MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

May 28, 09 - 09:12 am Comment from: Mick James

One update to Itunes should get rid of that little "feature"........let the dogs loose on 'em Steve!

May 28, 09 - 09:18 am Comment from: Hm...

Why ban the few Pre's that'll be out there — access to ITS will give their owners ample opportunity to see their error...

May 28, 09 - 09:19 am Comment from: almux

Isn't it maaaarvelous?

The Palm Pre is just another flash in the pan. At best it will keep palm alive for another couple years. They are a long way from the Palm 3 devices that made them famous.

But I doubt Apple is going to break it's compatibility merely for syncing with non-DRM music. many players can do that. If they hacked it so it could play FairPlay encrypted discs and other protected works, Apple would be up their ass in a heartbeat. Tim Cooks was referring to the Multitouch capabilities that palm baked into their shitty previous phone and into the Pre, not it's ability to sync.

May 28, 09 - 09:22 am Comment from: Predrag

Out of the gate, the ability for a device to appear in iTunes like an iPod is a significant selling point for many out there who currently have an iPod and a RAZR or something similar. If you tell them Pre is exactly like an iPhone, and back that up with this little tidbit, many would bite.

As Mic James above said, it is unlikely the feature will continue to work for long. As soon as the first Pre is out, and someone in Cupertino gets a hold of one, iTunes 8.1.2 will be unleashed on the unsuspecting Pre owners (as well as the rest of us, for whom it won't matter).

May 28, 09 - 09:28 am Comment from: Predrag

So far, no other device works with iTunes EXACTLY like an iPod. Either there is some middleware software that is able to read iTunes library XML file and show playlists, where user can choose which to sync with their device, or there is some folder action script that will somewhat more transparently automate the process, as long as the user has a specific designated playlist that will be syncronised with the device. All this software works under the premise of the device being a USB flash memory, with a specific folder on it where music should go.

The file structure on the iPod is entirely different, and one has to reverse-engineer iPod in order to figure out how to sync it. It is entirely possible that the tasks required may involve traipsing over Apple's IP.

Roll on July, when we won't have to hear anything more about the DOA Pre....

May 28, 09 - 10:10 am Comment from: jarrettdailynews

June fourth or fifth Apple will file for and injunction, so all of this really won't matter. Very few pre's will see the wild. Just my guess.

May 28, 09 - 10:18 am Comment from: Anonymous©

Fine, anything to reduce the influence of MS is fine by me.

May 28, 09 - 10:29 am Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

"chock-a-block"

That made me chuckle.

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER:

The only reason other devices can't "handle" copy-protected iTunes Store music and video tracks is Apple's insistence on a closed, unlicensed copy-protection scheme. This while shouting from the mountaintops about how they oppose DRM and champion open-source software. Baloney.

Apple continues to operate a lock-in business wherein iTunes store customers can use no other media device than iPod, and iPod owners can use no other media store than iTunes.

May 28, 09 - 10:59 am Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

"IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER:"

That made me laugh.

Not a Palm fan at all, but I do have to say Apple shouldn't disable this syncing. I mean, I remember being able to sync iTunes with my old Creative Nomad in the days before the iPod. They should compete with Palm on the quality of the device, not by adopting Microsoft-style thug tactics.

May 28, 09 - 11:22 am Comment from: Predrag

PC Apologist:

Your message would make more sense a year ago. Right now, every single song on iTunes store is DRM-free and can be loaded onto virtually any device (mobile or otherwise) that plays back popular standard formats. I have a Sony-Ericsson phone and have been loading it with my iTunes Plus music for quite some time now.

Thus, iTunes store customers can use ANY OTHER portable music player. Also, iPod owners can buy from ANY OTHER media store that sells DRM-free music, like iTunes does. Obviously, proprietary, closed systems, such as Microsoft's PlayForSure (or Zune) don't count.

As for music and video, we'll need to get the movie studios on board on that one. Until then, DRM will be there, and tere is no open-standard DRM out there; Apple uses its own FairPlay, other stores use some form of MS DRM.

So, in essence, your post holds no water.

May 28, 09 - 11:24 am Comment from: Predrag

..."as for music and video";

should be ..."as for movies and video".

