backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by themaster08.. on Jul 17 at 6:02 PM


Apple has killed the Palm Pre's ability to sync with iTunes in cold blood, with its latest software update.

Don't install this iTunes update if you own a Palm Pre -- it will kill the phone's ability to easily sync with your library.  (Source: CNET)
Leave it to Apple to rain on everyone's parade

Apple doesn't take kindly to would-be usurpers to its status of the highest tech (and bestselling) smart phone on the market.  It has threatened to take legal action against those who violate its mobile multi-touch patent that it was awarded.

Now it has taken action to try to kill the potential of the Palm Pre before it gains significant market share.  One of the key features of the Pre was its ability to sync effortlessly with iTunes, via firmware support.  As the majority of MP3 players on the market are iPods and most people have their music libraries on iTunes, this was an attractive feature as it made for a painless import of your music library.

However, Apple will not let the threat to its smart phone empire stand and true to its word has rolled out an iTunes update that kills the feature -- iTunes 8.2.1.  The release notes describe, "iTunes 8.2.1 provides a number of important bug fixes and addresses an issue with verification of Apple devices."

Sure enough, the update kills the Palm Pre's iTunes syncing via the Media Sync option.  Unfortunately for Apple, though, the update can't lock out doubleTwist and The Missing Sync, and other applications which offer similar syncing for smart phones.  Palm is actively advertising these apps as work arounds.

Palm stuck by its previous statement when asked for comment, remarking, "Palm's media sync works with iTunes 8.2. If Apple chooses to disable media sync in iTunes, it will be a direct blow to their users who will be deprived of a seamless synchronization experience. However, people will have options. They can stay with the iTunes version that works to sync their music on their Pre, they can transfer the music via USB, and there are other third-party applications we can consider."

A simple way for Pre users to keep the good syncing rolling is to not update iTunes.  Those who installed the update can delete iTunes and find an older version online.

Apple has proved merciless in its enforcement efforts in the past.  From suing Mac cloners out of existence to bricking customers' iPhones who left the AT&T network, Apple has done its best to stick it to those buy its hardware but refuse to do its bidding.  In the MP3 player and online music market, however, where Apple enjoys virtual monopolies, one must wonder how much longer it can practice such anticompetitive tactics before its hit with antitrust fines and regulation as Intel and Microsoft have been.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ltcommanderdata on 7/15/2009 8:03:47 PM , Rating: -1
Break Apple's monopoly on what? Their own software/code? It can't be illegal for Apple to have a monopoly on iTunes itself. They wrote it. Just like it isn't illegal for Microsoft to have a monopoly on Windows itself. Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market, just like Apple has a monopoly on the music market.

However, this move is irrelevant towards Apple's music monopoly. Apple provides an official way for other applications to access a user's music collection through the XML iTunes Library file. Apple uses this method in their own applications like iLife. The reason why Pre users are unable to conveniently access their music collection is because Palm is too lazy to write their own music sync application and is trying to pass off other people's software as their own feature. If Palm wants their customers to be able to access their iTunes music collection they can write their own sync application that reads the library data from the XML file.


By jconan on 7/15/2009 8:13:29 PM , Rating: 5
but what did the gov do? they forced microsoft to play fairly and microsoft added "set program access and defaults" for the web browser, e-mail, vm for java, instant messaging, and media player. So maybe the government should do the same for iTunes.


By MrBlastman on 7/16/2009 10:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completely, but, as far as Apple is concerned it is instead...

"Say hello... to my little friend!"


By gereth86 on 7/16/2009 12:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Apple doesn't have any intention of making money with iTunes: it is just a way to squeeze music companies to pass music companies' savings to their overpriced hardware.


You think Apple doesn't have the intention to make money with iTunes?? Don't they take 30% of every sale on the iTunes store, including both music and apps? I'm pretty sure iTunes is one of their biggest sources of income.

And your Wall-Mart comparison doesn't really make sense. Wall-Mart isn't making the cds or the players, neither are their products. They just are the intermediary between the manufacturers and the consumer. Apple on the other hand is the manufacturer. A better example would be like if Dell monitors only worked with Dell PCs. But really no other company is dumb enough to restrict their merchandise like Apple. I strongly believe that if Apple were supplying their OS to any hardware manufacturers, their OS market share would easily compete with Microsoft's. As of now, their 10% or whatever isn't really in the same league.


