Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
In honor of the "Take Back The Beep" campaign, how about everyone email Steve Jobs (sjobs at apple.com) with the following message: "You're being a massive douchebag. I am mailing you a bag of dicks. Eat hearty!"
I'm not sure that I would be doing anything different if I were Apple. Does Palm have an obligation to ensure their software (if they made any) allowed iPhones to connect and utilize all the features that their own hardware gets? Hell no!
This "disappointment" expressed by Palm is NOT because they are SO worried about their users. It's a MAJOR benefit to them if the most successful music store/handling/syncing software on the planet just HAPPENS to be compatible with their device. Believe me... this is ALL about potential sales to Palm... not some inner happiness that their users have extra convenience. Why would Palm have gone out of the way to "trick" iTunes otherwise...
Write your own damn software Palm and sell your device on it's OWN merits... not Apples.
Have to say I think you're missing a point here. Apple have a history (albiet not a huge one) of licencing iTunes. This seems fair to me, Apple puts the work into developing the iTunes software, running and maintaining the store etc and it's hardly fair for Palm to just come along and make use of a closed system as if it's open.
They COULD have persued a licencing agreement and done things the right way but they chose to hack it. Basically, Apple have the right (and, I suspect, obligation) to protect the investment they've made in bringing iTunes to market and developing it into the monster it is today.
One of the main reasons Apple came out with their own smartphone was due to the lack of integration with other phones and the Mac OS. Blackberrys didn't have software (they either purchased or promote PocketMac now, which was developed by a third party for that reason), Nokia, and WinMo devices (just stating those due to their popularity at the times, and still so) phones and OSs could not sync with a Mac unless Apple supported it through their iSync app, and even those supported were few and far between. Now that a developer/device is directly supporting Apple, more specifically iTunes, Apple now goes right ahead and tells them, "No". It's a pretty ridiculous move on their part as it doesn't encourage people to get the Pre instead of the iPhone, but rather now discourages people to switch to iTunes if not previously used who might then have been encouraged to purchase items from the iTunes store. Apple is only limiting their potential market and not viewing this on the larger scale as they should be.
Apple/Jobs breaking Pre syncing is as much a personal swipe at Jon Rubenstein (developed the iPod, left Apple, and developed the Pre) as it is a business decision.
"media sync" is a hack, where the Pre maskerades as an iPod. If Palm sold a hack to their users, THEY are responsible for the loss of functionality that their users are now experiencing.
I admit, I'm a little surprised at Apple's honesty. They could've hidden behind "security and bug fixes". Not that the average user would know what "an issue with verification of Apple devices" would mean for their precious Pre, but it's still oddly forthcoming.
Still, though, it's a pretty low and unnecessary move. I could see if some device of questionable repute was dicking around with their software, but a competitor's device? An established competitor? Not very cool, Apple.
And arguments aside about Apple's "right to defend their software"....doesn't the DMCA include specific exemption for reverse engineering for the purposes of increasing interoperability? (Answer: yes, by the way.) While this may not be Apple pursuing legal action against Palm in this arena, it still goes against the idea that law is built on.
If Microsoft went out of its way to make its own devices work with its own software, then that would be a monopoly. But when apple does it, they are defending "their" business.
@ryno365: No, no, no what Apple did was go out of their way to make sure other devices don't work with their software. It's a subtile difference. It's kinda Dicky but everyone knew they were going to do it.
09/24/09
09/24/09
EDIT: Never mind, found some.
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
07/16/09
07/15/09
its be like apple freeloading off the zune software and using its wireless syncing featueres w/an ipod/iphone. how would microsoft feel?
exactly...
its a dog eat digital dog world these days.
/runs back to his corner
07/15/09
This "disappointment" expressed by Palm is NOT because they are SO worried about their users. It's a MAJOR benefit to them if the most successful music store/handling/syncing software on the planet just HAPPENS to be compatible with their device. Believe me... this is ALL about potential sales to Palm... not some inner happiness that their users have extra convenience. Why would Palm have gone out of the way to "trick" iTunes otherwise...
Write your own damn software Palm and sell your device on it's OWN merits... not Apples.
07/15/09
They COULD have persued a licencing agreement and done things the right way but they chose to hack it. Basically, Apple have the right (and, I suspect, obligation) to protect the investment they've made in bringing iTunes to market and developing it into the monster it is today.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
Screw Palm.
07/15/09
While the tech sector seeks out ways to break down barriers, Apple keeps building them, but screw it because you love it!
07/15/09
07/15/09
Still, though, it's a pretty low and unnecessary move. I could see if some device of questionable repute was dicking around with their software, but a competitor's device? An established competitor? Not very cool, Apple.
And arguments aside about Apple's "right to defend their software"....doesn't the DMCA include specific exemption for reverse engineering for the purposes of increasing interoperability? (Answer: yes, by the way.) While this may not be Apple pursuing legal action against Palm in this arena, it still goes against the idea that law is built on.
07/15/09
That said, I still think iTunes syncing is something Palm stumbled upon instead of planning and actually doing serious development for it to work
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
Really? I thought it was dickish to piggyback off another phone's features and software. Using someone else's innovation for yourself
07/15/09
07/15/09
If Microsoft went out of its way to make its own devices work with its own software, then that would be a monopoly. But when apple does it, they are defending "their" business.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09