MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jul 16, 09 - 05:35 pm Comment from: silverhawk

It's intellectual property. If you don't protect it you will eventually lose it. There is no other argument.

Palm should give Pre owners another option: let it sync up with the Zune software

Jul 16, 09 - 05:50 pm Comment from: MacTony

LOL....... Scream all you want. If you bought the Pre, then you should have expected that this was going to happen. Before the people start the "Apple is a monopoly and should be broken up" crap, Apple has 1% of the cell market. So, I don't think that you will get a lot of sympathy from Uncle Sam. But all isn't lost, just go down to your local Apple or AT&T;store and pick up a nice 3G or 3GS and you will have the best smartphone on the market and iTunes.

"Salling Media Sync 1.1 adds Pre capabilities" - http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/07/16/salling.media.sync.11/

So, we really don't need Apple to provide support for anyone else but themselves, since third parties can handle the job.

This isn't much different from the Psystar issue. Apple is under no obligation to allow third-party hardware to run their OS or sync with their iTunes.

Pre bit, and got a mouthful of sour Apple.

Somebody would say 'why not?'. Buy iTunes actually designed to be activated with apple devices only. It is just like zune marketplace thing. Well, windows maybe little more open because it is eventually open source. Mac os x is not. But basically, you need to protect your own.

letting Pre leech onto Apple's iTunes software would be just bad for apple, because people would complain to Apple about issues with any problems synching or bugs that Pre fails to cover. It's kinda like those few people on the App Store that say, "Come on apple this app sucks!" when Apple didn't even make the app.

It's just capitalism the way it should be played.

If they want it, they need to license it. If the license isn't available, develop it yourself. Or better yet, ask Balmer to do it for you for free and see what answer you get from him.

Good luck.

"Edward: ... windows maybe little more open because it is eventually open source" - what?

Jul 16, 09 - 06:39 pm Comment from: Spark

"Well, windows maybe little more open because it is eventually open source."

WHAT??!! Are you kidding. MS software is opposite of open source.

And this was a surprise?

If I see another frigtard pundit or blogger declare that "information wants to be free" I'll smack them upside the head with a clue-by-four. Information access is NOT a right. It is a privilege. And if you value your privacy, as I do, the last thing I want is unfettered access to all information.

A perfect case in point: Recently, an executive of Twitter had his computer hacked, and confidential information about the company was stolen. But Michael Arrington, publisher of blog site TechCrunch decided that he had a divine right to publish STOLEN and CONFIDENTIAL information about a private company, which he announced he would do. The protests have been justifiably scathing.

Apple has invested millions of dollars to develop and market iTunes and the iTunes App Store. It took years of diligent negotiations with content holders to achieve this. So what gives any competitor a divine right to barge in, use a cheap and deceitful trick to do a hardware hack to allow a Palm or any other device to access iTunes? They don't.

The same idiots who howl that Apple is being monopolistic should consider whether they would allow, as another poster said so poignantly and bluntly in a related MDN article, people to casually barge into their home, steal their things, eat their food, have their way with the owner's wife or girlfriend, and crash on their couch. I doubt that they would.

You can't have it both ways. And information is not always free. If a company has no right to protect its intellectual property, we are no longer a Republic beholden to the Rule of Law.

Jul 16, 09 - 07:11 pm Comment from: Scott Rose

Apparently none of these outraged people have heard of "Missing Sync for Palm Pre" or "Salling Media Sync".

And Pre owners are surprised and shocked by this? Should have bought the less expensive iPhone if you wanted to ensure iTunes syncing.