By Chudilo on 7/16/2009 12:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
But then they would have to support interoperability with all the hardware, which is a nightmare. One of the reasons their OS is so great is because their platform is basically a PC based console (like Xbox) with a very very restricted set of hardware variations. They don't have to test things on 10,000 different devices. they know the Mobo the CPU, and just about everything else about your system when they develop the OS.


By bupkus on 7/16/2009 5:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
If they were by nature inoperable on other platforms then of course that should not be their responsibility.

But to go out of your way to intentionally break software for a given platform goes back to the day when the joke about Microsoft's approach to their OS development concerning Lotus software was... "It isn't done til' Lotus won't run."


By Alexstarfire on 7/15/2009 8:30:09 PM , Rating: 5
WAIT WAIT WAIT. Are you f'ing kidding me? This is monopolistic behavior if I ever saw it. They are effectively doing what Microsoft did. Causing other products not to work on purpose. But because they are Apple it's ok? Talk about being a MF hypocrite, assuming you agree with the court ruling against Microsoft that is.

I'm not saying Palm should have tried to use iTunes like their own software, but come on now.


By Souka on 7/15/2009 10:08:05 PM , Rating: 5
Apple does have a monopoly in the mp3 player market...which is pretty much a majority share of the music sales.

:)


By Motoman on 7/16/2009 10:00:54 AM , Rating: 2
Impossible. A majority market share does not indicate monopoly. Single-source indicates monopoly. Mp3s are undifferentiated and are the same product available from any number of sources...it is an immutable fundamental fact that there could not ever, EVER, be a monopoly in the .mp3 market.

Please demonstrate how Apple could ever have a monopoly in the .mp3 market. Because in order to do so, you're going to have to demonstrate how you can't get .mp3s from someplace other than Apple, and that will not ever happen.


By 91TTZ on 7/16/2009 4:55:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
mpossible. A majority market share does not indicate monopoly. Single-source indicates monopoly.


The government busted Microsoft for these crimes even though they've never had a monopoly. They took issue with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows even though there are other operating systems out there besides Windows and even though other browsers would still work in Windows besides IE.


By inighthawki on 7/15/2009 10:22:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Um...monopolistic behavior means abusing market power to hurt consumers by keeping away competition.


and what apple did ISNT hurting consumers/competition? Palm made a device that syncs with iTunes, and naturally that's all good, but Apple SPECIFICALLY rolled out an update to make sure that their devices didn't work. This wasn't one of those accidents or "hey woops, broke some code" it was literally an "if not apple device, dont let sync" feature. They are actively denying competition by destroying compatibility.


By Chaser on 7/16/2009 2:27:21 PM , Rating: 1
And Apple made a product specifically designed to sync with iTunes. They developed it, funded it, and marketed it. Why is blocking a competitor's phone from using it a crime for you Apple lovers?

If the competitor's phone is so amazingly wonderful and faultless as wind drive snow why not let them develop their own sync product for their products instead of using Apple's? The irony is most of you cry babies would be bitching IF Apple forced every product to sync only with iTunes.

For all you genius miserable iPhone owners that scorn the travesty of iTunes and the iPhone; no one forced you to buy an Apple product. No one forced you on AT&T. Go whine somewhere else.


By inighthawki on 7/16/2009 6:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
who said anything about me being an apple lover? i have a rather strong dislike for all of apple's products, including ipods, iphones, itunes, etc. I don't own a palm pre either, but i would like to voice my opinion from the backgrounds to get my thought on the issue, and while i own NONE of the above things, i would like to make it clear that i STILL think this is a very unfair gesture on apple's part, especially when something as silly as including IE with windows is being taken as monopolistic behavior.

Apple is trying to shut out all of its competition, and theyve been doing things like this for a while. Everyone knows that itunes has a very large user database, and people arent going to switch to other syncing software just for the palm pre when they like itunes and the itunes store. While i understand that you feel that apple has all the rights to not include support, its still a step in the wrong direction to purposely REMOVE support.

You need to understand the different between not providing third party support and purposely blocking third party support. Even if apple doesnt support it, it is anti-competative to make an update to purposely break support with third party products.


