How Palm Re-Enabled iTunes Media Sync (Round 2)

anika, you said, "When is Apple..." - I agree 100%

It is Apple's decision as to how open they want their software to be...not Palm attempting to strong arm them with their twisted logic.

Palm is in the wrong here.

>She has a future in Washington in case Palm does fail. :-)

In case?? I think you mean when! Apple has enough lawyers to keep Palm tied up for a long time...

If you pull your head out of your butt, you'd realize that:

1. Palm is violating USB implementation rules by hacking Apple's vendor ID into the Pre.

2. Apple is under no obligation to allow syncing with anything other than Apple supported devices.

3. Apple provides an open format to allow any software to sync itunes content with any device.

If Palm is all about openness and choice, why isn't Palm bitching that the Pre can't sync with the Zune store?

Palm is a desperate company; desperate times call for desperate actions. Their bone-headed power play here is getting them more press than those lame-ass ads with the new age bimbo.

Palm will care - they're also violating DMCA rules.

>The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright
>law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property
>Organization (WIPO)...It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an
>access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright
>itself.

Checking the usb vendor id is a level of "access control"

>They're also under no obligation to deliberately block other devices.

Depends on how it's done freako. If they're locking out by looking specifically for Palm's vendor ID, that's one thing.

However, only allowing Apple's vendor ID (and ID's of those vendors who license access) is allowed.

>>Apple provides an open format to allow any software to sync itunes
>>content with any device.

>Which means nothing to someone who wants to use iTunes to manage their
>sync and not some third-party middleman.

No, but it will mean something if this ever goes to court.
Apple is not locking you in - as Palm would like you to believe.

They may make it cumbersome for third parties - but that's not the same as locking you in.

>Again: Palm gave iTunes users extra choice. Apple took it away. It really is
>that simple.

Correction - Palm gave Pre users additional functionality. They were to busy producing lame commercials - then spend a few $$$ to write their own syncing software.

Apple took away access that was never granted - spoofing vendor ID's and faking USB commands to bypass DMCA is a no-no.

You know that; why state otherwise?

BTW, we're not talking about the DMCA on moral principles.

itunes also provides copyrighted content; we're not talking about ink cartridges here.

We're talking about hardware locks to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works.

Last I saw, itunes is proprietary apple software. Palm wants to provide access to itunes for the Pre, let them license access - not utilize another company's IP (without that company's permission) to provide access.

Palm is clearly in the wrong, and doing this solely to prop up the Pre.

Palm had best have the vaseline primed and ready for the reaming they're going to get from Apple.

Apple has not choice but to defend their IP.

That means Apple can simple file a criminal complaint, then step aside as California/The Feds take Palm to court.

THAT would look good, huh?

LiveFaith wrote:

Spin it Lynn, spin it! While Palm is at it working tirelessly for the freedom of consumers, go ahead and open WebOS out to everyone for use on other devices, because this would "offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own without interference across devices and services". She has a future in Washington in case Palm does fail. :-)

WebOS is open. Anyone who wants to use it for their device is more than free to do so. WebOS is just a flavor of Linux. In fact, Palm has a long history of letting other hardware manufacturers use their OS's. Sony is the example that springs to mind, but the primary example is probably Handspring, which licensed the Palm OS.

Here's a complete list of companies that used Palm OS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palm_OS_devices

As far as the copyright argument goes, copyrights are just that: copyrights. The license is provided y the labels to use for iTunes, not for iPods (which don't do any copying themselves). While it's true that Apple only had iPods/iPhones in mind when they licensed the works, there's no credible copyright violation going on when a user uses iTunes to copy media to a non-iPod/iPhone. They paid for the music, so they satisfied the requirements of the copyright. At most, the user would be violating Apple's EULA for the iTunes software, and I can't see anything in the iTunes EULA that would prevent use of a Pre (or anything else) with iTunes. That might not have been the case before they removed DRM from their products, but in a DRM-free environment, as long as a device can use AAC files, there's no reason it shouldn't work with iTunes.

