×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

841 comments

How it went down: (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709487)

Palm: "Oh no you didn't!"

Apple: "Oh yes iDid."

Re:How it went down: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709911)

Palm: "Oh no you didn't!"

Apple: "Oh yes iDid."

Palm: Talk to the hand.

Just deserts. (0, Troll)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709543)

And is anyone surprised ? Really ?

It's Apple's tech, they put the work in, they deserve to reap the rewards. Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO.

I can't see it really affecting anyone though. As any fule know, iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative (what Pre owners are left with), the ability to "just drag files to it as a disk" ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by /. comments in the past. Wonder how that'll work out in practice ? Guess we'll see :)

Simon.

Re:Just deserts. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709577)

Yeah, you tell 'em! those Samba guys should be ashamed of trying to steal Windows SMB technology too!

Re:Just deserts. (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709581)

1. Microsoft put the work in, why should anyone else be able to run software on windows?

2. Meh, I don't own anything apple or palm, and I do prefer jsut using files. I just dislike idiocy (your post).

Re:Just deserts. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709613)

The fact that the parent isn't +5 Insightful just demonstrates the depths of Slashdots hypocrisy.

Re:Just deserts. (0, Offtopic)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709673)

The fact that your post isn't -1 Offtopic just demonstrates the depths of moderators' slow reaction speed.

Re:Just deserts. (-1, Offtopic)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709833)

The fact that this post is +5 insightful just proves that all of the above posters are wrong (and that I am awesome).

Re:Just deserts. (2, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709691)

  1. Let's consider the difference between an Operating System (something designed to run applications, and opened to third-parties as a way of making more money for the Operating System vendor), and a piece of consumer electronics, designed for the purpose of playing music, and specifically not licenced to third-parties. Perhaps these two completely different cases should be regarded as, you know, different.
  2. You may prefer using files - I don't care. I'd be willing to bet you're in the minority though. I'd be willing to bet Palm would agree with me too, or they'd not have done it in the first place. I guess we'll see...
  3. Merely stating that my post is "idiocy" doesn't make it so. If my opinion disagrees with your own, it doesn't make it idiotic either. I'd be interested in knowing which part of my post in particular you thought was idiotic, although I might be tempted to agree if you'd said it was snarky :)

Simon

Re:Just deserts. (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709749)

And perhaps you ought to try to understand what a monopoly is and how making blanket statements about what apple are entitled to do with their stuff is stupid.

They are able to o this precisely until they are found to be a monopoly in either market, at which point locking hardware (iPod is definitely at monopoly stage) and software (iTunes must have over half the music download market) is abusive behaviour.

Specifically killing interop with other products is verging on illegal behavious and certainly makes them arseholes.

Re:Just deserts. (1, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709919)

So, you stating that they're a monopoly doesn't make it so, either.

As and when they are adjudged to be a monopoly (by, you know, someone who counts, like a judge), then their behaviour is held to a higher standard. At the moment, I see Apple working hard to establish their products, and some johnny-come-lately hacking those products by falsely claiming to be an ipod at the device-id level. That's not a poster-child for interoperability. Not by a long chalk.

Simon

Re:Just deserts. (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709999)

I agree. what I can't figure out is why nobody's going after them. it's not like there is no precedent. Microsoft is still being gang-raped in the EU...

Re:Just deserts. (2, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710079)

Ipod is most certainly NOT at the monopoly stage. There are literally HUNDREDS of competing products, and since Itunes is DRM free, your argument falls completely flat. There is no lock-in, and the marketplace is robust. Now, I do agree its a dick move, but they are completely within their rights and shouting 'monopoly' is not going to change that. Until Ipod holds a 90% or larger share and they use that to illegally force people out of ANOTHER marketplace, you really dont know what you are talking about.

Re:Just deserts. (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709783)

iTunes isn't a piece of consumer electronics. This isn't about compatibility with the iPod, it's about compatibility with iTunes.

