of unfair or anti-competitive business practices and plenty of other random legal terms.
What if MS decided that all windows programs needed to be signed and licensed and sold through an app store they controlled?
I'm sure this will wind up in court with lots of bickering, motions, friend-of-the-court nonsense, appeals and so on. In reality we'd do better to just let the kids duke it out on the playground and see what happens. Would be even funnier if Apple implemented a hash check and palm found a collision to match it without 'stealing' code:)
It's not even code theft. It's reporting to be Apple, using a vendor ID unique code that Apple paid the USB IF for - a code that was assured to be unique to Apple.
No one is breaking the law on either side. Palm is breaking a contract with the USB IF though, and Apple has every right to ensure that devices that report Apple's unique, purchased USB ID on the USB bus are in fact Apple devices.
The analogy I would use is that Palm is forging tickets to a free concert put on by Apple - it's not illegal, and the concert venue has every right to impose more stringent security checks to look more closely for fraudulent tickets.
You're welcome to think what you want, but the fact is that if you have to break a standard to be compatible, no law prevents you from doing so and ethics say you should. If a contract is used to keep you from being compatible, you can probably both overturn the contract and win damages.
USB-IF can't really force companies to use any particular ID if some of the vendors are using the fact of the ID to lock out compatibility. They are really ripe for anti-trust if they persist in trying to do so.
Bruce. Stop it with the intellectual dishonesty already. Google "parsing iTunes XML" and you will find a treasure trove of code to parse the iTunes XML library. But even without bothering to licence someone else's code, Palm could easily write their own parser. It is dead easy in either Objective C or.NET/Mono. Apple provides full access to the library including playlists through the iTunes Library.xml file. Syncing contacts and pictures are not something that Apple is under any obligation to provide to third parties. It was not originally a feature of iTunes and was only added to support iPods and the iPhone. There are plenty of syncing libraries offered by parties other than Apple to do that on windows and OS X.
As long as USB-IF acted to coordinate compatibility between manufacturers, they were legally OK. The moment that they acted to actually enforce incompatibility, on behalf of Apple, they stepped into really deep trouble. Because USB-IF really is a clear monopoly and a trust. And they created really good evidence of being a harmful monopoly by acting to enforce incompatibility. Palm will make this point to the Federal government. Then, USB-IF will have to get Apple to play nice, to save themselves.
Apple may also be seen as a monopoly - I think Palm has a good chance of making that point in court, going by the market share, and the size of the secondary market of various iPod-specific devices.
One difference: with Ethernet, duplication of MAC addresses causes a malfunction of the network itself. Prefixes are assigned to companies for a technical purpose: to insure no two companies ever manufacture cards that share an address. The USB vendor ID isn't used for addressing, so as long as the device correctly implements the capabilities it advertises itself as implementing (which aren't tied to vendor ID) there should be no hardware-level malfunctions. Apple's trying to use the vendor ID merely to block sync with devices that would otherwise be technically perfectly capable of correctly syncing with iTunes. IMO it's Apple's right to try that, but nobody else is obliged to go along with them.
I'd note that vendor impersonation has a long history. Microsoft themselves do it, Internet Explorer to this day claims to be Mozilla in it's user-agent string, and this was done with the deliberate intention of fooling Web servers into thinking it was actually Netscape.
After all Apple is just about inviting this type of solution.
How exactly is Apple inviting USB spoofing when they already have a fully functional, documented API and plug-in framework to be used for the purpose of syncing 3rd-party devices?
Rabid Apple haters are just as ridiculous and illogical as extreme Apple fanbois; they've just chosen the opposite extreme. Either way, you're throwing good sense out the door in order to pretend the world really is how your suppose it is (either Apple is always evil or Apple can do no wrong).
This forum sure contains a lot of ridiculous and close-minded people for a group that fancies itself to have above-average intellect.
I remember (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?)
I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons.
Also, the argument that Apple needs to break compatibility in order to protect itself is complete bullshit. If my Palm doesn't sync with iTunes, I'm going to bitch about it to Palm. Nobody expects iTunes to work.
Re:I remember (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I remember (Score:4, Insightful)
BlackBerry just released their desktop software for the Mac [blackberry.com], which syncs with iTunes.
Mark/Space [markspace.com] produce software which syncs Windows CE devices, Palm devices (including the Pre!) and Android devices with the iTunes library.
