Apple has updated its iTunes platform making the current version 9.0.2. While it does add some new support for the newly released Apple TV 3.0 software, the biggest news is that this update breaks the ability for the Palm Pre to sync with iTunes.The cat and mouse game has been going on since Palm announced that the Pre would have the ability to sync with iTunes, something Apple did not approve.
The Pre is able to sync itself by spoofing iTunes into thinking that an iPod is attached. The less than ethical approach has been given mixed reviews as Palm is clearly using iTunes as a marketing push when it is not paying royalties to Apple.
The ball is now in Palm's court and it's up to them if they will continue to pursue the iTunes platform. The likely answer is yes and we will continue to see the cat and mouse game continue between two giant corporations, except, unlike Palm, Apple has nearly unlimited resources to take control of the situation.
As for iTunes not being open, what do you expect from a proprietary solution?
Yeah...Apple, the last time they put out a iTunes update.
Agreed
Apple doesn't do patches for iTunes, at least not for the Windows version, I don't know about on Mac. Every update no matter how minor is a full install.
Grow up.
As for iTunes not being open, what do you expect from a proprietary solution?
Last edited by HalcyonX12 on 01 Nov 2009 - 00:02
Yeah, horrible with today's connections...
Why don't you just rear his child too
Haha did you hear that, he wants to "rear" your child.
I don't use iTunes on any of my computers and my Pre hasn't missed it. Winamp, Mediamonkey, Doubletwist, WMP, and any other music management software works just fine with none of this bull**** proprietary lockdown.
MediaMonkey kicks ass. it's able to syncronize with almost any device, and although it's shareware, it's worth paying for if you have the money, if not.....oh well, it's worth pirating!
Ahhh, more misinformation from Frank, keep up the good work buddy. There is no reason for Apple to allow any third party device to sync with iTunes. I don't see MS openeing the Zune software to the iPod, why would they?
MS have zero market-share. Do you honestly believe they wouldn't act the same with the zune if they had a monopoly?
MS has more than 0% market share, and I don't microsoft would care. WMP is a music player/library. They allow you to sync a huge amount of devices now and I doubt they're going to cancel that.
Itunes isn't only just a library manager for ipod, it's also an audio player and a music store...what difference does it make if you buy a song from the store and put it on your pre? Apple still earns the money either way.
And I highly doubt people bought the pre just because it syncs with itunes.
Possibly, but there is no real need to design the Zune software to sync other devices, because WMP already does it, and is shipped with Windows, but if Microsoft where to do the same thing as Apple I would condemn them for it equally. Don't really see why you need to keep trolling anyway this topic is about Apple
Misinformation??? Microsoft has opened up the Windows Media Player and media syncing platform to anyone who wants to use it, Apple choses not to.
Actually, there could be a need to design the Zune software to sync to other devices because that would open up the Marketplace to device other than the Zune (Xbox 360 pending).
Also, you say that the Zune software doesn't really need to sync other devices because of WMP, so the same could be said about iTunes.
You obviously have a bias, dude.
With the Zune, Microsoft is doing the exact same thing as Apple, but I think it's a little more closed. Not only do I have to install the Zune software to use the Zune device, but in order to do all of that, I have to be on a computer running a supported version of Windows.
iTunes Mac + PC
Get your pitchfork out.
Zune won't sync with WMP
Also, you say that the Zune software doesn't really need to sync other devices because of WMP, so the same could be said about iTunes.
You obviously have a bias, dude.
With the Zune, Microsoft is doing the exact same thing as Apple, but I think it's a little more closed. Not only do I have to install the Zune software to use the Zune device, but in order to do all of that, I have to be on a computer running a supported version of Windows.
iTunes Mac + PC
Get your pitchfork out.
Don't see what the smart alec attitude is for, but the fact of the matter is that as long as iTunes has a monopoly on the digital media market, they are acting in an anti-competitive way by preventing other devices being synced with it. Don't see what part of that you have trouble understanding. As for your accusation about bias, I actually own an iPod touch, I don't even have a palm pre, so why don't you go laugh that one off
Don't forget, both Apple and Palm licensed sync technology from Microsoft. So Appple is actually using Microsofts sync tech to keep iTunes up and running.. too funny!
I hope they get sued, and sued hard. Just because they have a small market share im sick of people treating Apple like the victim.
I hope they get sued, and sued hard. Just because they have a small market share im sick of people treating Apple like the victim.
i agree 100000+
if mircosoft did it the EU would come down with harder than a ribbed dildo without lube!
Quote of the Day!
It is true though
I have to say I do agree with Xerxes on this one. He brings some good points.