It could be argued that Apple are illegally leveraging their monopoly on pre-installed apps on OSX to bolster their near monopoly in the (hardware) MP3 player market.

Re:Just deserts. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709851)

1) That analogy fails as apple (surprise!) also has an operating system, and lets people develop whatever they want on it.

2) I have no idea what it is your trying to say here. "I don't own a next gen phone because I like files [as in?] and dislike idiocy [no really?], and your post is stupid." is what I got from that. Not sure what it means.

Re:Just deserts. (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709605)

Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO.

So then you also show similar disapproval of Wine, Samba, Rockbox and the host of other OSS software that attempts to interoperate with proprietary Apple and Microsoft software, no?

Re:Just deserts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709741)

I have been a bit more approving of Beer than Wine so far this summer, though that may change in August.

Re:Just deserts. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709611)

Apple's devices are also virtually 100% secure, just like OS X. Having a device that has an unproven security record lie and say it is an iPhone or iPod (which neither of which has had a malware issue since their inception) is a disservice to Apple's users, so it's completely understandable why Apple would put the kibosh on the matter for good.

Re:Just deserts. (2, Insightful)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709649)

Apple's devices are also virtually 100% secure, just like OS X. Having a device that has an unproven security record lie and say it is an iPhone or iPod (which neither of which has had a malware issue since their inception) is a disservice to Apple's users, so it's completely understandable why Apple would put the kibosh on the matter for good.

I reckon this is some very nice humour.

Re:Just deserts. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709637)

I'm not surprised, and I don't think that Apple should be forbidden to do what they have done; but my interpretation of the situation is exactly the opposite of yours.

Most of the power of modern computer systems is in the useful interaction between components. For Vendor B to build a product that interacts in a desirable way with Vendor A's product is exactly what should happen, and is about as "classy" as anything a corporate person is going to do. For vendor A to turn around and break that interaction is a middle finger in the eye for the customers. A middle finger they are permitted to insert; but the notion of praising them for it is absurd.

Should your browser have an "invite" to work with a web server from a different vendor? Do makers of aftermarket parts lack class? Why praise a company's self interested attempt to improve its fortunes at your expense?

Re:Just deserts. (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709753)

And is anyone surprised ? Really ? It's Apple's tech, they put the work in, they deserve to reap the rewards. Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO. I can't see it really affecting anyone though. As any fule know, iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative (what Pre owners are left with), the ability to "just drag files to it as a disk" ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by /. comments in the past. Wonder how that'll work out in practice ? Guess we'll see :) Simon.

Hi, Simon. I certainly agree that no one should be surprised. And I mostly agree that most Pre users won't miss it much. What I question is the idea that Palm hijacked any of Apple's "tech". All Palm really did was take information which iPhones broadcast over USB and mimic it. And even that is done at a pretty minimal level. It's just surprising that it took this long for Apple to issue the update, since it was pretty clear what the syncing method was. Anyway, I'm sure the homebrew community will step up to the plate, for those who do miss the iTunes sync functionality.

think different (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709781)

It's like Apple can't learn from Microsoft's mistakes.

Maybe Palm can buy/license doubleTwist and try to convert customers to syncing iPods and PREs with that instead of iTunes. A long shot I suppose, but it appears to work with a lot of devices(including many digital cameras too).

What does this get them? (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709585)

Really, what would be the benefit for doing this? For one, not many people really -like- iTunes, it just happens to be the easiest way of syncing your iPod, if you could do the same thing in VLC, WMP, etc most people would. This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits. Apple had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this, so in the end what does it get them?

Re:What does this get them? (2, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709623)

This opens up Apple to a lot more anti-trust suits.

How so? They have no obligation to allow other devices that they don't want to to work with iTunes.

Re:What does this get them? (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709675)

No, but they do have a very closed application market, and until very recently a very closed music market, and still a very closed video market. Put all those together along with the over-zealous guys over at the EU who sued Intel for basically having a large marketshare, and you have a risk that I don't think Apple would want to take.

