The Mac maker would love to corner the hot market for software that syncs up PCs with cell phones and other gadgets. But then there’s Microsoft–and its pesky bundling habit. Read the article at ZDNews.
Apple Girds for Sync Push
2002-12-19 Apple 28 Comments
This strikes at the very heart of many beos/palm and linux supporters’ fantasy.
Somehow if Sony used BeIA on the eVilla, it means that they will buy Be and put BeOS on their PC’s. Somehow if Palm used a BeIA-derived OS on their PDA, it means that they will put BeOS on their PC’s (should they enter this market.) Somehow if Apple used BeIA on their iPod or a revived Newton, then ….
The reality is that Apple licensed an embedded OS from a third pary and put it in the iPod. The reality is that nokia will use its own OS on their cell phones, Palm will use its own OS on their PDA’s. And everything is synch by SynchXML.
“But then there’s Microsoft–and its pesky bundling habit.”
And then there’s Linux–and its committed zealots that will recreate just about any app that’s available on Linux or Mac.
Which reminds me… must get back to coding
And then there’s Linux–and its committed zealots that will recreate just about any app that’s available on Linux or Mac.
I think you mean “..will recreate just about any app that’s available for Windows or Mac”.
Uh yeah, typo :/
But in a way – that typo is the truth. How many apps are there for Linux that do the same thing? KDE and Gnome, Nautilus and ROX-Filer and Konqueror, vim and emacs, etc, etc…
And how many are there for windows?
Sure there are many applications with duplicate functionality in linux, but this is true in all operating systems. Linux (or any other system out there) would never have been what it is today if it wasnt for that duplication. Everyone steals ideas from everyone else. Competition is a healthy thing, even if it means dupplicating already existing things.
To be blunt, i think those who complain about the variety of software out there are totally clueless.
Um, take a look at how many editors there are on Windows! Plenty.
Oh yeah Elver, a web browser and file managers are VERY innovative products ;(
oh yeah, and vim cloned vi, and vi and emacs have existed for a long time.
You’re right. It is what we’d like to see and what would seem to make sense. Use the things that were really showing promise, regardless of the fact that they are collecting dust now. But the business facts seem to indicate that there are a lot of bad emotional issues involved that keep these potential-rich products from ever returning to the world that rejected them. Jobs runs Apple and Jobs hates Newton for some reason. Palm sees no value in BeOS, and only bought it to cover their future interests. There are tons of things like this. I actually spent an hour looking on eBay for failed but fantastic (for their time) computer products just marveling at how close some things got and how badly they failed or how short-changed they were by the industry that should have embraced them.
The article is full of shit.
There is nothing so special about sync software. You can write your own. Almost all devices have some sort of API and a way to write a synchronization software for it. I wrote my own for example for Palm. It is not a big deal.
The magazine wants PC consumers not to have sync software by pressuring Microsoft not to bundle it, yet of course for Apple it is ok to do that. So PC users will switch to Macs and pay lots of money to Apple.
Microsoft’s more proprietary approach could greatly benefit Windows, since consumers would need the latest version of the operating system in order to obtain ActiveSync
Yeah and Apple’s more proprietary approach could greatly benefit Macosx, since consumers would need the latest version of the operating system in order to obtain iSync.
The article is from Zdnet, whose parent company is Cnet. The same article is also on Cnet.
Yesterday there was news on News.com that some flaws in Windows and Winamp may threaten music traders. The title was Music flaws or something like that, today they changed it to Microsoft flaws, although the news talk about various flaws which are not all associated to Microsoft, the title is changed. That’s the source of news we are talking about. They are definitely not credible.
>>>>There is nothing so special about sync software. You can write your own. Almost all devices have some sort of API and a way to write a synchronization software for it. I wrote my own for example for Palm. It is not a big deal.
The big deal is that a lot of them are doing it in SynchXML. And with bluetooth, a PDA can synch with a cell phone WITHOUT a computer. It is the standardization of the language and API that’s the big deal.
SyncXML versus MS
MPEG4 versus MS WM9
Word, Excel, Powerpoint versus XML Open Office
World where many platforms (open and proprietary) can communicate and interchange data versus The MS Vision “Windows Everywhere” with monopoly profits of billions and billions
When will the defenders of MS wake up from their deep sleep?
You didn’t understand what I meant there and you are off topic. What’s not big deal about synching is that, the industry, the device manufacturers are already coming up with their own synching solutions. So Apple is merely using other’s solutions. They are using these APIs. They have their own synch for iPod, and that’s pretty much it.
All Apple does is to use these APIs. That’s not a big deal.
the biggest problem would be the devils circle of economics.
once a company has enough market share, they have enouth money for developing new products. ok, even if they don’t have new innovative ideas, they could copy it and put more money in developing than the inovator of this product / idea. so the might of microsoft is based on its capital. apple has many liquidity, but ms has more resources to build software like the customer likes it. but i still love my mac more than any pc i’ve ever seen or used…
Apple is providing the first attempt to be a sync aggregator such that any device using the SyncML device can sync with any other device.