That said, I don't like the way either MS or Apple usually handle situations like this, but I do think the actions of MS are typically scrutinized in a different light.
Apple actively blocks other devices, unlike the other players you reference.
I hope they get sued, and sued hard. Just because they have a small market share im sick of people treating Apple like the victim.
It doesn't? What's that blinding beam of light coming out of his ass then?!?!?
The thing is none of these other players/devices have the monopoly like iTunes/iPod does. MS is forced to remove features, add things (browser ballot screen) ect.. from their OS because they have the largest market share by far. It's the same things with Apple and iTunes. They should be held to the same standard.
WMP doesn't support iPods because Apple actively lock off the iPod databases so that third party sync software doesn't work properly. WMP can sync to a lot of music players, heaven knows they are FAR more open with it than Apple are with iTunes, Microsoft don't push out updates to WMP to actively prevent it being used to sync other products either.
As others have said, MS doesn't support ipods etc, so expecting apple to support the pre is a little biased. Saying that, It would be nice if all players were supported by the popular music apps/stores; perhaps an open protocol of some kind. Although I can manage my ipod in linux, it would be prefered to have official support.
I think you're getting the different markets mixed up. The OS market is different to the music/portable music player.
REGARDLESS of wheter wmp supports it or not...if apple doesn't allow it, why should MS bother making it compatible?
Yeah but thats Apples decision, not MS's. I'm sure MS would love having the iPod sync in WMP.
Not that I'm against what Apple is doing here, but theres a big difference in the relationship of the iPod and WMP to that of the Pre and iTunes.
So would I. Hate using iTunes. Probably the only reason I don't use my iPod very often anymore...
Who says they have to fix them? and the matter is really quiet simple, because Apple practically monopolises the digital download media market, it is unfair for them to prevent synchronisation of people's downloaded tracks to other devices.
You don't seem to be reading anything that gets posted Microsoft CANNOT support the iPod in WMP because Apple encrypt the iPod databases stopping third party sync tools from working with them. Bypasses have been found for older iPods but newer ones such as the touch series, and the iPhone have not been bypassed yet, and it makes no economic sense for Microsoft to implement working iPod sync only for Apple to release an update that breaks it again.
Clearly you are intent on spreading anti Microsoft propaganda and have no real understanding of the issues at play here
iTunes if far from a monopoly. Add to that they are really only insisting though that you should have to use another piece of software in order to perform the sync. They aren't stopping people using those tracks.
I see no legal or moral reasons which would make Apple require them to let palm support in. Fact is there's hundreds of applications Palm could use not to mention dozens if not hundreds of places to get digital media. Apple shouldn't have to bend over to Palms desires just because they chose to target Apples suite based on its prior success.
Maybe it'd make sense for apple to do it if they didn't have a competing product but as it is I cant see how its in their interest at all.
And whether they have a competing product is irrelevant, as long as iTunes is the leader in online music sales, this will be seen as anti competitive behaviour.
I don't want to get your hopes too high, but on 2 machines today (both Win 7 X64 Ult Ed) the update was very smooth and it doesn't look radically different than my iMac as far as features.
Why would they deviate from the OS X UI? I mean Itunes is a walking advertisement for macs.
Walking advertisement? According to your analogy all macs are extremely slow, hog processor use, and take up tons of memory?
itunes on windows is horrendous.
Because it looks horribly out of place on Windows and gives a bad impression in general
Of course the Zune Software is a picture perfect example of a consistent interface on Windows... Microsoft won't create a remotely consistent experience among their own applications and operating system, so why should others?
This is true. Internet Explorer 8, Office 2007 (Which, Outlook has its own look and feel separate from Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and Access), Windows Live Mail, Windows Live Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, and Zune all have their very own look and feel. Microsoft can't set and follow style guidelines to save their life.
Internet explorer, windows media player, office 2007 and 2010 (2010 fitting in a lot nicer than 2007) and windows live all fit in quite nicely with the OS.
The only thing that I can think of that has a completely different UI is zune. And hell even that looks nicer on windows than itunes..
I don't like the Zune software either, but it is still far superior to iTunes on Windows
In your opinion. In any case the Zune Software interface sticks out like a sore thumb on Windows 7 just as much as iTunes does. Both integrate poorly with Aero.
If not even Microsoft can be bothered to follow their own set of interface guidelines it's only natural third-parties will follow that great example.
History repeats itself, Apple has done this before with Apple II and they dug a hole for themselves. Doing this just gives an additional boost for competitors to innovate and I won't be suprised if online music distribution will surpass iTunes music stales in the same way PC / Windows have surpassed sales of Apple computers with Mac OS.