May 28, 09 - 11:37 am Comment from: Predrag

Heroin,

I disagree. This can't compare with "MS-style thug tactics". iTunes is an integral part of iPod/iPhone. While you CAN use iTunes without an iPod, you simply can't use iPod/iPhone without iTunes. Apple has carefully built this symbiotic eco-system where the total is greater than the sum of parts. It is Apple's property. Nobody is prevented from looking into iTunes Library XML files in order to find where the files and playlists reside. Anyone can therefore develop a software tool to integrate their own hardware with the iTunes library and synchronise outside of iTunes. However, I'm sure Apple will rightfully protect its iTunes nest from the cuckoo eggs from other hardware parasites pretending to be iPods/iPhones. The quality of an iPod device is perceived on the user interface and hardware design of the device itself, but also just as much on the smoothness of integration of hardware and desktop software. Apple has carefully developed this integration and anyone else just leeching off of the concept is basically taking advantage of Apple's work.

May 28, 09 - 12:06 pm Comment from: thethirdshoe

Apple runs the iTunes app store at "break-even" for their apps to promote the sale of iPhones and iPods.

FOR A PRICE, they could also sell apps for the Pre.
There would not be any free apps, from iTunes, for the Pre.

Naw. Aint gonna happen.

Nice that the Pre can sync with iTunes. Too bad that feature costs you $100 more than an iPhone, which does it better anyway.

Would you people consider for a second a possibility that Apple will buy Palm? I know I'm reading tea leaves but there are some compelling “reasons” why Steve and Apple will do this, chief among them is to pay back the guy (Fred Anderson former Apple CFO and now Elevation Partners investor) who took a punch for Steve in the back dating scandal.
Two, Pre’s hardware is so dated it is not even funny, why? My take is that this is so, so that I will not directly compete with the soon to be announce iPhone hardware, not that it touches the iPhone on the software side.
Three, why has Elevation owned publications (Forbes and Fortune) been chalk full of positive iPhone articles and few and far in-between Pre articles when they should be pushing the Pre like there is no tomorrow?
Four, the Pre synching with iTunes.
Five, Webkit, an Apple creation.
Six, Web apps, doesn’t that remind you of the iPhone in 2007?
Seven, Pre and everything about it is a complete rip-off of Apple’s IP, why would Plam do that?
Eight, Palm is broke and freezing their sales for five months could not have been their idea, or could have it been? If it was not their idea then there must be some backer with big pockets like Apple, if not then Palm is run by some dumb mother%**s with no effing clue and they deserve to FAIL!

So what does the troll that posted in other topics under the nick "oneAwake" have to say then? He said "Pre is a phone" and refused to see the 8 gb storage as a huge minus. Who wants music on the phone....

May 28, 09 - 12:31 pm Comment from: LordRobin

If I were Apple, I would be very careful about updating iTunes solely to break syncing with the Pre. If Palm has legally reverse-engineered the syncing function (and I'm sure Apple legal will take a close look), any update to the software with the sole purpose of breaking the Pre could be viewed as anti-competitive. Remember, iTunes has synced with non-iPod players in the past, so Apple can't claim the software is solely for iPods.

Honestly, though, I can't imagine why Apple would care. Syncing with the Pre and other players just helps bolster the dominance of the iTunes Store, which in turn sells more iPods, because every time you open that thing you see ads for stuff that only works with the iPod.

------RM

May 28, 09 - 12:36 pm Comment from: macaholic

Elevation owns Fortune and Forbes? Since when? Fortune is part of Time etc. and i could have sworn Forbes was owned by the Forbes family. Feel free to correct me.

Now they're saying Verizon will offer the Pre in 6 months?.... along with another Blackberry Bold.

Me, I'm getting the next iPhone.

Predrag -

Music purchased in the past few months from iTMS is DRM-free, but the VAST majority of tracks that have been sold have FairPlay on them, as well as every piece of video. So iTMS customers can't use any other video player, and unless they've only just begun purchasing in the past few months, they can't use any other music player either.

MS licensed PlaysForSure and as a result, consumers were able to choose their content retailer(s) and their device(s). Apple has refused, despite deafening calls from content sellers (let iPod users buy content somewhere else) and device-makers (let iTMS customers use another device) to license FairPlay.

Defend it if you must, but don't pretend it's anything less than a lock-in scheme. And when they've sufficiently cornered the market, just like they did with music, they'll drop or license FairPlay and you all will cheer about what a great move they're making, even though it's meaningless (they'll have already crushed the market) and they'll be the last to do it.

@ macaholic: "Elevation owns Fortune and Forbes? Since when? Fortune is part of Time etc. and i could have sworn Forbes was owned by the Forbes family. Feel free to correct me."