Mark/Space and BlackBerry use the supported APIs, so they haven't had any problems with Apple disallowing their sync functionality. (Mark/Space's products have been sold for years now.) Palm are just being lazy, because they don't want to have to write and support their own sync code.
Parent
Re:I remember (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I remember (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they "allow" it by providing a human readable, documented XML file which is kept updated by iTunes only for the convenience of third parties (iTunes uses it's own, binary database). I'm not sure what more they could do to "allow" third party access to the iTunes database.
No, Apple doesn't write the sync software for you. Why should they? Write your own.
The point about legacy DRMed music is interesting. Do DRMed files work on a Pre synced through iTunes?
Parent
Re:I remember (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a song you bought on iTunes that is DRM'd, you cannot sync it except through iTunes, which will only connect to Apple hardware.
Well it's a good thing iTMS doesn't sell DRM'ed music any more, then, isn't it? And even if you did have such a file, it wouldn't matter if you could sync it anyhow, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T PLAY.
Parent
Re:I remember (Score:5, Interesting)
If that ensures compatibility, of Palm's products, I guess they are making the effort to keep their customers happy (even though iTunes, at least for Windows, is the worst piece of software ever).
Parent
USB, people ... USB (Score:5, Insightful)
I see most comments here are taking the bait and going with what (I'm sure) Palm wants the debate to centre around.
In no particular order, and not to single anyone out, but just to illustrate: ... Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging their own software to look for specific string, and if found cause applications to fail. ..." ... Or take the easy way, and just introduce proprietary extensions to the protocol, that won't be revealed to third parties. ..." ... I remember a time when it was legal to reverse engineer things for compatibility purposes. (Was a long time ago... the 90s, perhaps?) ..."
"
"
"
I lot of people are complaining the Palm thing smacks of fraud, but it is no different than telling Microsoft Word that the document is opening was made by Word instead of Open Office for compatibility reasons.
And so on ...
This is not reverse-engineering. This is not circumventing proprietary extensions. This is not hiding code and hunting for it within applications.
This is a Hardware Device ID assigned by the organization that licenses a technology and insures those who use that technology do so in a way that won't, for example, cause a fire, since USB carries power.
The ID is not secret. You can get the hardware device ID of every manufacturer's product from a number of sources, including doing a Properties/Get Info on all the hardware connected to your computer. Software on your device can poll the 3rd party device for the ID string, to, say, load the right driver, or whatever.
" ... Apple's concern is that the Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod and people have been calling them about problems with the Pre. ..."
A post that is much closer to the point. But, we can take it further than that. That post was an example of what could go wrong, with everyone who supports USB. Aside from the fact that this is the highly charged Apple/iTunes/iPod vs The World spin, it's really not about Apple at all.
Many posters have commented (quoted above) about how Palm vs iTunes could play out. And, I'm sure, some of that will come about sooner or later; Palm seems intent on forcing it along with more than a few others. Whatever.
But, it's the method Palm chose that is the real problem. The USB Implementers Forum sees this as the wedge that breaks USB compatibility everywhere. If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Some of that may already be going on, but to have a member of the Forum thumb their nose at the terms of those who insure USB "just works"?
Which is why the USBIF will not let Palm get away with this for much longer.
The questions then becomes what do the USBIF do, and why is Palm insisting on taking this road instead of another? It has as much potential to harm Palm, as a hardware vendor, as anyone else, including Apple.
Re:USB, people ... USB (Score:5, Insightful)
If Palm gets away with this, every offshore vendor gets away with it too. USB Cameras made by some unheard-of offshore vendor now report to Canon software as Canon cameras. Any and all hardware that uses USB can now be spoffed by offshore knock-offs. Support issues, as mentioned by a poster here, are real concerns amongst every hardware vendor and cost real money.
Is that really a problem? If the offshore products are shoddy, people won't use them. If they work well enough, then they work well enough. This isn't about selling the Palm as an Apple iPod.. it's about leveraging the capability of the user's existing software. Palm is not being being advertised as an Apple iPod. Palm is not recommending people complain to Apple about problems with the device, and Apple has no requirement to support it. This isn't about a small no-name company trying to sell an Apell EyePod, after all.