@mmck: But yes, we have Songbird for example, which are cross-platform like Firefox.
It's just an application that loads a library, which are a bunch of mediafiles placed in folders, and organized by a flatfile database.
There is an superior alternative like doubleTwist, which comes to the rescue in this situation, because it has the ability to sync the iTunes library to any device:
http://www.doubletwist.com
And it's compatible with both Mac and Windows.
But I still wonder why it havn't been mentioned.
Why update, if it doesn't offer positive changes?
Why continue the war, when we have alternatives?
Last edited by PowerPatrick on 29 Oct 2009 - 21:13
It's just an application that loads a library, which are a bunch of mediafiles placed in folders, and organized by a flatfile database.
There is an superior alternative like doubleTwist, which comes to the rescue in this situation, because it has the ability to sync the iTunes library to any device:
http://www.doubletwist.com
And it's compatible with both Mac and Windows.
But I still wonder why it havn't been mentioned.
Why update, if it doesn't offer positive changes?
Why continue the war, when we have alternatives?
Don't know why but I read that last paragraph as if it's meant to be sung! Must be the formatting. Read any novel, when you have a group of lines shorter than the normal paragraph width, it's usually a song...
Now? They've always been less open than Microsoft...
If Palm chooses not to pay Apple for access to Apple's iTunes service (or Apple chooses to not allow them access) Palm has every right to make a competing service, but they do not have the right to market their device as a parasitic leech feasting off Apple's iTunes service.
*Ahem* recent nokia lawsuit.
It's not about robbing someone else. Apple thinks its fine for them to rob another company (in this case Nokia) but when Palm uses their itunes software (which probably actually earns apple money from people buying songs) they go cry foul about it. And I bet you soon enough in the future, apple is going to sue palm, for the itunes stuff.
I'm not saying that what palm is doing is right..
If MS wanted to ship WMP as a closed platform then sure, they would. They chose to market it differently.
Should MS also be forced to give windows away because Linux is free? Of course not. Different products are sold and marketed differently.
*Ahem* recent nokia lawsuit.
Before reminding us of the lawsuit that Nokia threw at Apple. You should remind yourself of the lawsuit Qualcomm threw at Nokia. Nokia was just like Apple.
*Ahem* recent nokia lawsuit.
Before reminding us of the lawsuit that Nokia threw at Apple. You should remind yourself of the lawsuit Qualcomm threw at Nokia. Nokia was just like Apple.
Not for the same reason...
The two companies had been at odds since April 2007, when the previous licensing agreement between them expired. Nokia, the Finnish cellphone maker, said that it should pay a lower royalty rate than it had been because it controlled important technology with its own patents.
Nokia already licensed the patents in the past, they just wanted a better deal. Qualcomm didn't want to give them the better deal and nokia refused to resign...so qualcomm took them to court.
Apple didn't even license it in the first place, they just used it. And the patents apple infringe on are to do with the 3g technology...a lot more important for the phone to function than performance and battery life.
*Ahem* recent nokia lawsuit.
Before reminding us of the lawsuit that Nokia threw at Apple. You should remind yourself of the lawsuit Qualcomm threw at Nokia. Nokia was just like Apple.
Not for the same reason...
The two companies had been at odds since April 2007, when the previous licensing agreement between them expired. Nokia, the Finnish cellphone maker, said that it should pay a lower royalty rate than it had been because it controlled important technology with its own patents.
Nokia already licensed the patents in the past, they just wanted a better deal. Qualcomm didn't want to give them the better deal and nokia refused to resign...so qualcomm took them to court.
Apple didn't even license it in the first place, they just used it. And the patents apple infringe on are to do with the 3g technology...a lot more important for the phone to function than performance and battery life.
Qualcomm sued Nokia over 11 patent infringements between 2005 and 2007 related to the technology used to access 3G wireless networks. Nokia CTO said that these lawsuits might have an impact on 3G technology. Nokia wanted to lower the royalties, but ended up with a cross-licensing agreement, a transfer of several patents to Qualcomm, and an up-front and continuing royalty payments to Qualcomm.
Apple and Nokia have been in talks for royalties payment for over a year, trying to get more than what Apple is willing to pay. And since all this is stalling, Nokia decided to sue Apple to hasten things up.
However, some analysts said this lawsuit may be a preemptive move from Nokia for it is soon releasing its new handsets which have multi-touch capabilities for which Apple has IP. So Apple may as well sue Nokia for that. The end-game? Out-of-court settlement, cross-licensing, if Apple wants so.
---
But back on the matter, Apple is well in its rights to block Pre from syncing with its iTunes. To each its own. Palm can make its own software for its Pre.