Re:What does this get them? (4, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709827)

Intel were sued for illegal business practices. They used their virtual CPU monopoly to bully or 'bribe' system builders into not stocking AMD.

I'm loving how many USians are getting their panties in a twist about it though, so don't let me stop you. ;)

Re:What does this get them? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709907)

Don't know how it is in Europe, but AMD computers here in the USA fill up 45%+ of any store shelves at any place that stocks computers (well, aside from the Apple store which builds only with Intel CPUs). So "virtual monopoly" is a lie at least here in the USA. As for them owning x86, thats true, but AMD owns x86-64 which will soon be the new instruction standard.

Re:What does this get them? (2, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709971)

So by your philosophy I should be mad because I can't play PS3 games on my XBOX? or visa versa? Remember monopolies ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Abusing one is.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710043)

No, you should be mad if you used to be able to type in a code and play PS3 games on your Xbox then MS disabled it. It is technically impossible for you to play PS3 games on your Xbox. It is also technically impossible to play Xbox games on a PS3 without an emulator. It is not technically impossible for iTunes to sync with other devices, when functionality like that is removed, you have a right to be mad.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710133)

So when hackers used to take advantage of RPC vulnerabilities in Windows XP, and then Microsoft patched it so they couldn't, the hackers had a right to be mad that this functionality was removed? Your comment implies that syncing a Palm Pre with iTunes was a function fully intended and provided by Apple, and it wasn't. There were some crafty developers that took advantage of the simple handshake done with an iPhone, and emulated that on a Pre.

Re:What does this get them? (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709681)

Until such time as it's shown that they have a monopoly in online music distribution, at which point courts in various places will start to look seriously at why interoperativity isn't there.

And if/when they see behaviour like this, specifically designed to limit it, they'll likely make rulings about it.

I see the motivation for Apple - they are basically the only game in town when it comes to mp3, unless you're a geek - and they could see this as diluting their hold on the market.

Doesn't make them any less dickish for doing it though.

Qualifier (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709713)

Only game in town when it comes to mp3 *players*, I realise that there are other music download services. They're not anywhere near as big as iTunes though.

Re:Qualifier (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709883)

I consider myself an avid music listener. I have purchased all of 10 songs from iTunes and that was just to figure it out...I never have had trouble finding any artist I wanted... screw iTunes, While I like Apple, iTunes is a prime example of a crappy product supported by another great product that has a shelflife coming to an end.

Re:Qualifier (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710019)

> Only game in town when it comes to mp3 *players*, I realise that there are other music download services. They're not anywhere near as big as iTunes though.

Um, there are still a number of other companies making MP3 players, notably Creative, Sony and Microsoft just to name some of the big guys, and in the local store I see a whole raft of no-name flash mp3 players of varying sizes.

And as for the music store, it's so dominant because (IMHO):
a) Apple spent the time and effort to negotiate with the music labels so that all the songs had the same DRM rights (back when DRM was being used and now for all songs to have no DRM). everybody else just gave in (including microsoft) and let the labels set their own rights [so different songs from the same store had different rights]. This is STILL happening, with that new Microsoft music store announcement in Europe.
b) Apple spent the time and effort to create a unified environment, so users could fairly easily find songs they want, purchase them, play them on their computer and load them onto iPods. After more than 5 years, only Microsoft's Zune store is similar in usability [but I think it's only usable with the Zune, and don't get me started about them screwing everybody with their Zune-only drm].

Both of these things are what gave Apple the huge advantage over everybody else. And consumers can just look at the things Microsoft is coming out with, and see that they seem remarkably similar to what Apple came out with the previous year [Zune Touch anybody].

There are other music stores as big as Apples [that have a similar number of songs as Apple's has], but nobody seems to want to invest the time and money to make sure there is a smooth end-user experience all the way from finding the music you want to getting that music onto randomco's mp3 player.