I personally don't see this as any different than a browser spoofing its ID as IE or Firefox to make webpages display right/better, a mouse spoofing its ID to be "Logitech compatible", or Linux spoofing its ID so BIOSs will provide the proper functionality. Obviously iTunes is disabling functionality simply because the the vendor/device ID don't match certain blessed numbers, otherwise Palm would not need to be doing this. All Palm is doing is spoofing those numbers so iTunes won't disable that functionality, and they apparently do enough testing to make sure their product works as advertised.
Apple may not be a monopoly, and this may not run afoul of anti-trust laws, but it reeks of monopolistic (new word?) behavior. Palm's products are functional, and Apple is purposely trying to make them non-functional, for no valid reason.
Parent
Re:USB, people ... USB (Score:5, Insightful)
Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.
Parent
Re:USB, people ... USB (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think it's easier for them to write the software to pretend to be an iPod to sync with iTunes than it would be to write software that reads an XML file and cp's a few files that are listed there?
Yes. Yes it is. Especially if your staff is imbedded device programmers. Which may not translate well for good desktop programmers. Changing the identity is probably just changing a string. Writting code for the desktop will need to be testing and work with a slew of different OS's (even just Windows... XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, 7...) and different default settings. Then you will need to support it over time make sure it is not vulnerable to virus that could make it infect your device...
I am sorry writing software for the masses is much different then writing code for a very select group.
Parent
Re:USB, people ... USB (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I accept that Apple is under no obligation to support my Pre usage. But it's a dick move for them to sabotage it.
Here's the thing. I have a computer. I also have iTunes, and Pre. I am giving my Pre express permission to use, on my computer, the Vendor ID code generally used by Apple. And I certainly think that Palm should have the right to help me use their hardware with Apple's software, and I should have the untrammeled right to modify (or to cause to be modified) any existing software on my machine to work properly (or even improperly) with external hardware, as I see fit. Without interference from third parties. Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.
I'm not sure why this is even a debate, it's as if suddenly this topic is inundated with corporate shills for Apple.
[Full disclosure: Although I do have iTunes and a Pre, I would never actually use the Pre as a music player in the first place since the battery is constantly on the verge of dying. And regarding iTunes, the less said the better. I even prefer using WMP.]
Parent
Re:USB, people ... USB (Score:5, Insightful)
Please read the letter USBIF wrote to Palm -- they *expressly* stated that usage of the VID/PID in this manner is a supported and expected function of the USB standard. They are using their VID/PID exactly in the way it was intended for.
It wasn't before iTunes 8.2.1 was released. First it was allowed, then Apple tied the software to the vendor ID, so Palm responded by saying "Hey, I got a better idea: How about you f--- off?" and emulated the vendor ID. To hell with the USB-IF! I applaud Palm for standing up to this: Technology should interoperate as best as it can with other technology, on the simple basis that it's cheaper to not redesign the wheel -- don't engineer what you can just buy is a mantra in most engineering communities, until you get to IT where this kind of anti-social behavior is encouraged. If they don't want to test everything, then fine! Put it in the fine print. The vendorID can then be used for diagnostic purposes as it should -- "Well, we don't support that configuration. Sorry." There's a big difference between departing from interoperability or not testing it because of expense as opposed to intentionally making something not interoperable.
This is a malaise of our profession and we should support every individual, group, and company that tries to get away from it.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Informative)
iTunes already extends functionality for 3rd parties. Blackberry have iTunes syncing, the proper way, and have had it for quite some time. Ditto for many other 3rd parties. Palm refusing to implement syncing with their device the proper way isn't promoting some kind of compatibility, it's just being lazy. And they are breaking the USB spec to do it, thus introducing non-standard behavior from a device.
Palm isn't doing what it can to provide compatibility, in fact, what they are doing is illegal in that they are breaking their contract with the USB-IF. Contract law is law, and breaking a contract is unlawful, ie illegal.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Informative)
FYI:
Contract law is law, and breaking a contract is unlawful, ie illegal.
We can get into a debate over the proper definition of "illegal", but the way you seem to be using it implies that, in the eyes of the law, breaking a contract is somehow discouraged as a matter of public policy. It isn't. Yes, the party you've contracted with can sue you if you breach, but the law actually goes to some lengths to permit breaches of contract to the extent that they promote economic efficiency.
From Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Nowhere is the confusion between moral and legal ideas more manifest than in the law of contract...The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it - and nothing else.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Informative)
and this requires also that you must run their sync software in the background.
