Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 13:25 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems We have a new chapter in the Palm Pre and iTunes saga. We all remember that the Pre could sync with iTunes, but that Apple wasn't particularly keen on this. The Cupertino company issued an iTunes which intentionally broke Pre syncing, but Palm retorted by re-enabling it not long after. Palm also sent a complaint to the USB Implementers Forum about Apple's behaviour, but the USB-IF squarely sides with Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 385697
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
seems like the right ruling
by jabbotts on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 13:59 UTC
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

I have to agree with that ruling. Apple limiting iTunes connectivity to there own hardware products is a little scummy and sad that the public accepts this without question.

Palm spoofing another companies USB identification is just flat out wrong though. If I spoof a MAC address to appear as another computer avoiding network filtering; that's clearly unacceptable (assuming no prior permission for testing). Other than being a USB signal instead of network signal, Palm's actions are no different.

True though, this also means an ongoing hopscotch of soundbites for the marketing teams.

Reply Score: 4

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple limiting iTunes connectivity to there own hardware products is a little scummy and sad.


Why is that scummy and sad? The whole of the Apple product design philosophy is based on tying hardware design very closely to software design so as to produce an unusually seamless experience for the user. This design philosophy is what underpins the attraction of Apple products to the consumer and hence the success of the company.

Why should Apple let the products of other companies, over which they have no control and whose quality could vary wildly, dilute and disturb the careful software/hardware harmony they have strived so hard to achieve. If Palm want to emulate the Apple iPhone/iTunes bundle fine - but they shouldn't try intrude into and disrupt the careful product ecosystems that Apple has created and then expect Apple to help them

Other companies have other design models. Microsoft for example writes software to run on any old combination of kit that a manufacturer cobbles together - this model has been very successful in the past but it seems to be less successful now, particularly in the new emerging mobile technology markets. Its telling that Microsoft has been drawn more and more into making its own hardware to run its software (Zune, xbox, etc) its just a shame that they seem to make such weak, mediocre, derivative crap from which they seem to make no profit at all. Its also telling that the Zune doesn't work with macs - luckily it doesn't matter.

Reply Parent Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

well, I do realize that I'm not the target customer for Apple's products.

I say scummy because they are limiting a media manager to a single portable player. "Sure, we'll sell you music but you have to install our music manager and you have to use our portable media player." It benefits Apple's shareholders much more than it's customers. This limitation is purely a political business decision versus an actual limitation of the technologies involved.

Accept for a few bad design choices, the iPhone is a very nice bit of hardware to be honest. I'd be hard pressed to turn one down and would even consider spending my own money on it if those decisions where reconsidered. The biggest thing I tripped over when activating one for a client; one must activate it by proving they have a Windows or osX machine with iTunes installed before it's of use though. This is not due to some limitation of the technology but a business decision to force the user's subscription to iTunes. This does not relate directly to the USB issue but it illustrates the same imposed brand loyalty.

I say Sad because the consumer public eats these products up blindly accepting crippled hardware. I wouldn't mind the consumer market getting what it deserves in the same way the US voting public get the government they deserve if the outcome of both votes didn't effect me as much. In terms of Apple, they have a business model including very strong strategy to lock customers in through barriers designed to limit consumer choice and it's sad that the consumers allow it to be such a successful model.

Allowing a consumer who's given Apple money through iTunes to connect a non Apple music player and load content does not dilute the apple experience. iTunes would not suddenly operate differently because it's attached to a none-Apple device.

I do agree that Palm should not spoof hardware identifications or go through other efforts to break the authentication between iWhatever and iTunes. That does not mean I have to accept Apple's decision to bind two naturally separate products together clearly limiting consumer choice.

The topic here isn't what other companies outside of Apple and Palm are doing.

I do feel that what Palm is doing is more wrong than what Apple is doing. And again, I realize I'm not Apple's target customer. Hopefully in a few months I'll be looking at the iPhone and N900 side by side for a close comparison.

Reply Parent Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why should Apple let the products of other companies, over which they have no control and whose quality could vary wildly, dilute and disturb the careful software/hardware harmony they have strived so hard to achieve.


There's a big difference between not supporting products of other companies interfacing with your stuff, and taking steps to actively prevent them from doing so. We had this same discussion on this site when they did the same thing to Real Networks.