By Motoman on 7/16/2009 3:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is the most colossal fail ever.

The Synch function of iTunes/iPods is what we call "a competitive advantage" - it's a differentiator that consumers can use to decide whethere they want to use Apple products or somebody else's.

A competitive advantage is not illegal. And when a company has a competitive advantage, they aren't obliged to give it to everyone else in the market to "even the playing field" or any such BS. If they did, why would anyone ever innovate anything? If every time you developed a unique feature that differentiated your product from everyone else's you had to just give it to them, why would you bother in the first place?

You people fundamentally do not know what a monopoly is, what a commodity is, and what competitive differentiation is. Please go brush up on Economics 101 and Business 101 and then correct all your mistaken ideas.


By segerstein on 7/17/2009 5:08:27 AM , Rating: 4
OpenOffice's reading of .doc could also be considered an unauthorized hack.
What about reading FAT32? Samba protocols for Windows networking?

iTunes sells more music that Wal-Mart in the US, but should work seamlessly only with iPod and iPhone?

This is abuse of dominant market position, trying to gain advantage in another market by crippling competitors' products. Lotus in MS-DOS?


By Manch on 7/15/2009 11:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
What if...

To draw a parallel, should Intel be required to make all of their motherboards drop-in compatible for an AMD? If AMD happened to have a CPU that would bolt up to a Intel motherboard, and then Intel re-designed the motherboard and it wouldn't, do you think AMD has an antitrust claim?

Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse
I dont know why you're bringing me down

Sorry reading this post got that song stuck in my head, which is sometime around when I first heard this tired argument. Of course feel free to replace the two companies and their products with whoever.

Microsoft vs Netsccape etc....

It's like daily tech mad libs!


By RjBass on 7/16/2009 12:59:58 AM , Rating: 3
Actually AMD can and has in the past made Intel compatible cpu's for Intel boards. They were one of, if not the only other major manufacturer to make cpu's for Intel.

I am probably wrong, but i think they still can to if they choose to.


By Alexstarfire on 7/15/2009 11:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, to draw a parallel it would be like requiring all Toyota cars to make sure they are running Toyota engines.

Ohh, and the same would be said about the Intel vs AMD argument. It'd be like if AMD made a CPU to work in Intel motherboards, but then Intel decided to add code into the BIOS to make sure it could only run Intel CPUs.

The problem with the two arguments you two made is that it would only apply to new products, not old. What Apple did affects ALL products ever made provided you update iTunes. Not that you have to, but considering the security updates and bug fixes that go into them, as well as new features every now and then, staying on a version that works isn't always an option. It affects those who have already purchased the product and they have NO say in it what-so-ever. The same does not apply to the "parallels" that you two have provided.


By T2k on 7/16/2009 10:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
Macfarts are truly pathetic - they are the perfect examples of double standards: if Chief Mactard Jobs do it then it's fine, he's just developing his own world but if say, Chief Wintard Gates did it then OMG, MONOPOLY...!

I always said this and still believe it: if Apple would be in MS place in the past 15 years we would be living in a MUCH WORSE world right now - most likely we would be working on the latest-gen G4s with a whopping 1.2Ghz and 2GB memory and drooling over the newly announced 1GHz G5 which would be completely priced out of any regular individual with its $4k (single-CPU) pricetag.

Apple IS a monopoly on its own, it's never been a question no its truly disgusting, greedy, market abusing tactics - they are pretty much the same as Microsoft except they are way more agressive and disgusting at it.

The only question is which country will be the first to smack them down hard?

EU/France already delivered a blow for them when they ordered interoperability (RIGHTFULLY SO!) and I recall when UK taught a lesson to Jobs about LYING in your ads, claiming utter BS about your products (a nice story about typical US business ethics, damage well done, greed PoS Apple, thank you.)


