webOS 1.2.1 Update Now Available

Gekko wrote:

canada lives off of the goodwill of the American people.

Hows that exactly? You didn't save us in any wars and never helped us out of any crisis.

Canada is America's #1 supplier of energy (not the middle-east). We also provide a lot of other natural resources that you need. Increasingly - that includes fresh water.

Now be nice - or we'll show you who lives off of who's goodwill :)

now back to the topic...

>What a ridiculous statement. You would have users locked into using a
>proprietary Palm solution rather than the one of their choice?

I agree - your statement is ridiculous - users aren't locked into itunes.

>Palm is a mobile computing company.

I see you're not calling Palm a software company :)

Palm *is* a software company - however, with the impending layoffs they
will have less resources available to develop their own desktop sync solution.

Palm should at least *partner* with a company that provides such software.

Instead they continue to hack their way into itunes. Someone should tell Ruby he doesn't work at Apple any more.

>what is best for the consumer?

Having a pre with a stable syncing solution. The way Palm can achieve that is by developing or licensing their own solution.

Tim, posting a long wordy article is not going to make your position tenable.

Actually, Apple is a hardware and software company.

itunes is the music store. Since most of Apple's profits come from selling hardware that integrates into itunes, it would not be in their best interests to open everything up.

>Now if *I* were running Apple I would not only let Palm and others directly
>sync with my store-because its good for me- I would also have sub-stores
>to sell programs for their equipment. Just to tweak Palm's nose I would sell
>Pre programs for a year at n/c to the developers...just to help palm out you
>know.

So you'd run Apple into the ground.

Maybe you should head up Palm's turnaround efforts...

What's best for Apple's retail customers is to do what they do best:

Make money in order to fund R&D and stay in business.

That's a lesson Ruby hasn't learned - since:

1. Palm is teetering on bankruptcy.
2. Palm hasn't put any R&D into their own syncing solution.

Also, since when do you care about Apple's customers? You're a Palm shill 100% Palm is only doing this to increase awareness of the Pre and to give them some PR.

>Companies do not always have to be looking out for numero uno.

Well, companies need to protect their IP - and it is Apple's IP in the case of itunes. Definitely a sour grapes dick-bag move by Ruby to have the Pre mis-identify itself as an Apple device.

>If a bricks-and-mortar retail store tried this shit - banning anyone who didn't
>own a special piece of co-branded hardware from bringing their shopping
>cart into the store - there would be an outcry, and with good reason. It's
>corporate greed at its worst.

I don't know what's worse - your blatant exaggeration or your lack of understanding regarding this situation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://hunter.pairsite.com/blogs/20091004/

On Palm, Competition, and iTunes Sync
Back when the Pre was announced, a frequent conversation topic among developers was "competition" -- as in, it would be great to have some healthy competition against the iPhone. At the time, the Pre looked promising, and seemed to be the first viable competitor to come along and really challenge the iPhone. Sadly, nine months later, what could have been competition has really just become a tired, childish annoyance. Whatever hype and capital Palm built up around the launch of the Pre has been squandered on a pointless and trivial cat and mouse game with Apple over iTunes sync. The saddest part is that this was totally unnecessary, though Palm wants you to think otherwise.

You see, Palm doesn't need the iTunes app to sync the Pre. They don't need to draw Apple's ire, or play yo-yo with their customers over this important capability. They can sync the Pre to a customer's iTunes music library with a public, open, and documented approach that has been used by third-party developers and device makers for years. This capability was created by none other than Apple itself.

Turns out it's a simple matter of reading the iTunes music library XML catalog file on a customer's computer, and using that to create a sync capability for the Pre. Not only is that XML file plain-text and human readable, it's got a published document type definition (DTD). Apple has developed this XML approach specifically "to make your music and playlists available to other applications" (see KB HT1660).

On the Mac, you can see this "iTunes Music Library.xml" file in:

/Users/username/Music/iTunes/

On Windows, it's located in:

\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes
Combined with the music files indexed by this XML catalog, you have everything you need to know to access or sync iTunes music. I don't know how Apple could be any more open or flexible about this. Clearly they took this approach to give customers access to their music in a manner independent of iTunes and Apple, now and in the future, since a well written XML file is almost like a self contained fossil record. As we've heard from Steve Jobs before, Apple is keenly aware of the issues surrounding online music sales, both from the standpoint of protecting the intellectual property of musicians and record labels, and the rights of customers.

Why Palm can't respect or understand this is beyond me. In one press statement, Palm spokeperson Lynn Fox said: "Palm believes that openness and interoperability offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own". Well, the problem is, nobody was blocking that freedom. In fact, Apple went an extra step to make sure that freedom was available to customers and third-party developers, independent of the iTunes app. But really, is it even Palm's place to be the sheriff on this topic? I don't think so.