I do agree that it's Apple's right to do this, but it's still scummy.

Reply Parent Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The whole of the Apple product design philosophy is based on tying hardware design very closely to software design so as to produce an unusually seamless experience for the user.


That's all well and good - but tight integration between hardware and software doesn't automatically make it necessary to lock-out third-party software.

Why should Apple let the products of other companies, over which they have no control and whose quality could vary wildly, dilute and disturb the careful software/hardware harmony they have strived so hard to achieve.


By that reasoning, Apple shouldn't allow 3rd-party software to run on OS X at all. After all, many of those applications are the products of other companies, over which Apple has no control and whose quality could vary wildly, diluting and disturbing yada yada yada.

If Palm want to emulate the Apple iPhone/iTunes bundle fine - but they shouldn't try intrude into and disrupt the careful product ecosystems that Apple has created and then expect Apple to help them


When has anyone from Palm ever stated that they expect Apple to help them? There's a difference between actively helping someone - and simply refraining from hindering them, everything I've seen indicates that Palm would be happy with the latter.

Edited 2009-09-23 17:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

The whole of the Apple product design philosophy is based on tying hardware design very closely to software design so as to produce an unusually seamless experience for the user.


In your dream.
The whole of the Apple product design philosophy is on tying software with hardware (not the reverse) to sell *their* hardware.

There is numerous examples when end user experience was not as *unsually seamless* as they would expect from Apple.

I sometimes work under or develop for Mac OS X, but that the two reasons why I never bought myself any product from Apple.

The third one is Apple $1 = 1 euro policy. Same reason why I don't buy Nintendo products, too. Hello guys, if I could read currency trading table, you guys could too!...

Reply Parent Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The whole of the Apple product design philosophy is based on tying hardware design very closely to software design so as to produce an unusually seamless experience for the user. This design philosophy is what underpins the attraction of Apple products to the consumer and hence the success of the company.


No, its to produce lockin and so increased sales. Then the marketing takes over and talks nonsense about how OSX relates differently to an Intel processor and a standard hard drive and graphics card and main board than some other OS. Integrated! Does that mean the drivers work? Or that the connectors fit?

This is what makes Apple an ethically challenged company, and what makes lots of us want to have nothing to do with it. OS, hardware, or the wonderfully integrated pair of them. Or iTunes either, integrated with the iPod or not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Because if Apple gets Microsoft like market share then may god help us all. there would be no choice. Apple and the Apple's apologists would love to see us all forced to use apple products. You Apple apologists and trolls would love to see nothing but Apple products in the market place. I say SCREW Apple and the Apple trolls who jump and any chance to defend everything that Apple does yet scream when any other company does what Apple does. Its blatant hypocrisy. Its OK for apple to be anticompetitive but not OK for anyone else to do the same. Apple is a DRACONIAN company. The hate competition and you people are OK with their scummy practices.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: seems like the right ruling
by FunkyELF on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 14:53 in reply to "seems like the right ruling"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Apple limiting iTunes connectivity to there own hardware products is a little scummy and sad that the public accepts this without question.


Its not just Apple limiting iTunes. Its the thousands of 3rd party iPod extras... like my 2010 Camaro which only works with Zune / iPod. I am furious about it.

I don't use iTunes anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

That's the stinky foot in the other shoe; if you have an iThingy, you probably have to have iTunes installed to make it work even if you don't use the media manager after that. iPhone has all the needed features preinstalled including the App Store client yet you'll need to prove you have iTunes installed before you can get the device to a usable state.

For your car, is there not a stereo in jack you can use a mail to mail cable with? Not as slick as a docking station and PMP controls through the stereo nobs but it may be the best option. I've also seen good documentation on how to add your own line in jack if the system has the headers on the back of it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple limiting iTunes connectivity to there own hardware products is a little scummy and sad that the public accepts this without question.


Its not just Apple limiting iTunes. Its the thousands of 3rd party iPod extras... like my 2010 Camaro which only works with Zune / iPod. I am furious about it.

I don't use iTunes anyway.
"

That's not Apple's fault, that's Chevy's fault. My Scion has an iPod connector and a regular aux jack that'll work with anything with a headphone jack. I've got my iPod Touch in one, my satellite radio in the other. Works out nicely.

Reply Parent Score: 3