And lest you get any silly ideas, "access control" within the DMCA refers to access by the user. Clearly, if a program requires a key or password, it would be a violation of the DMCA to circumvent that password. To assert that the Vendor IP (which exists to enhance communication between the hardware and the OS) is somehow "access control" is silly, at best. The VID exists so that you can plug that device into your computer, and the OS will read that ID, downloading and installing the appropriate drivers. Essentially, the VID and PID together are supposed to say to the OS, "Hey, I'm an Apple iPod. Go fetch the device drivers that will make me work with this OS." That's why it's broadcast by the device itself when it's plugged in. For Apple to assert that they're using the VID to "protect" their IP wouldn't pass the laugh test in court. Only a moron would use an open, clear-text ID to "secure" anything. Personally, I always thought that Apple developers were smart enough to tie their own shoes. If they're really doing that, though, I have to wonder...

What Apple is doing with the VID (if this is the case) is the exact opposite of the purporse for which the VID was intended. The VID was intended to allow devices to communicate how to allow software to intereact with the USB peripherals. The VID doesn't even really have a place in applications. It's for the OS to recognize the device and install the right software to make it work. Apple, under this half-baked scheme, is using the VID as a way to prevent peripherals from interacting with their software.

If you want a close analogy, it woudl be like Microsoft using the VID to prevent Microsoft Office from working with non-Microsoft USB keyboards, or Skype disabling use of any webcams not sold from Skype's webpage.

The whole idea of basing your business plan on using free software to sell $200-$400 devices only works if there's really something unique about the way your device works with your software. If the only thing that really differentiates your device is an ID it sends out in clear-text...Well, your business plan is basically f*cked. It's just a matter of time.

Even if Palm could win in this particular case, do even they have the cash to withstand a protracted legal battle over what is essentially a non-issue?

Bottom line: Apple does whatever they can to get you to buy their products over other products, and once you are onboard, do everything they can to lock you in. And in that respect, Apple is worse than even Microsoft. Imagine the world where Apple has the monopoly that Microsoft has. It's plain scary. At least MS will license their OS to anyone and doesn't make the hardware themselves to lock everyone else out.

I'm not saying Palm (or anyone else) are necessarily any better. But I do appreciate it when someone breaks the artificial "controls" companies like Apple try to exert over mindless customers. [rant] Since the majority of people are too stupid to recognize when they are being taken for a ride, the "system" of control and lockdown continues to flourish and makes it harder for the rest of us who don't want to give up control over our fairly purchased products and services. No thank you. I prefer freedom and I will do everything I can to circumvent any artificial control any company tries to put on the products and services I purchase/fairly acquire. I do not copy media illegally. I pay for what I "consume". How I go about "consuming" it is my business and I have no intention of letting Apple or anyone else tell me how to do that. [/rant]

(I feel so much better.)

Hey Palm! Where's my PDA with Wifi and phone capabilities?

jca666us wrote:
hey bhartman,

>The VID exists so that you can plug that device into your computer, and the
>OS will read that ID, downloading and installing the appropriate drivers.

That's one possible use; however Apple is using the VID to ensure apple products are syncing with itunes.

In that case, the designer of that functionality should seriously consider a change in career. Any software engineer would have the brains to implement a more secure method if the intent was to restrict the products that are syncing with itunes.

So then, you're an i.d.i.o.t.

In your opinion.

>The purpose of the VID is to ensure that the OS pulls down the correct
>driver for the device. It's not there to intentionally sabotage devices in
>reference to software.

It could also be argued that since Apple has not published an "open sync" specification for itunes, they could be concerned that someone rever-engineering and/or hacking their way into itunes could potentially damage a user's itunes library.

Also, as per usb.org:

"Vendor IDs (VIDs) are owned by the vendor company and are assigned and maintained by the USB-IF only"

So now - if Apple owns their vendor ID, and they check that their vendor ID is present on a compatible device, that's their perogative.

What would be invalid, would be to look for Palm's vendor ID and block it - a subtle distinction, but there is a difference.

What is incorrect is for Palm to be using Apple's property to access itunes.