Making your competitors run extra software means there isn't an even playing field.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
> If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that
You are factually wrong here. Palm are the only ones that broke the USB spec by sending Apple's vendor ID instead of their own. USB does not connect Pre to iTunes, it connects Pre to OTHER USB DEVICES such as Macs or PC's. Palm has a right to attach to a Mac or a PC, not to iTunes. iTunes itself is not now and has never been a USB device.
Pre can be plugged into Mac or PC and mount as USB mass storage, charge over USB power, and even attach as a USB audio interface or USB mouse if it wants to do that. Nobody is stopping that. However, there is no USB standard for media sync. There's no USB codes to say "I'm a media player with a syncable library." The iPod syncs with iTunes using proprietary commands because they are both part of the same system, not a breeding ground for 3rd parties like Microsoft makes.
Now, maybe there should be a USB standard for media sync. If you think so, you may want to promote that idea. Palm may even want to promote that idea. Apple may even allow USBIF to just standardize what the iPod is already doing, same as MPEG-4 is a standardization of the Apple QuickTime file format, same as the HTML5 canvas tag is a standardization of the Mac OS Dashboard. However, what you're demanding is that Apple create and maintain a 3rd party synchronization scheme without any standardization at all. That's like saying Microsoft should write all the Web standards because IE has 50%+ market share. That is not standardization.
I also have to point out that compatibility is not free. It's incompatibility that is free, and compatibility takes work. The iPod and Mac are both USB-compatible because Apple did the work to make them so, same as Pre required work from Palm to make it USB compatible. They implement the spec and so they can talk to each other using "USB language" and get things done for the user. There are no words for "media sync" in the USB language as yet. They have to be created. It takes fucking work. That work has not been done yet by anyone, least of all Palm. Demanding that we nationalize iTunes is a poor substitute for actual industry co-operation on a media sync standard.
Finally, I have to say that the fact that your little fact-free, law-free, anti-Apple bigotry got a score of 5 on Slashdot says bad things about the technical knowledge of today's Slashdot readers. Truly guys, if you want your Pre to have a particular feature, ASK PALM TO BUILD IT FOR YOU. Do not complain that Apple didn't build it for you. They are not your vendor. They are just a totally uninvolved vendor whose USB ID is being misused. The only action Apple has taken was to improve iTunes' ability to recognize iPods now that another device is pretending to be an iPod.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL *BUT* I do believe that Palm can legally do whatever they like with the USB-compatible ports but what they might be doing wrong is continuing to call the port USB. to be USB to must meet the specs, and palm is breaking those specs so might be in trademark violation of the USB name and logo. They could just name the port something else and maintain compatability but I done think it is legit to call the port a USB port.
Parent
Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
I do believe that Palm can legally do whatever they like with the USB-compatible ports but what they might be doing wrong is continuing to call the port USB.
Unless USB-IF ties the USB patent license to the USB logo license.
Parent
Re:Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Or USB-IF could revoke the patent license because Palm is not following their regulations. Then Palm can be sued for patent infringement.
Which'll never happen. Palm may not have the best product now, but they had several years' head start on just about everyone. Can you imagine how many iPhone features are covered by Palm patents?
If Apple sues Palm, or if they start a proxy war through the USB-IF, they might as well move their company from California to East Texas, because they'll spend the rest of their lives in patent litigation.
Parent
Re:Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Brief answer: Yes, a mere figment. The Apple Newton is recognizably an ancestor to the current iPhone/iPod touch. The Psion products from the late 80's are more like pocket calculators with an attitude. Apple created the category of PDA's at least a decade too early and dropped it because of the product being commercially untenable at the time. Remarkably they managed to sneak back in under the pretense of creating media players and arrived just as the needed technology and infrastructure matured.
To be less brief in my dismissal of Psion compare the API's and development system that Apple provided for third party developers for the Newton versus what Psion had. The difference was much more than slight.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
If apple does offer "interoperability, in a documented and supported way" why does palm (And Linux) have to reverse-enginer the protocol that Apple use??
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Informative)
He means for other devices to sync with iTunes music libraries, which other devices can do by reading the plaintext iTunes XML database. You are confusing that with Apple's attempts to stop people using software other than iTunes to sync iPods.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree. There would be only one reason for Palm to need to resort to USB ID spoofing. That would be because iTunes treats non-Apple devices differently and probably quite poorly. So in order to get the level of functionality out of iTunes, Palm has to "lie" to iTunes about what it is.