By Cerin218 on 7/16/2009 6:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... They are being monopolistic by allowing only products they create to work together and disabling the ability for another device to be used. Would you buy an ipod if your pre could store your music library on it instead of an overpriced piece of trendy plastic? No $299 for Steve. I thought Apple was dumb as crap in the 80's when you had to buy all hardware and software from them. As the PC market grew competition created hardware advances and price drops. But if you had an Apple you were locked into what they chose to feed you. And the prices were always higher for Apple vs PC regardless of the Hardware/Software. That's when I vowed not to buy Apple ever. A device that has one way storage? It goes to the device but can't come back? and you are only authorized 5 devices to house the library and transfer their DRM filled songs? Explain that to my friends that have had their computer crashed and lost their itunes library. The first thing they ask is "isn't there a copy on my ipod?" Apple's suggestion to to re rip their whole cd library. If I was a technologically illiterate sheep maybe. A DRM free mp3 on a device I can synch with anything and transfer both ways seemed a much better choice for my money. So I would say, yes, they are abusing their power to hurt consumers and competition. No one is free to develop competing itunes. Or seemingly products that are interoperable with it. Not having choices hurts consumers. Consumers benefit from choice.

To draw a parallel, Toyota shouldn't have to make parts that drop into the Ford, but they should have to share the same road. All the Pre is trying to do is get to a destination. What Apple is saying is unless you own our Toyota, you are not allowed drive on the same road (road being an analogy for itunes software.


By Smilin on 7/17/2009 9:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um...monopolistic behavior means abusing market power to hurt consumers by keeping away competition.


That's exactly what is happening.

Do you think Palm could go release a product that competes with iTunes? No. Apple pretty much has that market locked up. The remaining competitors are scrapping over small percent market share.

Apple has tied another product to iTunes called the iPhone. Now what if someone comes along with a better product than the iPhone. It's a fair fight right? Wrong.

Apple is leveraging it's monopoly in digital music downloads to boost iPhone sales (nothing wrong with that) however they are now altering the product that they have a monopoly with so that it shoves competition out of other markets. That's abusing a monopoly.

If you disagree, then go ask Netscape and Lotus what they think about it.


By soydios on 7/15/2009 11:16:31 PM , Rating: 5
A logical extension to the argument is that Apple *SHOULD* provide an API for non-Apple devices to sync with iTunes. Just like Microsoft provides such APIs for Windows Media and just about everything else in Windows.


By sbtech on 7/16/2009 4:27:32 AM , Rating: 4
Then same could be said about MS Internet Explorer. Why can't they bundle it or Media Player with Windows? Not they they are stopping other browsers to run on Windows, while Apple is in fact stopping other devices to sync with ITunes. It is in Microsoft's best interest to add IE to windows, isn't it.

Dont give me there are other download sites for mp3s. There are other OS' as well.

If you donot agree to all the (related to topic)court decisions against Microsoft, I retract my comment - otherwise, you stand corrected.


By themaster08 on 7/16/2009 4:42:38 AM , Rating: 4
No, of course it's not in Apple's best interests, it's in iTunes users best interests. But yet again, Apple have proved themselves to not care about the users of their software, only themselves.

Just because they have their own hardware that justifies this lock-in? iTunes is not used by just those with iPods. Microsoft have their own software/hardware in Windows Mobile and Zune. Just imagine what would happen if Microsoft removed compatability for all but their own devices. I don't think I need to reprise the outcome.

It's in Apple's best interests to stifle the competition. An exact principle of a monopoly abusing it's power.

I really fail to understand how such an abusive, arrogant, antagonistic, merciless, egotistical, self-righteous, hypocritical company is so dearly supported and left to do whatever it feels.

I'm just glad that Microsoft is the market leader in the OS market. An Apple-dominated OS market would be absolutely unbearable.


By Motoman on 7/16/2009 9:58:28 AM , Rating: 1
What lock-in? Please demonstrate how turning off the HACK that Palm made to fraudluently trick iTunes into thinking a Pre is an iPod prevents you from using iTunes in conjunction with your Pre.

And while you're at it, please demonstrate how it would be anti-competitive in any way, shape, or form, if Apple somehow actually did truly make iTunes incompatible with any music players other than their own. To save you some time, it would never be anti-competitive, because there are any number of other sites you can go and buy the same exact product (.mp3s) that work on any player.

Please, please, please - demonstrate how it is possible, in any universe, for anyone to have a monopoly on a pure commodity like .mp3s. Go on...I'll wait. And if you manage to do so, by the way, every theory of economics ever penned will have to be completely re-written according to your new rules of commerce. Because your assertion that there could ever be a .mp3 monopoly is fundamentally impossible.


