Username or EmailPassword
Yes, but my point is that this entire agreement is with the USB consortium, and I'm not sure whether what's at stake is merely Palm's membership in good standing with that consortium.
That is, I'm not certain that Palm can't just decide that it doesn't care whether it's officially USB compliant and just decide it doesn't care to abide by those terms anymore. If you want to make a "USB" device, and you don't care about having the USB logo, you don't have to sign that contract or agree to any of that. The zillions of small-fry hardware manufacturers out there certainly don't. Now, some of them use the USB logo anyway (and could get sued for trademark infringement) and some don't. But I'm wondering whether Palm could just join their ranks. I mean, who's going to not buy a Pre just because there's no USB logo on the box?
I said you that Palm has an vendor ID, what this story logo? Did you ever see an USB logo on an ipod?
Anyway without it, no Product ID, so it can't sync with iTunes as it first checks for the product ID. So what the point for Palm? Edited 2009-07-25 05:39 UTC
But who gave Palm the vendorID? I believe that it was the USB Implementers Forum that hands out the Product IDs. Just because Apple uses the vendorID to tell what's an Apple iPod and what isn't, doesn't mean that Palm ever made any agreement with Apple to only identify its devices as Palm devices. Palm made that agreement with the USB Implementers Forum. And what I'm wondering is whether Palm can just back out of that agreement. Apple doesn't have anything to do with Palm's relationship with USB Implementers Forum.