We have seen similar behavior from other vendors and software makers in the past, but quite notably in instant messenger clients and servers, web browsers and in Windows networking.
Parent
To give people an analogous situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose MS introduced a new executable format, and as part of that you had to specify vendor in the executable. However people notice something: If MS or one of their partners are specified as the vendor, the app runs at full speed. If anyone else is specified as the vendor, the app gets slowed down by the OS. So, other companies take to marking their apps as being made by MS, so that they don't run slower.
Would they be wrong to do this? Should MS be allowed to harm their apps on purpose?
This is the same sort of thing Apple is doing. It isn't a case of Apple saying "We don't support 3rd party devices, we aren't going to help make your stuff work." That would be fine. It is a case of them putting in an artificial check for the specific purpose of breaking compatibility with a competitors device.
Parent
Re:To give people an analogous situation (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft has already been taken to court and lost for behavior that is quite similar to what you describe.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Informative)
The iTunes software does treat non-Apple devices differently. It ignores them. Apple doesn't want to support other hardware with their syncing software, and aren't legally required to do so.
What they did instead was provide an API so anyone can access the media in your iTunes library. Plenty of other devices are able to access that library using the documented method, including the PS3 and Xbox 360 (3rd party software broadcasts your library through a UPnP server).
So there is more than one reason Palm "has" to resort to USB ID spoofing. And that additional reason is their laziness and cheapness about developing their own syncing software as stated above. This has been a long-standing problem with Palm devices. They gave up producing Mac sync software in particular from almost day one of their history, necessitating the development of third party tools such as "The Missing Sync for Palm".
Simliar to the reasoning above, you might say that Palm was in violation of anti-trust, since they had the most popular PDA of the time, and didn't support non-Windows platforms, forcing Apple and Linux users to reverse engineer the device's protocol and file structure.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, iTunes has built in support for a limited number of 3rd party hardware devices. Some of that is legacy support carried over from the old SoundJam app that iTunes evolved from. (I have an old Rio 500 which used SoundJam for sync, and later iTunes.)
There are also some phones other than the iPhone hat legitimately sync with iTunes, such as the Moto ROKR and SLVR. (I own a SLVR also.)
Apple may not be legally required to support other devices with iTunes, but they have in the past and they could probably be convinced to do so in the future. It might cost some money, but I'm sure an arrangement could be made.
Totally agreed that Palm is being lazy and cheap by not writing their own sync software, or paying for someone else's product.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Informative)
Reading the XML file doesn't support playlists? Really?
There sure is lots of information under the following headings in my XML file for some reason (brackets have been altered to get past the HTML tag filter):
(key)Playlists(/key) ...
(array)
(dict)
(key)Name(/key)(string)Library(/string)
(key)Master(/key)(true/)
(key)Playlist ID(/key)(integer)8378(/integer)
(key)Playlist Persistent ID(/key)(string)F71331C9D57061AB(/string)
(key)Visible(/key)(false/)
(key)All Items(/key)(true/)
(key)Playlist Items(/key)
Please be quiet if you don't know what you are talking about. There really is no excuse for palm being too lazy or incompetent to develop their own syncing software.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Insightful)
BSD specifically allows the use that NeXT and then Apple put their operating system to. You say "stolen" but that is nothing whatsoever like the truth.
You say Apple give nothing back unless threatened. I point to Darwin, which was open sourced right from the day the public beta was released, and ever since.
You're strong on rhetoric, but very short on substance. That you were modded insightful saddens me, as Slashdot used to be a little more accurate than this.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's not a monopoly either, but they were still accused of monopolistic practices and forced by the EU to open their Windows setup to multiple browsers (the "choose your browser" install popup). If Apple continues down this path, considering the iStore and iTunes represent 85% of all online music sales, then they too will be forced to open-up their software by the EU or the US DOJ.
So:
Is there a method Palm can use to import my iStore-purchased music into their devices, and not break the law or USB-IF rules?
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Informative)
So:
Is there a method Palm can use to import my iStore-purchased music into their devices, and not break the law or USB-IF rules?