Would Sony accept to let Nintendo spoof their Wii disc as a PlayStation disc? Definitely not. And the other way around would be true, too.
Would Microsoft accept to let SanDisk spoof their Sensa as a Zune? Definitely not.
I don't understand why we are all debating this. I think it is rather clear that this should be a non-issue, and that Palm should stop already.
Agreed. I never said what palm was doing was right .
Completely unrelated as its two seperate systems so the games wouldn't even run.
Which is what I don't get. Apple and Microsoft both earn money from users buying songs from their music stores. Giving more users access just means more profit in the long run. Naturally this assumes people actually buy music lol
Well that's not quite true (the unrelated part). They are the 'same' games, albeit ported.
If you simplify the analogy, you could say that the audio files with different formats, that produce very similar playback can be referenced to the same game on different consoles.
Agree with you generally, however.
It's that simple. It is the software used to make Apple devices work. It always has been.
It would be like the pre spoofing its self as blackberry so you can use blackberry desktop manager to manage it.
iTunes is for Apple
Blackberry manager is for Blackberries.
Pre is spoofing as an iPod to directly compete with the iPhone. It was touted as an iPhone competition phone. So it is Apples right to stop the Pre from working with iTunes. Why would you let the competition steal one of your company's main features? A lot of work has went in to iTunes to work with apple devices. Why would you let the competition steal it?
But I think thats a bit farfetched to expect a good product from Apple on Windows
Still poor considering WMP for me only uses about 59 megs to play a HD video
Seriously. They're spoofing the iPod identifier. You can't do that.
As far as I'm aware there are legitimate ways to sync with iTunes anyway that involves licensing or whatever from Apple? Perhaps I'm wrong on that point but either way its clear Palm is doing whatever it can to get around any procedures Apple has in place.
Ohh and to add to that...you can clamor on about how iTunes should be open. What about Palm? How about they make their software available for other companies to use then? I'm sure they will be the last ones that will want to make WebOS available but so I find that stance somewhat hypercritical.
In any regards I think Palm spoofing Apple's device is worse than anything Apple is doing and by the sounds of it it seems to be an abuse of their licensing of the USB standard based on what some other articles have stated. Given that iTunes is not a monopoly I feel Apple has no reason to open it up and they should be able to use it as a means to protect its revenue stream (selling portable hardware) and shouldn't be the ones funding the development of software for Palm devices given Palm doesn't seem interested in paying Apple for their efforts.
On a side note, if I owned a Palm I'm unsure why I'd personally want to sync with iTunes anyway...
had this been microsoft, they would have been sued for sure for anti-trust issues.
You don't piggyback off of another companies success.
How did Apple "steal" the iPod?
Easy, lol. They even admitted it.
http://gizmodo.com/5046463/apple-admits-br...-patent-lawsuit
http://gizmodo.com/5046463/apple-admits-br...-patent-lawsuit
"I can’t even bring myself to buy an iPod for myself," he said. "Apple did give me one but it broke down after eight months."
Heh.
http://gizmodo.com/5046463/apple-admits-br...-patent-lawsuit
They didn't steal the idea.
They needed him to help win their case with his 'prior art'.
Many companies had portable media players before apple. They just got it 'right'.
I like iTunes because it's so un-open, proprietary and buggy ...but the main reason I like it, is its awesome quality of being a resource hugger. With all those processes running, you know it's really working on your mp3's.
And to people who complain about the installer file size, well.... where's the fun in downloading small packages nowadays. I mean, you at least want to see your download manager work a little.
.........
POS
I don't think anybody is buying the Palm Pre for its iTunes syncing features. If anything, Apple is shooting themselves in the foot because a Palm Pre user that is syncing with iTunes is probably much more likely to buy off the iTunes Music Store than a Palm Pre user that is not.
I don't think anybody is buying the Palm Pre for its iTunes syncing features. If anything, Apple is shooting themselves in the foot because a Palm Pre user that is syncing with iTunes is probably much more likely to buy off the iTunes Music Store than a Palm Pre user that is not.
+1
Is this legal? Likely.
Would this be legal is Apple is a monopoly? Unlikely.
Is it ethical? Not so.
Yes, Apple can do that but the Apple update is fixed for two simple options:
a) install the update
b) remind me later.
Apple is not giving you the option to "never ask me again for this update".
So this new update is just ****ing over a million of customers with a update that (almost) forcefully must install.
Its like Windows developers should pay Microsoft for using their Windows Media Player to sync content.
However, maybe Palm is infringing some patent or right that belongs to Apple when it comes to spoof a device the Pre is not.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.