Re:What does this get them? (0)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709847)

Well as I said in another comment, they do have a monopoly on the software shipped with OSX. Probably doesn't count as a monopoly in market terms though.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710003)

I see the motivation for Apple - they are basically the only game in town when it comes to mp3, unless you're a geek

Or bother walking down to the next shelf at Best Buy, and seeing all the players that are the same capacity as the iPod, but at lower cost or greater feature-set.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710065)

Apple has no monopoly. Ironically, I'm the geek between all my friends and the only one that buys from iTunes. All my non-geek friends buy their music from Walmart's online store or Amazon.

I know Apple is the big boy, but that is far from being a monopoly.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710109)

Popular does not mean the same thing as 'the only game in town' There are MANY MANY MANY MP3 players out there, alot of them quite superior the the Ipod in many ways.

Re:What does this get them? (2, Insightful)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709727)

I'm sure iTunes must control as much of the jukebox market as windows controls the OS market. I'm pretty sure that using your market dominance in one field to force people to buy your other products could be interpreted as anti-trust.

In many ways they are worse than microsoft who just relied on making the protocol obscure, apple appear to be actively testing for and blocking interoperability with competitors products.

Re:What does this get them? (1, Redundant)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709985)

I'm pretty sure that using your market dominance in one field to force people to buy your other products could be interpreted as anti-trust.

They aren't using their market dominance to do anything. They are simply not allowing anything but their own devices to use their services which is perfectly legal.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710073)

Or maybe they fixed the protocol to not allow devices that masquerade as other devices, and all Palm need to do is stop pretending and report itself as a Pre and it will work again.

I haven't looked at the source code, though, so probably best for me not to make unfounded statements as if they were fact.

Re:What does this get them? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709639)

Yeah I don't get this either, I mean if palm-pre users are willing to use iTunes to manage their music then they might be willing to buy music via iTunes for their devices too.

Why would you alienate potential paying customers?

Re:What does this get them? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709845)

What's the problem with iTunes from a usability stand point?

I've done the non-iPod media player thing. It sucks. Organizing music is a pain in the ass unless you're so completely anal retentive that you have music sorted by artist then symlinked according to album, year, genre, etc. All of that stuff is in the mp3 meta data anyway, why should I have to manually sort it? For that matter, why should the media player have to reindex the second there's a change made? My CPU and disk are faster than the one in my iPod! just build the index through itunes and send the metadata and mp3s to the player.

I just wish iTunes had better keyboard shortcuts.

Re:What does this get them? (0, Redundant)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709897)

Why does it need to be any more complex than artist->album?

I've never understood the need for genre's (especially seeing as they're pretty vague and meaningless). Why the hell would I care about years?

Re:What does this get them? (2, Informative)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709973)

Why does it need to be any more complex than artist->album?

I've never understood the need for genre's (apostrophe FAIL)(especially seeing as they're pretty vague and meaningless). Why the hell would I care about years?

Why care about year of release? Because a lot of folks like to sort their albums, by each artist, in the order in which they were released.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

iron-kurton (891451) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710045)

The entire meta-labeling scheme seems convoluted. My music could be classified in folders like "ABC Soundtrack" with filename being the name of the artist - song name.mp3. But the meta-info may be missing. Or I have a bunch of foreign music that CDDB didn't recognize. In all these cases, the "Artist" column is "Unknown" and if you don't fix the problem at import, the Unknown category becomes a black hole for music. And what happens if I import a bunch of these at the same time? Now, they all mix together in the Unknown folder, and I'm SOL.

For me, Apple's way of doing things in iTunes (and mostly, in general) just doesn't make sense - and I've owned a Mac for 2 years now, and have had many iPods, so I *had* to use iTunes extensively.

Going back to GP's comment, I totally agree -- Apple's business model is starting to revolve heavily around providing a service, i.e. iTunes. Why they want to limit people from using a specific device to hook into iTunes is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is the fear that they will lose iPod sales, but to that, I say they have already lost that sale!!!

Re:What does this get them? (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709877)

Simple. Apple doesn't want to have to support Palm.