Okay, I might be wrong in saying they "own" but they are definitely “part-owners” and I am damn sure about that. I read both publications rather religiously and I have seen from both disclaimers when discussing things to do with Palm and Elevation Partners. A little google check would have taken care of your skepticism...

May 28, 09 - 01:07 pm Comment from: jocknerd

@PC Apologist,

Thats why smart people, like myself, refuse to purchase video from iTunes, just like I rarely bought music on iTunes. I can say that I've purchased more music on iTunes since they went DRM-free than all the time they had DRM. To date, I have not purchased a single video from iTunes store.

May 28, 09 - 01:27 pm Comment from: Willie G

PC Apologist -

You seem to be missing a key point. The DRM that is in place is there because the content providers have insisted it be so. To that end, Apple elected to utilize their own DRM scheme rather than license it from their chief competitor. This was just good business.

And yes, MS licensed Plays for Sure, only as a reaction to the momentum and dominance that Apple and iTunes was gathering. Then, if you will recall, MS abandoned Plays for Sure, shutting down the servers, and leaving their former partners and customers out in the cold. This, in direct contrast was very, very bad business.

Now, you claim that the iTunes/iPod system is a "lock-in scheme". This is a far-reaching half-truth. It is not as if the iPod only supports the DRM encoded media from iTunes. Rather, it supports all standard non-DRM codecs. In this way, my iPod has music and movies on it from my own collection of optical media, and from other DRM free downloaded sources that have nothing whatsoever to do with Apple or iTunes. While it is true that the DRM schemes of iTunes competitors don't work with the iPod, the counter to that is "who cares?". There is nothing offered on these other services that I cannot get in a format that my iPods will recognize.

The licensing scheme of Apple's competitors seems dandy on paper, but the reality is something else completely. What it has lead to is a vast disparity in device quality and user experience. Apple has elected to go with a vertical integration model, allowing them to insure that everyone using their product and service will have the same experience from the intuitive software, to the elegant simplicity of the hardware.

As for your argument about Apple lifting DRM. This shows that while articulate, you remain clueless. Perhaps you will recall Steve Job's open letter calling for an end to DRM. It was written at a time when DRM was still prevalent across all online media marketplaces. This letter created quite a stir, and put a great deal of focus on the true antagonists - the content providers themselves. So, they acquiesced, but only to a point. They started allowing other services to remove their DRM while insisting that Apple keep theirs in place. It took them awhile, but they finally worked that out and we find ourselves where we are now. Of course, those were just the record cartels, Hollywood has yet to have the same revelation, but they will, and it will probably play out exactly as it did with the music industry.

May 28, 09 - 01:39 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

So what, let them sync to iTunes. As long as they don't advertise that as a feature.

May 28, 09 - 02:05 pm Comment from: breeze

3.0 will tell Pre what's not happening....

May 28, 09 - 03:14 pm Comment from: Brau

So ... if Apple opened up iTunes music syncing and *music* sales to other phones/players, would that be a bad thing? They'd only get a mere slice of what's available on an iPod/iPhone and perhaps that would serve to entice more to buying Apple.

May 28, 09 - 04:26 pm Comment from: ken1w

There is no problem if Palm created a Pre interface application that uses the file structure iTunes sets up to store its music and other media files. You can't prevent the use of files stored in folders.

However, Palm should not make the Pre pretend to be an iPod or iPhone, so that it can use iTunes directly. Apple created iTunes to benefit iPod and iPhone users (and a few other devices), and has the right to determine what devices are allowed to interface with it.

May 28, 09 - 07:24 pm Comment from: macaholic

@Mobile me.
ok deal. Best info i can find says Elevation owns 40 % of Forbes, but only recently has this happened. Hardly controlling interest.

Also Fortune is owned by Time-Warner, with no mention of Elevation.

That makes u about 20% right in your statement.
I will submit that most media tech writers are just shills.

@PC Apologist
"... the VAST majority of tracks that have been sold have FairPlay on them, ... So iTMS customers can't use any other ... music player ... "

I know you're not stupid.
But you're a liar, and you know you're lying, and that's what pisses me off about Trolls like you.

(PC Apologist already knows the following. I am presenting this for anyone who might have been fooled by his childish fabrications)

Any music purchased from the iTunes Music Store, at any time, can and could always, be played on any brand of music player.

The instructions for transferring tunes to any player were/are provided by Apple, and even Steve Jobs included the information in an address.
(To send the music files to an iPod or any other player, look under the "Advanced" drop down menu in iTunes.)

PC Apologist, your immature, attention-seeking behaviour has long outlived its cutesy cleverness.