>Its purpose is to prevent users from ending up in AppleLand, where only an
>Apple mouse works with an Apple computer, attached to an Apple printer,
>supported by an Apple wi-fi card. Part of the reason that Apple doesn't see
>a problem in doing this is because their hardware model has always been,
>"It's Apple, or go f*ck yourself." And that's why Apple systems are more
>expensive than PCs. In general, PC users want no part of that. PC users
>grew out of that in the 1980's.

Apple systems can be cheaper, equal, or more expensive than comparable PC systems.

>The application in question is messing with an OS-level ID. If iTunes was a
>set of drivers, it would be a completely different story. iTunes is an
>application, period. This application is using a VID to intentionally thwart
>non-Apple products.

The application in question is not messing with the ID, it's looking at it to ensure someone (i.e. Palm) isn't spoofing their ID.

Again, no different than using a program I use to print with my epson printer that looks specifically for my epson printer.

>iTunes is cross-platform, to a certain extent. It works on Windows and Mac
>machines. (I haven't tried running it in Wine, but I suspect you'd probably
>be able to run it in Linux, as well, if you tried hard enough.) And they most
>certainly do market it to Windows and Mac machines.

Not my point; Apple doesn't market itunes as an application that will handle syncing for every media device out there.

It only handles syncing for ipods and iphones. Period.

>Sure, that's not the same as a native sync, but the point is, they
>encouraged people with other devices to use iTunes. The thing they
>foreclosed was a direct sync.

Right, so why should they be forced to handle syncing with everything?

Palm needs to get cracking and write their own sync software instead of co-opting itunes.

>And that's what has Apple so cheesed off right now: It turns out that the
>"tight integration" between iTunes and iPods/iPhones exists entirely in the
>devices announcing themselves as such. That's all. Nothing else.

Apple's the one pushing the tight integration and it's their right - it's their software.

It says on the box when you buy an iphone that you need to use iTunes to sync the product, so if you don't want to use iTunes, don't buy an iPod or iPhone.

If you've already purchased music in iTunes, 99.5% of it can be upgraded to DRM-free music (now that the music companies have finally given in) which can go into any music ecosystem compatible with AAC, an open standard.

You' and your music are not tied to iTunes.

You can leave if you want to and get a Pre, for example, but Palm can't simply co-opt Apple's technology.

That's IP theft.

jca666us:

That's IP theft.

Sigh. No, it isn't. The fact you continue to spew this rubbish demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what IP theft actually is. IP theft would be if Palm were distributing their own modified copies of iTunes. They're not. All the work is done on the Pre's end.

I still think you're a terrorist. Why do you hate freedom?

That's ip theft.

I thought I was the one repeating myself...?

Again: No, it isn't. The Pre does all the work. iTunes is working exactly the way Apple programmed it, without modification.

And Palm haven't approached Apple to license iTunes because they don't have to. If they did, do you really think Apple would have allowed this to go on as long as it has? Do you really think they wouldn't have sued Palm as soon as Pre hit the market, instead of entering into a software update war with them?

We shall see.

NO WE WON'T. This is EXACTLY like the last time you predicted a lawsuit based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts at hand. Remember that one? The epic multitouch patent lawsuit that would see Apple putting Palm out of business? The one you were totally, utterly wrong about? This is like that.

Stop. For the love of God, just stop. It's painful to watch.

One day, its "itunes sucks - why would anyone want to use it"

Today, it's "itunes users need the freedom to move there content where they want"

In technology they first came for the iTunes users,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an iTunes user.

Then they came for the WMP users,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a WMP user.

Then they came for the Linux users,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Linux user.

Then they came for the Mac users,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Windows user.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

(I realise it's impossible for your tiny mind to reconcile the idea that someone can support consumer freedom without using a particular product, but I'll try anyway.)

Some would consider that ip-theft

No, YOU consider that IP theft. Since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea what that term actually means, that makes your opinion on the matter completely irrelevant.

Try this one on for size, then: "An injury to one is an injury to all".

I think iTunes is a piece of shit and wouldn't use it if you paid me. Doesn't stop me from recognizing this as a totally dick move on Apple's part.

Thus, Windows kicks the living crap out of OS X.