Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Oct 2009 19:07 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless So, you thought this whole tug of war over iTunes synchronisation was over, right? The USB Implementers Forum slapped Palm in the face, and exonerated Apple from any wrongdoing. The thing is though, the USB-IF is pretty much a powerless organisation, so Palm tossed them aside, and fixed webOS iTunes sync in webOS 1.2.1.
Thread beginning with comment 387678
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Here we go again...
by FurryOne on Sun 4th Oct 2009 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Here we go again..."
FurryOne
Member since:
2006-01-23

"[q] If syncing with an iTunes library means that much to you, interface with the xml database iTunes provides.


The xml database is crippled. It only contains a subset of the data contained within the actual iTunes library, so it does not provide the same experience as actually integrating with iTunes itself.
"

Could you please elaborate on crippled, since as far as i know you can restore you're itunes library from the xml file. Also, it seems apple agree with me here, http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1451

So again, can you please tell us what exactly is crippled? [/q]

Forget it! "Crippled" to Tom means that Apple isn't going to give away the iTunes application to Palm. Look at all the "Apple bashers" in this thread - have they even read what's been posted?...

EARTH TO APPLE BASHERS... THERE'S A PUBLISHED WAY TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION... RIM DID IT CORRECTLY & LEGALLY...PALM DIDN'T!

Apple is within it's right to block Palm's "non-approved" method. What Palm did may be illegal (It is according to the USB-IF.), but it is definitely unethical. So here's a question for the Moderators of OSNews...

Does OSNews support the continued unethical behavior of Palm?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Here we go again...
by WereCatf on Sun 4th Oct 2009 20:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Apple is within it's right to block Palm's "non-approved" method. What Palm did may be illegal (It is according to the USB-IF.), but it is definitely unethical. So here's a question for the Moderators of OSNews...

Does OSNews support the continued unethical behavior of Palm?


I am not saying it is acceptable behaviour from Palm, but let's look at this thing from a different angle: is it ethical for a company to try to lock a very popular music management and playing application only to their hardware when it could easily support dozens of different devices and which would make life a lot easier for the end-user? I have to say no to that too; artificially limiting the hardware your popular application supports just so you can increase your profits isn't ethical either. The correct and ethical way would be to make it easy for others to support your application and try to make the life for the end-user easy.

You may disagree with me, but try to atleast maintain your calm and argument properly.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Here we go again...
by FurryOne on Sun 4th Oct 2009 22:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again..."
FurryOne Member since:
2006-01-23

... is it ethical for a company to try to lock a very popular music management and playing application only to their hardware when it could easily support dozens of different devices and which would make life a lot easier for the end-user?

Are you actually serious?

The correct and ethical way would be to make it easy for others to support your application and try to make the life for the end-user easy.

You mean so that other devices can sync with your iTunes library, like:

"BlackBerry Desktop Manager Software also integrates BlackBerry Media Sync, enabling Mac users to sync their iTunes music collections with their BlackBerry smartphone." (Quote from MacDailyNews.com)

You may disagree with me, but try to at least maintain your calm and argument properly.

I would if you actually presented a credible argument, but all you've been doing is whining, and you get no points from me for that. Before you whine again about Apple being the bad guy, do some reading. I'd suggest:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/27/why-apple-is-killing-the-p...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Here we go again...
by polaris20 on Mon 5th Oct 2009 03:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Here we go again..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

So how do you feel about other hardware/software lock-ins that no one ever complains about? Because Apple isn't the only one that does this, though they're the only one anyone ever complains about.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

...in several contexts. The court results: it is not proper to use embedded trademark recognition to prevent interoperability -- at least two cases I know of (printers, garage door openers). So the wrong-doer is Apple, here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Here we go again...
by zlynx on Mon 5th Oct 2009 13:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Here we go again..."
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Illegal? Unethical?

How is this any different from setting up Linux and Samba at IP 192.168.1.1 to interface with a Microsoft application that expects a Windows File Server at 192.168.1.1?

It doesn't look any different to me.

Reply Parent Score: 3