If the Pre had NEVER worked with iTunes, there wouldn't be a problem. Because Apple was slow to modify things so it didn't work, they're going to take some flak. If they'd let things go for a year or two or whatever until they changed something in iTunes, for other reasons, that broke Pre compatibility, they'd be in even bigger trouble.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

the_wesman (106427) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709959)

you're kidding, right? VLC and WMP have offensive user interfaces - I actually really, REALLY like iTunes - I hated it at first (when I was switching from winamp) but now, it would take a lot to make me switch back.

Re:What does this get them? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710029)

Thing is, though, if Apple looks to the side eventually the music industry will let them know (if they didn't already.) At that point, Apple is informed. If Apple now does not make sure to provide Palm with timely updates for DRM hacks, and make sure Palm uses them, then Apple is the one held liable of a breach of contract for allowing this to happen.

.

So apple has two options: go through the legal headache of setting up a sharing strategy with a competitor, and expect them to not get them in trouble by not applying updates regularly, or simply locking them out. They did what was easier. Besides, if they want to risk getting in trouble with anyone, there are bigger fish out there that would give them some serious money to band together. Still not worth their headache, if you ask me, though.

Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (5, Insightful)

shutton (4725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709601)

I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better. Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.

So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.

Shame on you, Apple. Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (5, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709717)

I agree with you.

Apple should erect some walls between its business units, so that the desire to do well in the mobile arena doesn't mean that their systems software unit makes changes to aid that, directly harming consumers.

Yeah, sure, Apple provide XML files in iTunes for third party applications to use for custom sync. But why not just publish a media sync protocol and be done with it.

I personally don't think that Apple have the balls (insert tasteless joke about radiotherapy and cancer here) to actually compete on a level playing field instead of pulling a Microsoft and leveraging their media player monopoly (arguably) to negatively affect a competitor in a different business unit.

On the other hand, Palm should have written their own synchronisation application that tied in with iTunes/WMP/WinAmp/Files + Outlook/iCal/Thunderbird/etc. However the Pre is all cloud-like and probably only needs to get media files on with desktop sync.

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709913)

Maybe one idea would be for Palm, Nokia, et al. to get together with Microsoft, put their resources in making a superb MP3 manager. Perhaps get Microsoft to merge WMP and the Zune player.

Then, this player could use plugins to sync any digital audio player the user has, and the plugins could be generic MTP wrappers (which will work with almost all PlaysForSure devices, Windows Mobile phones/PocketPCs, and newer Creative devices), wrappers to copy files to a drive (say for Archos players or ones which just work as a USB hard disk), or dedicated drivers for older or proprietary players (the Creative Nomad).

I think the attitude should be to get together and host a better party than to try to forge invitations past the door guy of your rival's shindig.

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709891)

I interviewed at Apple a few years ago, and a consistent message from the developers was that *everything* they do is to make the customer experience better. Things are not done simply because they're cool -- they have to serve a purpose.

So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.

Shame on you, Apple. Have you gotten so big that you've forgotten what it was like to be under Microsoft's thumb?

The problem is of course that Palm users are NOT Apple's customers. If Palm had some sort of licensing deal with Apple so that Apple got some of the profits from Palm sales then you'd be right.

Let me present this argument this way.. Palm faked Apple's VID/PID to shoehorn themselves into iTunes. Thus Palm users are at best 1/2 an Apple customer if they use the iTunes store. From a customer support point of view.. Apple now has to make their software fit whatever Palm hacks together to support these "sort of" customers? What happens when all the other phone makers follow Palm's example? Is Apple now suppose to support the Motorola POS3000 because they futzed around with the iTunes protocol without permission?

Clearly you don't understand what Apple means by "make the customer experience better". What they mean is... control the hardware so you know exactly what you're running on... so you don't have to test against 3000 variants... so you don't miss that edge case with the chinese pos hardware/driver that blue screens the system. It's always been their message.. look at the macs... they've decided to not let people hack around the hardware and push the compatibility problems onto the software.

Shame on you shutton for buying a hack and then complaining it doesn't work...