Apple isn’t claiming to have developed SyncML, nor are they claiming anything really at all. The iPod has nothing to do with it, and no, that’s not all they have–I am syncing data to web sites so that I can then sync that dat with other Mac OS X systems. If I had a nice Sony-Ericcson phone, I would be doing it with that as well. The idea is to sync all devices, no matter what they are–PDA, computer, web site, mp3 player, some other digitical device, or phone–using the same language.
Not everyone else is doing this and Apple isn’t making any claim but to be attempting to foster this strategy, philosophy, and openness. There is nothing proprietary about iSync. It only uses the open standard. It doesn’t create its own APIs for syncing data, it doesn’t create lock-in for vendors.
Get it yet?
Most software for Windows is closed source and commercial. And every company wants to make a buck. So that’s the main reason why there are so many apps that do the same thing. Look at all the shareware editors for example.
Now. On Linux, most apps are GPLed. This means that they are free and the source code is also free. So why so god damn many apps that do the same thing and are built on different and are not compatible with eachother?
If the app is GPLed, (this goes for any other opensource license too) one could easily fork the code and customize it for their needs, while still being relatively compatible with the original product. This would eliminate some learning curve for new users.
First of all read the article, and stick with the topic. My posts are related with the topic. You didn’t even get the fact that, it is not Apple makes the claims, it is the article. For that reason all you say is nonse and unrelated.
Second Apple uses proprietary formats when it thinks that it will be profitable. For example iTunesDB. To get the iPod running on linux, people have to hack that format, just like people hack MS word documents to make it work with their own software. Apple was proprietary and will be proprietary as long as it thinks it will make money. Its hardware is proprietary, its software is most proprietary and the open part is to use open source developers, because it doesn’t have the resources to hire enough people.
It doesn’t create its own APIs for syncing data
What are you talking about? How and why iSync should create its own APIs for synching data. It is another useless, stupid comment.
All you need to write iSync is the software from the device developers, not Apple. You can write your own iSync software, if you are capable of.
No matter what, we should support Microsoft in this issue. We can not allow these magazines to make Apple richer, and we consumers poorer by trying to pressure Microsoft not to put necessary software to Windows. If they hurt Windows, they would hurt us at the end. Apple software and hardware was and will be always far more expensive then PC software and hardware which are better than Apple’s products.
Switch campaign itself says that it is easy to switch, which means that Microsoft doesn’t lock you in. On the other hand Apple feels free to lock you in, using proprietary data formats, such as iTunesDB. Don’t get fooled. Once you pay thousands of dollars to Apple, you would find yourself wasting lots of money, because as Apple’s market share gets lower and lower you will have less and less choice, and will have to pay full price for small upgrades on the OS and many other Apple products.
>>>The idea is to sync all devices, no matter what they are–PDA, computer, web site, mp3 player, some other digitical device, or phone–using the same language.
Thank you, finally.
It has been said that the only reason why Apple created the iPod is just to show people that it’s much more simpler to work with an mp3 player with a Mac — so that you will buy a Mac computer.
And my original first comment was that Apple no longer have to develop an iPod device themselves in order to convince more people to buy more Mac computers. There is no longer the need to revive the Newton just to show the rest of the windows world that it’s much simpler to work with a PDA with a Mac computer.
Even if Apple decides to produce such devices, they no longer care about what embedded OS will run them (that they don’t have to develop the embedded OS themselves, and they just licensed it from a 3rd party) because the open standard synching protocol is the important part.
>>>You didn’t even get the fact that, it is not Apple makes the claims, it is the article.
The article kept on quoting Apple executives claiming that it is the center of their digital hub and that people are going to look into Mac’s just because it synches with everything easily.
>>>For example iTunesDB. To get the iPod running on linux, people have to hack that format, just like people hack MS word documents to make it work with their own software.
>>>Switch campaign itself says that it is easy to switch, which means that Microsoft doesn’t lock you in. On the other hand Apple feels free to lock you in, using proprietary data formats, such as iTunesDB.
It has been suggested that you just have to write your own synchML-protocol app in linux and synchML will tell the iPod that here’s a new mp3 file, transfer it to the iPod hard drive and add it to the playlist. There is no need to hack the iTuneDB.
>>>>Its hardware is proprietary, its software is most proprietary and the open part is to use open source developers, because it doesn’t have the resources to hire enough people.
Why do you think IBM/RedHat…. embrace open source? Because they don’t want to hire all those people as well. The whole point is that the cell phone OS will forever be proprietary, the PalmOS will forever be proprietary, the embedded OS within the iPod will forever be proprietary, the set top box OS (PowerTV OS) will forever be proprietary — so using an open synching protocol will solve all this problem.
When you would just go back to sleep?
MPEG 4 and WMV 9. Big difference. One is created by multiple companies, another made by Microsoft. Both got patent royalties. Between these two, there is little difference. MPEG 4 is a standard for the Moving Pictures Experts Group, not for the rest of the world.