By themaster08 on 7/16/2009 5:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What lock-in? Please demonstrate how turning off the HACK that Palm made to fraudluently trick iTunes into thinking a Pre is an iPod prevents you from using iTunes in conjunction with your Pre.

Putting it bluntly, if Apple had a readily available API for iTunes for those companies wishing to enable their devices to sync with iTunes, in my opinion they should be able to freely do so. Why shouldn't they? Because they have their own hardware? So what? The iTunes user base extends beyond those with just iPods. Why not accomodate for everyone?

The lock-in is that without a hack, you cannot sync the Pre using iTunes. You have to use Apple hardware. I'm sure for those with Mac computers and OSX, which iTunes is the main music player/organizer, this is very convenient indeed. I think with that said, it's pretty clear to see how this is a lock-in, particularly for those with Apple computers.

quote:
And while you're at it, please demonstrate how it would be anti-competitive in any way, shape, or form, if Apple somehow actually did truly make iTunes incompatible with any music players other than their own.

I never said anything about being anti-competitive. This is purely simple convenience for users of iTunes. The inability to sync a Pre without said hack is a prime example of Apple's disrespect for the users of it's software. Just because there's nothing in it for Apple, that doesn't mean they cannot benefit the consumers. That way they might actually gain some respect, which they are sorely lacking right now.

quote:
Please, please, please - demonstrate how it is possible, in any universe, for anyone to have a monopoly on a pure commodity like .mp3s.

Perhaps it's not a monopoly per se, but there is no doubt that Apple is a massive player in .mp3 sales. Just because it's a commodity, that doesn't mean the provider of that commodity can't use unfair business practices to stifle the competition in another market. Apple is using the massive power it holds with iTunes unfairly towards other hardware manufacturers, and more importantly, it's users, to benefit themselves in the music player market.


By Motoman on 7/17/2009 10:13:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Putting it bluntly, if Apple had a readily available API for iTunes for those companies wishing to enable their devices to sync with iTunes, in my opinion they should be able to freely do so. Why shouldn't they? Because they have their own hardware? So what? The iTunes user base extends beyond those with just iPods. Why not accomodate for everyone?


You are so wrong here it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, your opinion on the matter has no bearing. Apple has not published an API, and they have no need, ethically or legally, to do so. If the iTunes/iPod combo has a competitive advantage, such as the Synch function, then good for Apple. If they want to retain their competitive advantage (and what sane company wouldn't?), that's up to them.

quote:
The lock-in is that without a hack, you cannot sync the Pre using iTunes. You have to use Apple hardware. I'm sure for those with Mac computers and OSX, which iTunes is the main music player/organizer, this is very convenient indeed. I think with that said, it's pretty clear to see how this is a lock-in, particularly for those with Apple computers.


Epic fail. There is no need to use the Synch function to get .mp3s from iTunes onto your Pre, or onto any other music player. Aside from that, even if iTunes worked with no other devices than iPods at all, it still would be a thoroughly legal arrangement - but as is, there is NOTHING that prevents you from using iTunes with non-Apple music players. NOTHING.

quote:
I never said anything about being anti-competitive. This is purely simple convenience for users of iTunes. The inability to sync a Pre without said hack is a prime example of Apple's disrespect for the users of it's software. Just because there's nothing in it for Apple, that doesn't mean they cannot benefit the consumers. That way they might actually gain some respect, which they are sorely lacking right now.


You hit it on the head, sort of. The Synch feature is a convenience to owners of Apple hardware using it with Apple software. The last half of your statement is just you bitching about the fact that, in your opinion, Apple *should* open it up to others. The problem is that this is just your OPINION, which has not the slightest bearing on what Apple needs to do, from an ethical or legal standpoint. I am sure that Pre owners, and owners of any non-Apple music players, would prefer that Apple gave them the Synch feature because it is ever-so-slightly more convenient than dragging-and-dropping your music around. However, there is not the slightest basis for anyone to complain about the fact that Apple chooses to provide extra functionality to customers with Apple hardware. There is NO BASIS for you to accuse Apple of any wrongdoing, at all, period.

quote:
Perhaps it's not a monopoly per se, but there is no doubt that Apple is a massive player in .mp3 sales. Just because it's a commodity, that doesn't mean the provider of that commodity can't use unfair business practices to stifle the competition in another market. Apple is using the massive power it holds with iTunes unfairly towards other hardware manufacturers, and more importantly, it's users, to benefit themselves in the music player market.