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (4, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709979)

No, the Palm users are full Apple customers if they're using iTunes. Especially if they're running it on a Mac. This "1/2 Apple customers" idea is just strange -- it must be like being 1/2 pregnant or having 2.5 children.

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (5, Insightful)

shutton (4725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709997)

You either are, or aren't a customer. If I'm using an Apple product that wasn't stolen, I'm an Apple customer. I received iTunes (along with iPhoto, and i-everything-else) when I purchased my MacBook Pro. That software helped sell the computer. iPhoto works fine with hundreds of different digital cameras. As it would happen, Apple doesn't make digital cameras. They don't even have to work very hard to support them thanks to standard file system layout. It's clear that Apple has made an exception for iTunes to drive their "attachment rates" in other business units. Sounds like the behavior of an up-and-coming monopoly, doesn't it? And, I'll conclude by saying that there are *plenty* of alternatives to iTunes, but Apple has been telling us for so long that iTunes is the greatest thing since gravity boots that we just all simply use it because it's the default media manager. Hm, that sounds familiar, too... :)

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (1)

Lysol (11150) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709917)

All I have to say is this: Apple doesn't care in the slightest. They've forgotten about living under anyone's thumb because they're leaders now in a few key markets. They'll abuse it the say way anyone else does or is. At this point, people have to organize, complain, vote with their pocketbooks, hack. I do happen to like and own many Apple products, but they're no shining knight - never have been in my mind.

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709925)

It bothers me that you have to put the "as a MacBook Pro user" to avoid getting modded down.

Re:Ironic dichotomy of Apple's Family Values (3, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710055)

If the Pre had used established methods (ie. writing software to parse the iTunes XML catalog and syncing with the files on the HD) you'd have a point. However, the Pre was tricking iTunes into identifying it to the customer as an iPod. Ignoring trademark violations, that seems like it could be harmful and confusing to Apple customers less technically inclined than yourself. In any case it's really hard to argue that Apple shouldn't have its software identify hardware correctly or not at all.

I have little sympathy for Palm here, and by extension the customers they duped.

Why doesn't apple want Palm users' cash? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709603)

I think this is a lame move by apple. If I had a Palm Pre and it stopped being able to access iTunes, I would probably ditch iTunes. Oh well.

Ciao,
lex@techlex.org

Re:Why doesn't apple want Palm users' cash? (1, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709819)

iTunes doesn't make Apple any significant amount of money. iPod and iPhone sales do. iTunes exists for the purpose of driving hardware sales.

I couldn't care less (-1, Troll)

oringo (848629) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709657)

about iTunes. It's made to be a lock-in platform for Apple to sell more DRM-ladden music. There are other products (and free) out there that allows you to sync the Palm Pre: http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt [doubletwist.com] DId I mention it's made by DVD Jon?

Re:I couldn't care less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709843)

> It's made to be a lock-in platform for Apple to sell more DRM-ladden music

Not feeding the trolls so much as consistently rejecting this old excuse. Apple do not sell DRM-laden music. Apple do not sell DRM-encumbered music. Apple's music sales are in AAC format, which is an open format, not an Apple-exclusive format. Music sold by Apple will play on any device that plays AAC music, barring ones with obscure bugs.

Apple's *video* sales, however, are DRM-encumbered.

Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (4, Insightful)

neiras (723124) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709659)

Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.

I don't care how pretty Apple's products are. If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour. Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.

Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709745)

Umm i can run anything i want on my mac, even windows if i was so inclined..
My ipod has never touched an apple formated file.

Just 2 simple examples.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709895)

I guess you don't want to have a Palm Pre or use Verizon's network, do you. :)

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709967)

You say it like those are bad things. Where I'm coming from, those are added perks!

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710005)

Can you take your OSX from your Mac and install it on a Dell ('illegal' cracks do not count?

Your iPod never managed to touch the 'iTunes' database file on its hard drive? That's a pretty significant apple proprietary format in the way of interoperability that I'm pretty sure every iPod touches in its lifetime regularly.