As for Microsoft Office vs OpenOffice.org in terms of open formats, I have to agree. OOo is open. But I’m never going to dump MS Office for OOo. Why? Lack of features I like, slow as hell, consume just a little too much memory, a stupid UI and a ugly look.
Besides, ActiveSync was originally made for syncing between Windows and PocketPC devices. The article you read is all about speculation. Not real facts. How would we know whether ActiveSync uses SyncXML or not? Or whether it would be open?
I personally don’t care how much money Microsoft makes. As long I’m happy, and feel my money is spent wisely, and I’m productive, I couldn’t care less. But just to note, in the early days of the Mac, Apple itself used a lot of propreitary protocols. Now with such a declining influence, it sees open stuff as its only saviour.
Apple software and hardware was and will be always far more expensive then PC software and hardware which are better than Apple’s products
You made some valid points until you crassly and highly subjectively went OT and blasted away with this statement. Too bad your such a hot head because a casual dialogue proving you wrong would have been quite delightful.
The wonder with Homo sapien (and perhaps Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster,
Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis, if they exist) is that we like to always point out the negative part of every person, and completely ignore the positive.
Besides, that statment, while I disagree with Sergio, IMHO valid. He/she is trying to point out that Microsoft is much better for the rest of us than Apple. You may disagree with that (I would, I find neither better for consumers anyway), but IMHO, it isn’t OT.
Microsoft is much better for the rest of us than Apple
The rest of who? Non-Apple users I suppose? Of what body of people have elected yourself to speak on behalf of?
Rajan R: point out the negative part of every person, and completely ignore the positive
moshek You made some valid points until…
The qualification of ‘completely’ in this statement above is untrue as “moshek” gave acknowledgement to valid points. Also, Rajan’s statement above is self satisfying as it is doing exactly what it is explaining – pointing out our negative attributes [in Homo descent no less]
Even if the iTunes database format is proprietary, perhaps that’s because there’s no standard for that type of format. People have to create proprietary versions of things if there’s no standard. In fact, in the early days of the PC, MS created a proprietary standard (Windows and the rest of it including Word format and WMedia). As rajan notes, even Apple necessarily had more proprietary standards in the earlier days.
But in a larger and more mature market, open standards are better for consumers. They should replace the proprietary standards. Where there’s an open standard, Apple is embracing it. Where there’s not, they have to use proprietary stuff. However, even some of that they are giving back as an open standard (e.g., Rendevous networking standard based on less developed Zero Config TCP/IP standard).
It’s true Apple “has to” embrace Open standards with their small share to survive. But this just proves my point – Apple embraces open formats, standards and protocols.
MS does not. As well they shouldn’t – they have to have their shareholders interests in mind, and the windows monopoly is perpetuated in large part due to proprietary formats and protocols like Word, Excel files. MS is not evil. It’s just that their interests and the interests of consumers happen to be at severe odds on this issue. Consumer’s and Apple’s interests happen to be aligned on this one.
Aside appleforever you are a troll, you continously lie about obvious facts.
Apple is more expensive, apple threatens users, its own resellers, it charges more for everything, it does use proprietary standards as it thinks that it will make more moeny or lock you in, it charges more for hardware, it doesn’t give you a decent nice OS. Apple’s Mac OS X is a joke compared to windows XP. Windows XP has a builtin support for browsing internet, any application written for windows can automatically can show web content. Mac OS X doesn’t have such necessary software. In fact Mac OS X is only a last attempt to polish the interface. The only new thing and the only thing is the nice looking interface. Nothing more. Even with that fact it still charges more than Windows XP, as if it is better. Not every Palm app works with macs, pocket pc doesn’t work with mac at all. Apple doesn’t care about its consumers budget. A free tool like iTools become subscribed base tool. WHo knows whether they will start to charge a yearly fee for their next os. Maybe they will start to do that. There are all sorts of problems related with apple, and yet here you compare it with Microsoft. Microsoft’s interests align with consumers better than Apple’s interests, as the eroding market share of Apple proves. Consumers are not stupid.
What proprietary standards?
Microsoft Office and desktop publishing apps from Adobe/Quark controls all the important formats. And Apple uses OpenGL and zeroconf.
You don’t need to know anything about iTuneDB format to use iPod with Linux. All the various opensource linux/iPod projects know that if they use SynchML, then they don’t need to hack iTuneDB —– because the protocol instructs the iPod that here’s a new mp3 file, transfer it to the iPod hard drive and put it in the playlist. It’s only that they are all volunteers who don’t want to learn yet another new protocol, so they are hacking it the hard way.
Yeah, just like people are hacking the MS Office document format the hard way. So that’s fine with you too?
Wasn’t it just a couple of comments back that you talked about how wonderful Microsoft is?
You have to be a total idiot to think that closed and proprietary file formats and communications formats are good for consumers. MS is a big advocate of these. Apple isn’t. end of story loser