Yes, there is, and yes, it's documented and supported, and yes, other 3rd parties are using it right now (Blackberry). iTunes keeps a copy of its database as an XML file which is kept up to date. The files themselves are stored on your hard drive and their location is written to this XML file. Any software can read in this file and then sync to any device it wants. Many 3rd parties are already doing it, be it stand-alone syncing software (doubletwist, The Missing Sync) or vendor provided syncing solutions (Blackberry's media desktop).
Parent
How do they sync back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Answer: they don't, because iTunes just overwrites the XML file. Apple devices sync back, and so do Palm devices when Apple isn't getting in the way.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's one thing to unintentionally break functionality due to a change your API in order to offer new features or functionality, and because you don't want to spend your resources supporting third-party devices. But it's quite another to intentionally break them just because you don't want them to use your software.
Ubiquitous car analogy: You buy a Honda Civic and your alternator breaks. Joe's Alternators has a third-party alternator that will work fine and is cheaper/has better features/whatever, but the next time you take your car in for service, they update your vehicles firmware, and now the alternator won't work. If Honda accidentally disabled the alternator because all of their new alternators have been updated to a tighter spec, hey; that's life. But does Honda have the right to disable all third-party alternators just because they want you to buy *their* alternator? Isn't that the very definition of anti-competitive?
Parent
Who really needs iTunes, anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying Apple has more market share thanks to a better product ? Isn't that how competition works ?
But more to the point, monopolies aren't just about market share, they are about a control position in a market. If tomorrow Apple decided to try and lock out other vendors, consumers have dozens of alternatives they can use and Apple will just be a bad memory.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very true. I own an iPhone because Safari is pretty much the best mobile browser in a phone out there and because the app store is fantastic. As a music/video player though? It's WAY Behind the curve. It's not even funny. Apple makes players that are low on features and high on price. Here's some glaring omissions that pretty much every competitor has in players that have half the cost:
1) No transcoding. These days, most players will just play DivX natively. Not only do you have to transcode every file for the Iphone/Ipod touch/etc --- but apple doesn't even give you the software for it. Seroiusly. iTunes does not support transcoding from any of the most common internet video codecs/formats. About all it can convert on its own is mpeg/uncompressed avi/quicktime into h.264. This is ridiculous. Not only are they lacking in key functionality, but they force you to find third party software to overcome this deficit.
2) Hard drive mode support. Almost every other player lets you just view your video/mp3 files on the device as a hard drive and copy files back and forth as you see fit without using ANY software other than your operating system. You want to sync your files? Use iTunes. Nevermind that it's one of the buggiest/bloated/unintuitive/god awful pieces of software I've ever used. You're stuck with it.
3) Audio codecs. Apple players don't even support half of the codecs that other players support. Again, this is part of their strategy to lock you into the "itunes" universe.
I could rant for days, but I won't. The iPod touch is a great device, for separate reasons. But Apple does not make good mp3 players. They make some aesthetically pleasing, but very expensive ones and that's just about the nicest thing you can say about them. While my iPhone does frustrate me as a media player, it's "good enough" that I don't bother owning another player. But believe me, if I only wanted a music player, Apple wouldn't even be considered for a second -- and yet somehow, even excluding the iPod touch, they dominate that market. It's not because of superior products.
They established any early monopoly when they bought all pretty much all the 1.5inch hard drives and were, as a direct result, the only company making a small-form factor high-storage mp3 player at the time. Nobody else could offer the same amount of storage without making the player significantly larger. Even though their player was inferior in any number of other ways, this sold ipods. It got Apple a monopoly they still enjoy today, and believe me, they aren't "playing nice" in their efforts to keep it. They're not above using anti-competitive (though perhaps still legal, IANAL) tactics in order keep that monopoly. This whole Pre/iTunes syncing affair is merely one of them.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Funny)
Apple is complaining because it signed a contract with the USB IF and paid a great deal of money/legal expense/time/hoop jumping to obtain a USB vendor ID: a unique identifier for their company, assured by the USB IF that any device that reports this little code is an Apple product.
They're not complaining about competition. They even offer a way to use third party music players sync and work with iTunes - they just don't include in the instructions and API "copy our vendor ID and pretend to be an iPod".
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Informative)
The actual legal standard for a monopoly is the ability to set prices without regard to the offerings of competitors. MS was ruled a monopoly on PC OSes because they could set the price of Windows at several hundred dollars (retail) and ~$50.00 for OEMs even though their competition, (linux, the various open source BSDs, etc.) cost zero dollars.