Yes, it does. You can by .mp3s from any other source you want without penalty. Apple has no basis from which to abuse any consumers in this manner. If Apple started doing something with their .mp3 service that you don't like, you can simply stop using their service and use another service instead to get .mp3s, and there is no difference in the product you recieve in the end. NO DIFFERENCE.


By themaster08 on 7/17/2009 6:02:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First of all, your opinion on the matter has no bearing.

Welcome to DailyTech. Articles are posted to which people express their opinions. Nothing that anybody says in these articles has any bearing or impact whatsoever on the outcome of the topic in the article itself. Idiot.

quote:
Apple has not published an API, and they have no need, ethically or legally, to do so.

I know they have not published an API. Perhaps I worded my last post incorrectly. However, you get my point.

quote:
If the iTunes/iPod combo has a competitive advantage, such as the Synch function, then good for Apple. If they want to retain their competitive advantage (and what sane company wouldn't?), that's up to them.

I'm not trying to argue this. All of what I say is with the mind set of Microsoft being in a similar position with Media Player and using it as a comparison to how one party is treated different to another.

quote:
The last half of your statement is just you bitching about the fact that, in your opinion, Apple *should* open it up to others.

The whole of your post is just you bitching about my opinion as if to say I'm not entitled to one, and what you say goes.

quote:
Yes, it does. You can by .mp3s from any other source you want without penalty. Apple has no basis from which to abuse any consumers in this manner.

Completely missed the point. How is it not possible for a company with a large amount of power in one market to abuse this power to gain an advantage in another market they are in? It's happened many times in the past, how can it not happen in this situation?

quote:
The problem is that this is just your OPINION, which has not the slightest bearing on what Apple needs to do, from an ethical or legal standpoint.

I'll paraphrase my first paragraph. This is an asinine statement.

quote:
. I am sure that Pre owners, and owners of any non-Apple music players, would prefer that Apple gave them the Synch feature because it is ever-so-slightly more convenient than dragging-and-dropping your music around.

What's wrong with wanting convenience? Software with a large user base, that extends further than users of the developers hardware, should accomodate for all of it's users. It shouldn't treat any of it's users differently due to their music player preference.

quote:
If Apple started doing something with their .mp3 service that you don't like, you can simply stop using their service and use another service instead to get .mp3s

So basically you're saying that if you don't like their business ethics you can simply discard them and use a competitors service, which I fully agree with.

However, why is it that one company can be treated in this manner, when another (Microsoft) is treated in a completely different manner on the same basis? Doesn't Internet Explorer and the E.U come to mind?

I can only imagine the lawsuits that Microsoft would have to face if they closed off Media Player for all but their own Windows Mobile/Zune based devices. More than likely it would be Apple complaining about this when they're guilty of the exact same thing. They do it all the time.


By nilepez on 7/16/2009 9:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Apple doesn't sell MP3s. They sell M4A or AAC (whatever).

AFAIK, this is not at all like Windows Update, because the Palm device is updating using software running on the user's machine.

In the world of Lossy audio, Apple is the overwhelming dominant player, and nothing is likely to change, that. Apple, just like MS, goes out of their way to make it hard for users to switch to a non-apple device.

Could they use some other software? Sure, but most will not, because they dont' know any better. Many are likely unaware of anything else.

It may not be illegal, but most of us can see that given a chance, Apple will turn out to be at least as evil as MS was in the 90's (and while I like MS products, they were positively unethical in their business practices).

Apple isn't any better. In fact, given the fact that they've actually sued web journalists for being journalists, I'd say they've already exceeded MS in some respects.


By Motoman on 7/17/2009 12:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple doesn't sell MP3s. They sell M4A or AAC (whatever).


