Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:13 UTC
Apple Well, this is an interesting double standard. Remember Apple's reaction to Palm trying to tap into iTunes? They were pretty pissed, right? Well, it seems that in Apple's world, it's not okay to access their services unauthorised, but when Apple needs to do the same to someone else's services, it's suddenly not a problem. As it turns out, Apple violated Facebook's terms of service, knowingly, and willingly.
Thread beginning with comment 439243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I suppose...
by Delgarde on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:41 UTC in reply to "I suppose..."
Delgarde
Member since:
2008-08-19

...at least they tried to negotiate, unlike some that thought it was their right to utilise Apple's software as the conduit for their own devices without so much as a "may we?"


Actually, I think that they tried to negotiate makes it worse. To just go ahead without asking is one thing, but to go ahead after asking and being explicitly told not to... that's pretty bad.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: I suppose...
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 13:44 in reply to "RE: I suppose..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, I think that they tried to negotiate makes it worse. To just go ahead without asking is one thing, but to go ahead after asking and being explicitly told not to... that's pretty bad.


But the situation isn't comparable; Facebook is designed for interoperability - iTunes was never designed by Apple as something to be used with non-Apple products. If Palm wishes to do something remotely useful they would have funded and made a customised Songbird player which supported their device and call it a day. The cold hard reality is that a dying company in the dying days were desperately looking for something or someone to latch onto as to improve their profile and financial fortunes.

As I said, the two situations aren't even close to comparable.

Edited 2010-09-03 13:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I suppose...
by spagnolia on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 23:16 in reply to "RE[2]: I suppose..."
spagnolia Member since:
2010-09-03

Uh, actually iTunes existed before the iPod.

From Apples own site:

Apple Announces iTunes 2
Best Digital Music Software Gets Even Better

CUPERTINO, California—October 23, 2001—Apple today announced iTunes™ 2, the next generation of its award-winning digital music software for the Mac® that has been distributed to over six million users. iTunes 2 adds the three most requested features from iTunes users: MP3 CD burning, an equalizer and cross fading.

But iTunes 2’s most stunning new feature is its seamless integration with iPod™, Apple’s new breakthrough portable MP3 player.


Stunning new feature indeed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I suppose...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 6th Sep 2010 16:37 in reply to "RE[2]: I suppose..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

But the situation isn't comparable


You're right. Palm did nothing even remotely illegal, and merely undermined iTunes+iProducts as a lock-in mechanism. Apple, on the other hand, used Facebook's resources not only without permission, but knowingly violated a legal agreement in the process.

At the very least, Apple should be forced to reimburse Facebook for any bandwidth costs that Apple caused.

iTunes was never designed by Apple as something to be used with non-Apple products.


Of course not. For that to happen, Apple would need to put usability, functionality and user experience ahead of their desire to lock users into iTunes. It's extremely lucky for Apple that Microsoft is above those kinds of tactics. "Sorry, Steve-O, but Exchange was never designed to be use with non-Microsoft clients. Say buh-bye to Exchange support on the iProducts."

The cold hard reality is that a dying company in the dying days were desperately looking for something or someone to latch onto as to improve their profile and financial fortunes.


Riiiiight, I'm sure it had nothing to do with Apple's "if we can't have them, nobody can" bitterness over Palm hiring former Apple employees. Or the pathetic, thinly-veiled patent litigation threats that Schiller made towards WebOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2