Clearly, other companies know how to sync painlessly with iTunes music (see RIM's Blackberry Media Sync for example), so why doesn't Palm develop a syncing solution for their own hardware? The exact reason is unknown, but my guess is that it's a combination of things. Perhaps Palm doesn't have the resources to develop their own sync app. Or maybe they want some publicity. Or maybe they just want to push Apple's buttons. Who really knows. But I seriously question the strategy and brains of any company that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of their competitor's software. I mean, really? Can it get any more ridiculous? Can you possibly send a more mixed, less confidence-inspiring, "we're a bunch of hacks who can't provide our own sync software for our products" message to customers?

As for Apple, it's obvious why they don't want Palm using the iTunes app -- it takes away a competitive advantage and adds a support burden with no real payoff. One reason that the iPod/iPhone and iTunes have been successful is that they work so well together. In the past, other companies just haven't been able to get this combination right, but Apple did, and they invested a lot of time and money to get it right. To let a competitor walk in and use the iTunes app capability as a selling point for a competing device obviously doesn't make sense from Apple's perspective. And since Apple nets about ten cents per song sold, any music sales revenue they'd gain from enabling a device like the Pre, with a user base that is less than 0.3% the size of the iPod/iPhone user base, would surely be chump change compared to lost hardware revenues (where they make tens or hundreds of dollars per device).

With the recent webOS 1.2.1 release, Palm is also using iTunes to sync photos (in addition to re-enabling music sync). So their dependence on iTunes grows. What's more, Palm has resorted to spoofing multiple USB IDs, including Apple's USB Vendor ID, Manufacturer ID, and product ID, and even using an iPod serial number when connecting to iTunes. Besides giving a big eff-you to the USB Implementer's Forum standards body, this sends a strong message that Palm is unwilling to offer their own sync solution and will instead do whatever it takes to keep expanding their use of iTunes, regardless of the legality or ethics.

Healthy competition? Not even close.

What's best for Apple's retail customers is to do what they do best:

Make money in order to fund R&D and stay in business.

Oh, I see. So in that case, you'd also agree with the proposition that Apple should start charging $10 for every iPhone OS update, double the prices on music in the store and triple those on video?

Well, companies need to protect their IP - and it is Apple's IP in the case of itunes.

Again with the IP protection argument? For the zillionth time, Apple's IP is not being violated. An IP violation would be if Palm were actually making an alteration to the iTunes software. An IP violation would be distributing custom versions of iTunes to Pre owners. An IP violation would be if Palm had copied some software secret sauce that allows syncing (which they can't, because there is no secret sauce. Just an abitrary, weak-ass block thrown up by Apple for no reason other than giving people another reason to buy an iPod.).

But they're not. All the work (what little is required) is done on the Pre's end. iTunes works exactly as Apple programmed it to.

Also, since when do you care about Apple's customers? You're a Palm shill 100% Palm is only doing this to increase awareness of the Pre and to give them some PR.

Maybe. But why should that concern anybody who isn't an Apple shareholder? The end result for us end-users is the same: a more open ecosystem. Apple are not going to go bankrupt if the Pre syncs directly with iTunes.

I also care because more and more nowadays, iTunes gets exclusive bonus songs and other material that you can't get elsewhere. (One of my favourite bands, for instance, has a couple of iTunes-exclusive tracks.) You should be able to purchase and sync this material freely from iTunes itself without having to be an iPod/iPhone owner, too. It's a matter of principle.

As for Hunter's latest missive, he misses the point entirely, which is that iTunes users shouldn't need to use PalmTunesSync or some other third-party package to sync their purchases. Computer hardware and software should interoperate freely, a principle Apple themselves clearly see the value in - else they wouldn't be using Samba to emulate Windows networking on the Mac. Or allowing Google syncing etc etc.

And 'support burden'? What a load of crap. Palm are doing all the legwork to enable the syncing. Apple have already let people know loud and clear that they're not going to support third-party devices (which, BTW, is not the same as "deliberate break compatibility with third-party devices"). There is no 'support burden' whatsoever. It's a straw man.

Tim Carroll wrote:
I also care because more and more nowadays, iTunes gets exclusive bonus songs and other material that you can't get elsewhere. (One of my favourite bands, for instance, has a couple of iTunes-exclusive tracks.) You should be able to purchase and sync this material freely from iTunes itself without having to be an iPod/iPhone owner, too. It's a matter of principle.

Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Apple tracks were non-drm now? Can't you buy exclusive tracks through iTunes and just drag them out of iTunes onto your desktop, ready for use with any mp3 player?

Increasing store prices wouldn't be competitive with other music stores out there.

Charging for iphone OS updates goes against their established policy - they do however charge ipod touch users for OS updates.

Apple isn't circling the drain, Palm is. Selling their high-end webos phone for $99 isn't doing their investors any favors.

>Again with the IP protection argument?

It's Apple's IP - they have to defend it from unauthorized use.

The Pre is mis-identifying itself as an Apple Product in media sync mode.

Regardless of that, I question the strategy that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of a competitor's software.

Talk about a boneheaded move my Palm.

>But why should that concern anybody who isn't an Apple shareholder?

Because Apple's business plan is to sell more ipod and iphone devices through the use of itunes. Palm is attempting to circumvent that.

>The end result for us end-users is the same: a more open ecosystem.
>Apple are not going to go bankrupt if the Pre syncs directly with iTunes.

Apple would lose money than it would gain by supporting the Pre.

>I also care because more and more nowadays, iTunes gets exclusive
>bonus songs and other material that you can't get elsewhere. (One of my
>favourite bands, for instance, has a couple of iTunes-exclusive tracks.) You
>should be able to purchase and sync this material freely from iTunes itself
>without having to be an iPod/iPhone owner, too. It's a matter of principle.

You can - it's this new concept called "drag and drop" - unless it's DRM'ed video, you should be fine.

>As for Hunter's latest missive, he misses the point entirely, which is that
>iTunes users shouldn't need to use PalmTunesSync or some other third-
>party package to sync their purchases.

That's BS - you need to because Apple says you need to - it's Apple's software - not Palm's.

Perhaps if Ruby called Apple and offered to license access to itunes, they might be more amenable. Instead, he's trying to strong arm them. Bad move Ruby!

>And 'support burden'? What a load of crap. Palm are doing all the legwork to
>enable the syncing. Apple have already let people know loud and clear that
>they're not going to support third-party devices (which, BTW, is not the
>same as "deliberate break compatibility with third-party devices"). There is
>no 'support burden' whatsoever. It's a straw man.

Neither you nor I know what Apple has planned for itunes in the next 6 mos, year, 2 years, etc.

Supporting Palm obviously does not fit into their plans.

Palm needs to support themselves. itunes xml data is there for them to use...Palm is shooting themselves in the foot.

Apple invests intellectual capital in developing iTunes. Palm is trying to get a free ride on that.

Ridiculous! Are they also just trying to get a free ride on Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn with Synergy? Are they also just trying to get a free ride on Winamp, or Windows Media Player?

Of course they're not! Colligan came right out and said it at CES when webOS was announced. This is the 21st century. People keep their data everywhere, and Palm's plan is to let people aggregate that on their mobile device without hassle.

iTunes and its store are one of the most popular media services available. For Palm to ignore that would be insane. Direct iTunes syncing is clearly the simplest way for users of that software and customers of that store to manage their mobile media.

I'll say it again, even though by now I must sound like a broken record. Palm's move is ultimately pro-consumer. Apple's deliberate block is not. How on Earth anybody could support their move is beyond me.

Microsoft invested intellectual capital in building the Windows networking system. Open-source developers invested intellectual capital in creating Samba. Apple clearly have no problem getting a "free ride" on those other developers - as well they shouldn't, because technological interoperability is a good thing. If you take the stance that Apple are in the right here then you are essentially saying that you support arbitrary technological blocks in the pursuit of corporate profits.

FFS, it's wrong. It's as simple as that.

...correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Apple tracks were non-drm now? Can't you buy exclusive tracks through iTunes and just drag them out of iTunes onto your desktop, ready for use with any mp3 player?

You can, and indeed that's what I've done. Try explaining that to my Mum, or any other technological novice though. As far as those people know, iTunes is where those things live. "Drag-and-drop" means nothing to them. Palm knows this. That's why they've implemented direct syncing in the first place.

And again. It's the principle of the thing. There is no sound reason for Apple to block direct iTunes syncing other than their own self-interest. It's blatantly anti-consumer. It is offensive. It is wrong.

Tim Carroll wrote:

Microsoft invested intellectual capital in building the Windows networking system. Open-source developers invested intellectual capital in creating Samba. Apple clearly have no problem getting a "free ride" on those other developers - as well they shouldn't, because technological interoperability is a good thing. If you take the stance that Apple are in the right here then you are essentially saying that you support arbitrary technological blocks in the pursuit of corporate profits.