Salkever's logic and analogy are completely flawed. Nice try. The reason Apple did this a) because they could and that is just what they do and b) they hate competition--especially competition that attempts to utilize one of their one or two monopolistic products. Whether the fan-boys will admit it or not, iTunes-while not the best product for what it does-is the most wide spread. Just like Windows. It isn't the best at what it does, but it is the most wide spread.
Apple is all about control. In about 98% of their business decisions they are about control. The hacker community in Apple's view is, well, anti-Apple. They cannot handle the fact that there is someway to use something for some other means besides that which it was intended. You see, Apple is all about innovation and looking outside the box, BUT ONLY if it is Apple doing the innovating or looking outside the box. It is forbidden for any other competing company like Palm to try to innovate, hack or look outside the box. Hmmm Do I smell Microsoft??

Jul 16, 09 - 07:58 pm Comment from: Demon

I love the comments on the original story. Some of them seem to think that Apple will loose iTunes Palm Pre customers and that will have an impact on Apple. The iTunes store is not a big profit center for Apple.

@pcsama

Buy a dictionary. Look up what a monopoly is.

Apple spends money on coding iTunes to sell hardware. Palm, a competitor, tries to use it to make its competing device more valuable using a cheap hack, opposed to developing their own jukebox software. Apple says: No!

Nothing to see here, move on. Nobody has to help their competition make money.

Scott Rose: "Apparently none of these outraged people have heard of "Missing Sync for Palm Pre" or "Salling Media Sync"."

They are outraged that Palm advertised seamless syncing with iTunes as a feature, for which they didn't have to pay extra for, and now they have to both pay extra AND it takes extra steps to sync their Palm to iTunes content.

Jul 16, 09 - 08:12 pm Comment from: james73

Salkever writes, "Naturally, no one seemed to be protesting that iPhone owners couldn't synch their devices with Windows-based music-playing devices or that Pre owners couldn't synch their devices with Blackberry software systems."

Touche!

@Demon

I especially liked the guy who complained how this locked in the paid for content in iTunes, that the pre couldn't play in the first place.

It is not a monopoly because it is not the only [MP3] media player offered in the market.

There are MANY other MP3 players offered by companies such as Microsoft, Sony, Phillips, Sandisk, Creative Labs, etc. People can see [or buy] all of these other MP3 players at Walmart. Or just google for "MP3 media players".

Mind you, iPods are also available at Walmart.

People is free to choose from those many other vendors. Of course they will go for the best.

@pcsama

FYI: Monopolies are not illegal in US law. Period. Got it? Only the ABUSE of monopolistic control IS. Got it? Enabling a clearly inferior and weak competitor with one's own hard-won product line is hardly monopolistic: It is stupid.

And Apple is anything but that. Can the same be said of you? (Or is it just your anti-Apple bias at play here and not your ignorance?)

@Edward -- Google Darwin

Here, I'll make it easier:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Darwin+Open+Source&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Jul 17, 09 - 12:08 am Comment from: justme2

People forget that the only reason we have iPods and iTunes is because all the MP3 players that were out there in 2001 were Windows-only; the first-generation iPod and iTunes were designed to only work on Macs, to fill an open niche that Jobs and his crew saw. It was only when the iPod became the most popular MP3 player on the market that Apple began making them Windows-compatible, and making a Windows-compatible version of iTunes.

As someone mentioned above, there are plenty of ways to sync your Pre; the Missing Sync products have been around about as long as Palm has. Don't expect Apple to roll over and let a competitor use their product for free.

I think this narrow minded approach will get all kind of regulators looking at iTunes rightly or wrongly.

It is also small minded because maybe Pre users are future iPhone users when they realise it's not so hot and ways to help them transfer content will aid their conversion.

@Gosh

Here's 10p. Go buy a clue..

Honestly, what drivel.

Noticed some crybabies that whine about Apple not liking competition. Grow up.

iTunes has been in competition with 10s of music services, and iPods still is in competition with 100s of devices. Every model under the sun has been tried to sink iTunes and iPod. All have failed and are in unmarked graves filled with bankruptcy documents.

Cry babies want to destroy competition by passing restrictions that punish companies hard-earn positions. Obama's FTC is trying to do that with not letting carriers do exclusive deals with phone makers. Shows how damn clueless this idiot community organizer is.