Both of your examples conveniently fit with their stated business models, that the OS and the iTunes store at least originally were not intended to be nothing more than 'cost recovery' mode, with the goal of pushing more high-margin hardware. As such, Apple software/services go out of their way to force you to use their hardware. They don't mind you taking their hardware without buying into their other offerings, but they will not tolerate use of their services with other devices (unless, of course, the manufacturer of that device pays apple an extortionist licensing fee).

Of course, since their software development costs are subsidized by their hardware sales, from a business situation they aren't positioned to let the software compete on its own merits at current pricing.

A

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (2, Insightful)

Roxton (73137) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709769)

Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.

I care, but I know that what I do won't make a difference. The only libertarians I respect are the ones that acknowledge that we need improved means for private-sector collective bargaining. Bonus pragmatism points for espousing a (strictly temporary) government role in the formation of said means.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709789)

Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.

I don't care how pretty Apple's products are. If you own an iPhone, a Mac, or use iTunes, you are supporting this kind of corporate behaviour. Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.

Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.

Yes, but Apple is a hardware company. iTunes and OSX exist to promote the hardware so why should it work with anything else.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709807)

Yes, time to start buying from this other company,,, what's it called,,,,,,,, Microsoft, no wait that is the same shit.

So I would have to install fx. Ubuntu but I always end up having to spend time getting something to work.
I guess I don't really care enough to modify my behaviour so I have just Apple equipment at home (besides from my QNAP box) and I don't have to waste any of the little free time I have on getting different devices to work together.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709905)

I'm going to stick with companies that make products that are demonstrably "less bad". Thanks for the sage advice, though.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28710015)

Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.

Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible. Accept that you'll have to go without some of the bling until the market catches up.

Of course it is possible to wait. But after a decade of waiting, I really wanted a good MP3 player. My iPod does everything I want and iTunes touched it only once. Since then, I've been using gtkpod. So, I don't feel locked-in.

Re:Yet another reason to avoid Apple products (1)

reidconti (219106) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710089)

Cool. I don't give a shit, so I won't. And you obviously don't have a principled stand, either, because you clearly demonstrate the moronic belief that people only buy Apple products because they're shiny.

And nothing of value was lost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709685)

Seriously; it works great as a USB drive.

Ahh the wonders of closed protocols... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709689)

I'm glad I've got my Ogg Vorbis player that uses UMS to communicate with the computer.... It works on any computer, be it BSD, Mac, Windows, or Linux with no trouble whatsoever.

Then again, I guess I'm neither trendy, nor cool.

Doubletwist? (5, Informative)

bitkari (195639) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709711)

You could always use DVD Jon's DoubleTwist [doubletwist.com] to sync the Palm Pre.

It reads iTunes libraries (including those irritatingly hidden away on iPods/Phones) and syncs to lots of devices quite nicely.

It's not exactly full-featured enough yet to use as your main media player, but it's really useful for moving stuff between devices.

Antitrust? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709721)

So Apple has a virtual monopoly on portable media players, and they're using their monopoly to harm their competitors. Sounds like a job for the DoJ to me.

Apple is evil, and I can't understand why geeks like them so much. They're notorious for protecting their interests above anybody else's with absolutely zero regard for the consumer.

Re:Antitrust? (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709763)

It's a really stupid move that you would expect of Steve Ballmer, not Apple. it's bull headed and childish.

And if it attacts a monopoly antitrust case, that will be years of costly defence for Apple to waste money and time on. Never mind Europe fining them a billion every year they keep it up.

This move is thus certainly not in their shareholders' best interests.

Re:Antitrust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28710001)

Short term, the move may be in Apple's interest. However, does Apple want an arms race versus device makers to make sure only true iPods connect? The DMCA has exemptions for reverse engineering for compatiblity (Chamberlain vs. Skylink, 2003). I'm sure Apple has better things to do with its resources than to fight a battle like this that ultimately pits them against their customers.