In order for Apple to be ruled a monopoly in the digital music player market, they would need to be proven to have the ability to set the prices for ipods without regard for the price of other music players. This would be a very tough sell in a court of law.
The argument that iTunes has any sort of monopoly would be even tougher because it is free, and the legal definition relates to *inflated* price of the supposed monopoly holder's offering.
The argument that the iTunes music store is any sort of monopoly would similarly have to rely on Apple being able to price their song offings at an exorbitantly high level. Again this would be a very tough sell.
So, from an anti-trust perspective, it would be very hard for Palm or anyone else to argue that Apple is a monopoly.
Paul may (or may not) have a legal argument for using Apple's vendor ID from the perspective of interoperability, but the monopoly argument is not very likely to fly for the simple reason that Apple has real competitors in all these areas. These competitors' products are not prices so wildly below Apple's that Apple could be considered a legal monopoly in any of these three areas (digital music player, pc software for organizing/playing/purchasing digital music, online sales of digital music).
Apple is just winning because their offerings are preferred by the buying public, not because they've got any sort of lock-in strangle hold on the market.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just it: They're issuing updates to explicitly BREAK interoperability. On two markets they have a 'monopoly' similar to MS with windows - portable MP3 players and online music downloads. That stinks of unfair or anti-competitive business practices and plenty of other random legal terms.
What if MS decided that all windows programs needed to be signed and licensed and sold through an app store they controlled?
I'm sure this will wind up in court with lots of bickering, motions, friend-of-the-court nonsense, appeals and so on. In reality we'd do better to just let the kids duke it out on the playground and see what happens. Would be even funnier if Apple implemented a hash check and palm found a collision to match it without 'stealing' code :)
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even code theft. It's reporting to be Apple, using a vendor ID unique code that Apple paid the USB IF for - a code that was assured to be unique to Apple.
No one is breaking the law on either side. Palm is breaking a contract with the USB IF though, and Apple has every right to ensure that devices that report Apple's unique, purchased USB ID on the USB bus are in fact Apple devices.
The analogy I would use is that Palm is forging tickets to a free concert put on by Apple - it's not illegal, and the concert venue has every right to impose more stringent security checks to look more closely for fraudulent tickets.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:5, Insightful)
USB-IF can't really force companies to use any particular ID if some of the vendors are using the fact of the ID to lock out compatibility. They are really ripe for anti-trust if they persist in trying to do so.
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple's activity is criminal here, Palm's is le (Score:4, Informative)
Apple may also be seen as a monopoly - I think Palm has a good chance of making that point in court, going by the market share, and the size of the secondary market of various iPod-specific devices.
Parent
Re:Stop buying from Apple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Third possible explanation:
They don't let a political argument between two companies stand in the way of buying the device they see as best suiting their needs.
Parent
Re:I Wonder What Would Happen If... (Score:5, Interesting)
One difference: with Ethernet, duplication of MAC addresses causes a malfunction of the network itself. Prefixes are assigned to companies for a technical purpose: to insure no two companies ever manufacture cards that share an address. The USB vendor ID isn't used for addressing, so as long as the device correctly implements the capabilities it advertises itself as implementing (which aren't tied to vendor ID) there should be no hardware-level malfunctions. Apple's trying to use the vendor ID merely to block sync with devices that would otherwise be technically perfectly capable of correctly syncing with iTunes. IMO it's Apple's right to try that, but nobody else is obliged to go along with them.
I'd note that vendor impersonation has a long history. Microsoft themselves do it, Internet Explorer to this day claims to be Mozilla in it's user-agent string, and this was done with the deliberate intention of fooling Web servers into thinking it was actually Netscape.
Parent
Re:An unsophisticated crime (Score:4, Insightful)
After all Apple is just about inviting this type of solution.
How exactly is Apple inviting USB spoofing when they already have a fully functional, documented API and plug-in framework to be used for the purpose of syncing 3rd-party devices?
Rabid Apple haters are just as ridiculous and illogical as extreme Apple fanbois; they've just chosen the opposite extreme. Either way, you're throwing good sense out the door in order to pretend the world really is how your suppose it is (either Apple is always evil or Apple can do no wrong).
This forum sure contains a lot of ridiculous and close-minded people for a group that fancies itself to have above-average intellect.
Parent