Palm is a squatting whore. They cannot invent their own music service, cut deals with the labels, write their own jukebox software, so they steal Apple's by sneaking in code to co-opt iTunes. Cheap, lazy ass whores.

Jul 17, 09 - 06:11 am Comment from: aaplsaur

Apple has done nothing to prevent Palm from negotiating with record labels to provide their music content to Pre owners through PalmTunes. Palm just doesn't want to do all that work if they can mooch off what Apple has already done.

Pre owners can also buy iTunes DRM free music and use Palm provided syncing software to load it onto theirs Pres. It's not Apple's job to make it easy for Palm or Palm owners. Apple isn't in the music business for the music sales, they're in the music business to make it easy for their iPod and iPhone customers to get content.

Jul 17, 09 - 07:14 am Comment from: kevt

I'm not sure that this was a good move by Apple. Yes, they have the right. Yes, Palm are being parasitic. But none-the-less it will leave a sour taste in the mouth for Pre customers who are potentially future Apple customers, and are probably present iTunes Store customers. Sure Palm is at fault here, but it is not brilliant p.r. for apple.

Jul 17, 09 - 07:37 am Comment from: Big Al

@ Kevt,

Here's 10¢. Go buy yourself a clue.

iTunes is for Apple product syncs only. You want to use iTunes content on other devices, use the syncing software that's out there or drag and drop, like everyone else.

@Live with it:

Shame. You started out so well and then went and screwed up your own argument, and it turned into anti-Obama drivel.

Clearly you don't read too well, because it's congress that wants to look at the issue. This is NOT an Obama initiative.

And have you already forgotten that it was your obvious idol — GWB — that on taking power in 2000 he backtracked on the court ruling to break up Microsoft's monopoly.

Yeah, thought so. Why let facts and history get in the way of your prejudices.

Jul 17, 09 - 09:27 am Comment from: Predrag

Indeed. And that congress got plenty of clues from Apple's competitors that couldn't compete on merit, and now want government to help.

I'd be surprised if the government ever did anything more than just looking into this issue. Anyone with even half a working brain (democrat OR republican) will see right through this and end up annoyed about all the wasted time and money for looking into this non-existent problem.

"The reason Apple did this a) because they could and that is just what they do and b) they hate competition--especially competition that attempts to utilize one of their one or two monopolistic products. Whether the fan-boys will admit it or not, iTunes-while not the best product for what it does-is the most wide spread. Just like Windows. It isn't the best at what it does, but it is the most wide spread."

Speaking of flawed.

"they hate competition" - you're right, Apple is the only company in the world that does not like the competition and does things to combat them. You are so fucking right. Thanks, dude.

"iTunes-while not the best product" - I do not believe that is necessary or even implicit in Salkever's argument. However, the fact that Pre owners are pissed that they cannot use iTunes is telling.

" iTunes-while not the best product for what it does-is the most wide spread. Just like Windows.." These are much different cases. Windows is completely embedded and people cannot change in many enviroments. In addition, for the average computer consumer, certain boxes, eg Dell, only run windows (good luck getting your Mom to install Linux). By stark contrast there are many media player applications on windows and OS X that are easy to download and install. In fact, given that the majority of Pre owners are running windows, they had to download and install iTunes. Are they most familiar with iTunes? Yes. Do they own an iPod and already have iTunes installed? Probably yes. That in no way deters them from downloading and installing a second media player application.

I am sure that Apple enjoyed f'ing Palm in "a" with this move. However, in the big picture, this is really just part of a central tenet of Apple: support only Apple devices so that they just work. Microsoft is at the opposite end - support everything. The result is perhaps best exemplified by Plays For Sure. I think we all know how that turned out. In theory, interoperability is great. In practice, even all of the money, talent (and they have plenty), and resources at Microsoft could not solve the problem for Plays For Sure in a way that did not piss off a large number of users.