Apple isn't losing any money because a third party is allowed to connect to iTunes. Instead Apple should try to get some PR on the "make the switch, everything you have is compatible" angle, and have some API available so non Apple devices can hook into iTunes and not have to masquerade.

Songbird is the answer (4, Interesting)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709801)

Palm should go with Songbird. Songbird is not 100% stable and bug free (I have been testing it lately), but if they offer a bit of assistance to the SF-based team, they could make it work for them just fine.

And in the process, maybe they would be able to open the doors for more smartphones/players who are in need of a capable mp3 organizer.

Annoying as hell? (0)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709823)

From the article: "It works, but is annoying as hell. Will Palm respond? Who knows. In the meantime, welcome to your new reality, Pre users." Uhh Eric Zeman, not being able to use your precious palm to sync with Itunes is inconvenient and mildly annoying. Not sure it's as annoying as hell.

I was trying to come up with examples..."Cell phone yelling on a bus", "Madonna" - annoying as they are, nowhere near as annoying as hell. I know, I know, figure of speech but fucking drag your files or buy an Apple device or even better..here it comes..STOP USING ITUNES.

Apple is just Microsoft wannabe. (1, Troll)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709839)

Mod me troll if you want. But clearly this action proves that Apple is not interested in open standards, in interoperability or level playing fields. It wants to promote the same walled-garden eco system that is actively promoted by Microsoft. But sadly, it is not as successful as Microsoft in grabbing market share or money from people.

OK, OK I will stand corrected. It is not a Microsoft wannabe, it is afailed Microsoft wannabe.

Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709975)

Because it is simply impossible to read the XML-based iTunes Library file and fetch the files from the Artist/Album/Song directory tree where they store the non-drm'ed music files? Are you for real?

Re:Apple is just Microsoft wannabe. (2, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710057)

small companies want open standards and interoperability. large companies want to hold their customers hostage, because they have a shot at absolute monopoly. apple has recently made a rare transition from the first to second category, and their incentives and policies have changed accordingly. that's all.

Criminal monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709901)

All computer companies should be required to interoperate. Every interface should be documented and never updated, only upgraded to new versions with the old interfaces staying in place.

It is criminal that Apple is able to block users from their music just because the consumer didn't buy Apples non functional overpriced players.

Might be a silly question, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709963)

Didn't Palm supply software to sync the Pre with a Mac? If not, it sounds like a failing with Palm, not with Apple. The Pre is a direct competitor. While it's true that Apple has always been about pleasing it's customers, Palm isn't paying them, and the Pre isn't an Apple product. Mind you, these are people who intentionally picked the Pre over an iPhone.

Interoperability? Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28709991)

If you're a heavy DRM'd iTunes buyer, I can see the interoperability concern. But who here buys DRM'd music? And if you remove DRM from the equation, this seems less about interoperability and more about Palm's desire to hop a ride on Apple's software development train. I mean, Palm could just spend their own resources to create a detailed sync system to allow transfer of non-DRM'd files via full sync or drag and drop -- you know, like Apple did.

Use doubleTwist instead. (1, Informative)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710131)

I like it far better, anyway. It's simple and does what I want, and that's just to move media around. Works flawlessly with the Palm Pre, heck, DVD Jon HAS a Pre. DoubleTwist Manages Your Pre Media, Freely, Easily, and Transparently [precentral.net]

If you're hooked on iTunes, seriously, you need to get over that, there ARE fine replacements for it. People were listening to digital music long before the iPod ever came out. Unfortunately, Apple tricked a lot of people into thinking that they were paying for music and supporting the artists, but their intention obviously was to control the platform. Any company that would charge for media, but then block you from using it on the device you want to use that media on are not worth your time and money, and if you've been doing business with them, sorry, they've ripped you off. This is a fine example of how Apple is more dangerous than M$ ever was in regards to anti-competitive and anti-innovative behavior.

AppleT&T (1)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710135)

Ok, so Apple is fine with iTunes on Windows, but not a Palm Pre... I'd like to see how they argue this isn't monopolistic behavior in court, because I would get a lot of good laughs.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...