The thing is, to some extent patents and intellectual property are by their very nature arbitrary blocks on the use of that knowledge in the interest of corporate profits.

The extreme case is drug companies. It's clearly in everyone's interest for there to be no patents on drugs. People die because drugs are expensive. But we accept patents on medicine because without them drug companies wouldn't make the huge capital investments it takes to develop drug. iTunes is a far less important example of that. Apple develops the software to create profit--not for as a public service.

As for the example of Windows networking, in the case of Exchange anyway that technology is licensed, no? Certainly not all of Windows is open.

And again. It's the principle of the thing. There is no sound reason for Apple to block direct iTunes syncing other than their own self-interest. It's blatantly anti-consumer. It is offensive. It is wrong.

But this is commercial property. It's created to make profits. This isn't a question of morality It's the way the market works. Yes, iTunes is the way it is because it's in Apple's self-interest. Apple is a company which exists to make profits. They're playing by the rules we defined for them.

(the drug example is a matter of morality, and is clearly anti-consumer, but we still accept the limits because we value the market mechanism above all else. That is probably morally wrong in a way that the iTunes example is not, but it's the way we have collectively defined market economies, and so we live with it. If we want to change that, we need to rethink our values, not force drug companies to act against the rules we set for them.)

Consumers do not have a right to anything they want.

The extreme case is drug companies. It's clearly in everyone's interest for there to be no patents on drugs. People die because drugs are expensive. But we accept patents on medicine because without them drug companies wouldn't make the huge capital investments it takes to develop drug.

You're right, that is an extreme case. I think it's hardly analagous - life-saving medicines and shopping & syncing freely at the iTunes store are on two entirely different planes of morality.

This has nothing to do with patents and IP anyway. If Palm were violating a patent or IP, then Apple would have a legal case against them. They don't, because there is actually nothing special or secret about the way iTunes communicates with iPods.

I respect a company's or an individuals right to make money off their own creations. But iTunes is given away for free. The store itself turns a profit, even if it is a small one by comparison to the margins on Apple's hardware. It's not like Apple don't make any money if they let the Pre sync.

And since Apple are using basic file transfer protocols to transfer data between computers and iPods, I see no grounds for them to complain about Palm using those same protocols to do exactly the same thing.

Using iTunes as a carrot to lure people to the iPod/iPhone is fine by me. But smacking those who choose not to take that step with a stick - by deliberately breaking interoperability - is not.

This strategy isn't going to work long-term, and for Palm's own good, they better have a plan B.

Actually, that's still an open question at this point. Right now it's just a race to the bottom - Apple simply keep moving one level lower on the USB ID chain everytime they reblock the Pre, because anything more extreme would possibly require them to break compatibility with older iPods. It remains to be seen whether or not they're willing to take the step of issuing firmware updates to their entire product line just to lock out Palm.

nastebu wrote:
but even though they give iTunes away for free, it's still "their own creation" to make money with. So again, blocking sync is perfectly in bounds. It's not for us to tell Apple how not to make money.

Look, Palm is exploiting a loophole. That's funny, and kind of cool. But it's not morally right. I'm not really objecting to Palm's actions, I'm objecting to portraying them as some sort of pro-consumer revolt. That part just doesn't hold up. Palm is playing technological hardball, not standing up for the little guy.

Today, it is apparently "innovative" to break interoperability even when standards are in place to make it easier to interoperate. Look, Palm is not "exploiting a loophole". They are using "open" standards that were put in place years ago. You could just as easily state that Apple is "exploiting a loophole" to block otherwise compatible devices with vendor/manufacturer ids, or that Apple "exploited a loophole" in using open standards to try to create a closed protocol.

Certainly what Palm is doing is pro-consumer. It's also, unsurprisingly, pro other devices that want to compete in the iTunes space. Even though those of us around the Palm/mobile space know that Palm is weaker than its former self, the Palm name still has a strong position in the mobile market. They are certainly in a good position help people recognize that Apple is intentionally blocking non-Apple devices from interoperating with iTunes. I have no problem with Palm using their weight to get industry and consumer recognition of this.

I understand Apple's position, and they can certainly do whatever they want with their software/hardware. But I do not have to approve of nor agree with it. Maybe Apple and Microsoft should collude with memory stick/card manufacturers to only produce USB memory that works with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Then everyone would be forced to upgrade their systems/OS, as old flash cards/sticks wear out. How would you feel about that?

I certainly would not go around casting "morally righteous" judgement. Palm is the one promoting interoperability, and Apple is the one on the slippery slope of destroying it. What's the next USB device you'd like to see Apple/Microsoft intentionally block from their platforms?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD624rjftRQ