...that's funny, then all of the .mp3s that people get from iTunes are getting hacked into there from some other nefarious source? Better double-check that pally. IIRC, Apple did start out with iTunes only doing a proprietary format that well and truly did only work on iPods - shutting out all other hardware from being used with their service. Which was perfectly legal and ethical in every sense to start with. But later they decided to sell .mp3s that were universally compatible, being the pure commodity that they are, and people who use other music players flocked to iTunes because they like the service.

quote:
AFAIK, this is not at all like Windows Update, because the Palm device is updating using software running on the user's machine.


...I don't see any way that you're making sense here. The analogy is for an electronic service that synchronizes files/data from a server to a client. Windows Update only works with Microsoft products, and no one complains that it doesn't work with Apple or Linux, because it would be moronically idiotic to do so. It is blatantly obvious that Windows Update can/will only work with MS products, and it is blatantly obvious that there is no cause to expect MS to make it work with Apple or Linux products. iTunes Synch works with Apple products. It is every bit as obvious that there is no cause to expect Apple to make this feature work with MS, Palm, or other products...and that is the end of the story. MS is not abusing anybody by making WU only work with Windows, and Apple is not abusing anybody by making the Synch feature only work with iPods.

quote:
In the world of Lossy audio, Apple is the overwhelming dominant player, and nothing is likely to change, that. Apple, just like MS, goes out of their way to make it hard for users to switch to a non-apple device.


Point the first: Apple has a commanding marketshare in the .mp3 market. That fact has no bearing on anything else, because it is a pure commodity market and it is a fundamental impssibility for such a marketshare to segue into a monopoly position. Point the second: Of course Apple wants people to buy/use iPods. To assert otherwise is the height of stupidity. If the Synch feature is a competitive advantage making the Apple solution look more appealing...then it looks more appealing, and good for Apple. On the flipside, if you buy a Ford with a Zune interface, that makes the Zune have a competitive advantage...Apple need not open up their Synch function anymore than Ford and/or MS must open up that Zune connection. A competitive advantage is just that: differentiation between products/services. It is not inethical or illegal - if it were, no one would ever innovate anything, because they'd have to give their innovation to everyone else in the market.

quote:
Could they use some other software? Sure, but most will not, because they dont' know any better. Many are likely unaware of anything else.


BS. I don't think there's a single iTunes user who isn't aware that they can get .mp3s from virtually anywhere else. And besides, consumer ignorance of other available sources is no one's fault but the lazy ignorant consumer's.

quote:
It may not be illegal, but most of us can see that given a chance, Apple will turn out to be at least as evil as MS was in the 90's (and while I like MS products, they were positively unethical in their business practices).


Apple is plenty evil, and has been for a very long time. But choosing to retain the competitive advantage that the Synch feature gives them has nothing to do with that.

quote:
Apple isn't any better. In fact, given the fact that they've actually sued web journalists for being journalists, I'd say they've already exceeded MS in some respects.


We are in complete agreement on this fact.


By Alexstarfire on 7/15/2009 11:55:18 PM , Rating: 5
And Apple isn't doing this to indirectly promote their own MP3 players? If you think that then you must be delusional. I'm not saying Apple has to actively help Palm, or any other company for that matter, have their product work with iTunes, but preventing it for working, provided it is not violating the EULA, is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

Only real difference between this and what Microsoft did is that one is direct and the other is indirect. Again, provided the EULA is not being violated.


By themaster08 on 7/16/2009 4:58:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
iTunes is basically a music organizational tool that is intended to get music onto Apple's iPods/iPhones. Windows is of course an OS, whose purpose is to run applications.

It would be more accurate to compare Media Player with iTunes.

OSX comes with iTunes. What if I have a Palm Pre and a Mac computer? I wouldn't be able to sync my phone with readily available software on the computer. Very convenient.

Also taking into account that iTunes is the music player of choice for many Windows users. Not just those that wish to sync their iPod. Yet another example of the Apple lock-in.

With Windows I would be able to easily via Media Player (if said device is compatible with Media Player sync).

The difference being is that nothing is preventing a company from enabling their device from syncing with Media Player.

It's just simple convenience, but Apple likes to make life difficult for those who do not wish to purchase their hardware.


By chick0n on 7/15/2009 11:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
sir, you're an idiot.

so please, next time if you want to say something. just shut up. Thanks and have a good day.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki