How Palm Re-Enabled iTunes Sync (The Plot Thickens) | webOS Nation
 
 

How Palm Re-Enabled iTunes Sync (The Plot Thickens) 212

by Dieter Bohn Fri, 24 Jul 2009 3:21 pm EDT

So the big question: How did Palm re-enable iTunes sync? The answer, so far as we can tell, is to go even deeper in their efforts to make the Pre look like an iPod. I just plugged my 1.1 Pre into my Mac in Media Sync mode and sure enough, it's identifying itself with an Apple USB Vendor ID:

Product ID:    0x8002
Vendor ID:    0x05ac  (Apple Inc.)
Version:    0.16
Manufacturer:    Palm Inc.

Jeffgus in our forums confirms the same: The Pre is now telling your computer that the vendor who made it is Apple. The change here is that with previous versions of webOS, the Vendor ID was "0x0830  (Palm Inc.)."  So while previously the Pre identified itself as a "mass storage device" called an iPod, now it's identifying itself as a "mass storage device manufactured by Apple" called an iPod. 

The plot has thickened, though - read on to see more about Palm calling foul to the USB authorities.

Tricky tricky, maybe too tricky? When you apply for a USB Vendor ID, you sign a form (PDF link) that explicitly states that:

Unauthorized use of assigned or unassigned USB Vendor ID Numbers and associated Product ID Numbers are strictly prohibited.

Ok, it appears that Palm's doing something possibly nefarious, but the plot, it has thickened like Hamburger Helper sauce that you have let sit in the fridge. In a quote given to All Things D, Palm spokesperson Lynn Fox seems to be raising the stakes on this Palm Pre / iTunes compatibility battle:

Palm has released webOS 1.1, which, along with offering more robust EAS support for business users, re-enables Palm media sync,” said company spokesperson Lynn Fox. “Palm believes that openness and interoperability offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own without interference across devices and services, so on behalf of consumers, we have notified the USB Implementers Forum [USB-IF] of what we believe is improper use of the Vendor ID number by another member.

When Apple updated iTunes to 8.2.1 and blocked the Pre, presumably they did so by telling iTunes to block out any Vendor IDs besides Apple's. (We'll note that the root USB Node as identified by IOUSBDevice is still "Pre," so we could see another round of this stuff.  Thanks to DVD Jon for the info on that one)

We'll set aside the cognitive dissonance of Palm playing games with one USB-IF standard while complaining about another one for the moment, just so we can ask: what is the nature of their notification to the USB- IF?

We can make a guess: USB being a relatively open (albeit opt-in) 'standard,' either Palm thinks it's improper for iTunes to only allow connectivity with certain Vendor IDs.  Since they feel they're in the right there, I guess they don't mind wading into the gray area of spoofing another company's USB Vendor ID.  Gizmodo surmises the same.

Either way, the notification to the USB-IF seem to be as gusty a move as re-enabling iTunes sync in the first place. We haven't seen a patent war erupt between Palm and Apple (yet), but this iTunes / USB ID mess is a perfectly good stand-in. As Giz notes, however, the idea of the USB-IF pulling "USB Compliant" stickers from boxes feels like fairly low stakes.

Anybody have some popcorn?

212 Comments

Like I said in an earlier thread...if Apple thinks that Palm is infringing, they will involve the lawyers instead of the programmers. I do have to say that it would be a good thing for Palm to work with Amazon or somebody on a solution specificly for WebOS.

I agree! With a little effort I think Amazon and double twist or sallings could come up with a more permanent alternative instead of making patches with itunes. From what I'm hearing most people using Pre's are quickly moving away from itunes anyways. I'm really dreading not heeding the early warnings against itunes and its closed structure and unfortunately I'm left with a bunch of DRM'd songs which I have to pay almost a $1000 to convert. I'm in full itunes/Apple revolt.

Yeah pay almost $1000 to convert or... you know.... burn them to CDs and then rerip without DRM like you've been able to do since day 1 of the ITMS.

RTFM.

Yeah, and halve the quality of the songs.

Your choices are:

1: Pay $1000
2: Spend hours and hours downgrading the quality of your music.

Sounds like a shitty choice to me. Then again, I was smart enough to never ever buy any music with DRM on it so I don't have to worry about it.

Halve the quality? How does converting a song from a 16 bit MPEG compressed form, into 16 bit uncompressed audio halve the quality? It's not like you're going from a DAT tape to CD.

It's not converting step 1 (burn to CD) that degrades the quality.

It's step 2 (re-rip the previously compressed file to mp3,aac,etc) that halves the quality. And probably worse than halves it. See, the data from the first lossy compression is not added back when you burn to CD. So you lose another massive amount of data when you rip it.

1: That explanation doesn't really make any sense.
2. Rip to FLAC.

Either you don't know what halve means, or you don't understand how audio compression works and how to use it to maintain quality audio.
There will be no noticeable degradation in audio quality (as long as you do it right) doing a rip to CD, then encode to a useful format and play back on your average PC or portable media player on your stock head phones. A portable media player with earbuds is not meant to give you the same audio experience that you get in a listening room with a hifi audio system.

Your pathetic whining is even more unbearable because you obviously don't understand that the DRM issues are due to the record labels. Record labels regarded iTunes as a threat and that is why they charged Apple more than say Amazon. Blaming Apple for DRM and everything that followed after they realised that they had to supply Apple with DRM free music is just ridiculous.

I've thought of that, its just the time involved. I'm just sort of updating the songs as I need them. But for me its very telling about where Apple is as a company. I've stopped buying any new music from apple and I'm considering not purchasing any further Apple products. I currently use a Mac/Ipod Touch as well as a Pre. While the products are great I just cannot live with Apple's overall business philosophy.

Apple used DRM at the behest of the labels. Now that the iTunes music store is completely DRM free, you suddenly have a problem? And are going to stop buying products you like as a result?

Buy the ticket, take the ride, as HST would say.

Good point, but consider if Microsoft tried to do the same thing with Windows Media Player and the Zune? Do we really want a precedent where big business can marry hardware and software at will, when not mandatory? Its about consumer choice. The only reason we don't hear too much of a stink between Macs and Mac OSX is because the both are excellent. I believe AT&T is more expensive and inferior to Sprint and Verizon...It was Apple's choice to set up exclusive agreements with AT&T, as such we as consumer shouldn't have to pay for that mistake. The Pre would have no chance against the iphone if the iphone was available on other carriers and this is a CHOICE that Apple made. I love my Mac and I love Mac OSX mind you. However, I don't like AT&T and shouldn't have to be FORCED into AppleT&T's bedroom just to have an iphone, at the cost of a personally inferior carrier.

Really? You think that the only reason Macs and OSX are allowed to "marry software and hardware" is because their hardware and software is so excellent? That is ridiculous. Since when did the government allow monopolies or competitors avoid antitrust suits because the product was "excellent"? Its really because Apple doesnt have as huge of a marketshare as Microsoft did with IE (for example) when they were convicted of antitrust violations. Granted, Apple does have a significant majority in the "personal music player" market, but as far as the personal computer market goes (which is what you referenced), Apple still has less than 10% of the market, so no one is going to win a case in court that Apple is running a monopoly. And at any rate, your argument that "both are excellent" doesnt really mean anything as far as a comparison between Apple machines and other computers. Most of the hardware found sold by Apple is identical to hardware found in machines running other operating systems as well. OSX is really what makes a Mac a Mac, not the hardware.

As I understood the situation a few years ago. Apple approached all of the major cell phone providers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc) when they were working on the upcoming iPhone. At that time Apple did not have a sample to show them. Basically it was just Apple saying "Hey, we are going to make a cell phone. We have nothing to show you right now, but you want in?" AT&T was the only one who took them up on the offer. So don't blame Apple for picking AT&T, it was their only choice at the time.

I also don't like AT&T, so I'm quietly waiting with my iPod Touch and my old cell phone until next year when the AT&T contract expires and opens up to the other cell phone providers.

As I understood the situation a few years ago. Apple approached all of the major cell phone providers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc) when they were working on the upcoming iPhone. At that time Apple did not have a sample to show them. Basically it was just Apple saying "Hey, we are going to make a cell phone. We have nothing to show you right now, but you want in?" AT&T was the only one who took them up on the offer. So don't blame Apple for picking AT&T, it was their only choice at the time. I also don't like AT&T, so I'm quietly waiting with my iPod Touch and my old cell phone until next year when the AT&T contract expires and opens up to the other cell phone providers.

Yes, Apple is a horrible company. It bought Sound Jam, made i-Tunes, spend millions of dollars on marketing it, sells content at close to break even, spends more to continue developing and maintaining it, and now Apple doesn't want to let other competing companies share for free in it's efforts. I mean give me a break. Apple gives it's developer software away for free.

Apple isn't preventing Palm from developing software that runs on OSX or Windows that can be used to manage one's music. Apple only wants to reap the benefits of it's software: Namely to keep iTunes linked to Apple branded hardware to make Apple branded hardware more valuable. Apple is after all a hardware company. It makes most of it's money on hardware like it's Macs, iPhones, iPods, etc.. To stand out from the crowd, it's hardware is made more valuable by all the effort it puts into it's closely linked software.

Palm is trying to use iTunes to compete with Apple's own hardware without paying anything to develop the software. That stinks. Apple makes peanuts on content downloads because much of what is on iTunes is for free and the rest it gets pennies on the dollars to pay it's cost. Apple shouldn't have to help Palm sell it's own hardware at the expense of Apple's own especially Palm who essentially pilfered much of Apple's iPhone ideas right down to the desktop image and packaging.

Apple is actually a software company.

I would actually argue that the Pre using iTunes is an advantage for Apple. Pre users buying iTunes music is a boon, not a problem.

Apple has an opportunity here. They could embrace the customers of their competitors, they could say, "Sure, use iTunes, and while your at it-go buy a Mac, or an AppleTV or whatever."

Instead they choose to take their ball and go home. Yes, its a very, very expensive ball. But they never seemed to mind me downloading it for free, buying music from it and then using my CD player to play the music in my car instead of hooking up an iPod to my car stereo.

This is really no different. It really seems like there is something else going on here that we will likely never see. A personal vendetta of some sort that may seem like a good idea to these companies but really does nothing to help the consumers.

My solution for Palm is to work with Amazon and Mozilla to update Songbird to be more compatible with the Pre. Hitching their cart to a different horse entirely could be good for them.

But honestly, I think they like the press they're getting from this cat and mouse game, so they will probably keep it up for now...

So if you didn't buy DRM free music in the past, you either ripped CDs you bought legally or stole music. Disgusting if you did the latter.

The third way to totally own your itunes music is to download a DRM removal.
This would be the best option!

I don't think anyone was ever under the impression that protected iTunes songs would ever be playable on anything but an iPod. This tit-for-tat between Palm and Apple doesn't change that, since protected songs can't be played on a Pre even with sync re-enabled.

I have iPods, iPhones, and a MacBook Pro, but I never bought music from the iTMS for the exact reasons you stated (besides the occasional instant gratification purchase.) Seems pointless to buy DRM'ed compressed music when you could get CD's for about the same price. It's a little different nowadays of course, but I sympathize with your plight.

Or of course, you could just find a media convertor

I am sure Ruby has consulted with the legal team on this. There is no Government Regulation on vender id's only an optional standard.

I'm pretty sure what Palm is doing violates the DMCA. Now, I'm not a lawyer but spoofing vendor IDs is pretty shady and probably illegal.

Oh, come on.

Yeah, you're not a lawyer, you're a moron.

Illegal huh? Got ANY evidence of that?

Claiming it's illegal is as stupid as claiming that changing the identity string in Opera to identify itself as IE is "illegal."

Sheesh...

Interesting, so did the makers of Opera also sign a document saying they would not identify their product as IE?

DMCA has nothing to do with communications protocols. There is no encrypted anything getting decrypted. How is sending a different 4 bytes to a USB request violating the DMCA?

OH NO!!! this must be breaking news then. Firefox or Microsoft should sue the pants off of Opera then. Because on my opera mobile for windows mobile, there is a specific settings section that can allow opera mobile browser, to be recognized as firefox, or MS IE for instance. Last time I checked, nobody is knocking down on my door or anyone that uses Opera mobile for that matter.

of course for all you know SteveB, I am breaking the DMCA rule. give me a freaking break!

Same thing with the blackberry browser.

You may think different when the "owner of the Internet" comes knocking on Opera's door for saying it's something it's not. That's right there is no owner of the Internet -- no one organization that built the Internet with their own resources to work with their hardware.

Oh yeah -- I guess your comparison to Opera is apples to oranges .. or Apples to Pre's .. LMAO

YAAI

By the way it seems as though Palm is pushing for this so I would only assume that when they drop the pre in the EU, and apple does this to itunes again. Palm will take them to court where just like MS and IE, apple will fail.

whats that mean, a version of itunes that accepts any device that is setup to use the interface. People here in the use would be able to get access to that version and everything will be fine. Most likely Apple would just enforce that on all versions of itunes and not segment the software line. That would be a nightmare.

Yes, Apple is going to keep breaking this, and Palm will fix it. Or they will implement a new system to only let iPod serial numbers that are registered with Apple to sync.

Who knows. All it does it reinforce my decision not to buy any Apple products.

And when a single iPod fails to sync, because it is not registered and inconveniences an Apple customer, Apple has a big problem.

Which means absolutely nothing. The average user will want to sync with itunes, they don't care about your 'I'm not buying apple products'!

Don't worry though, when palm goes under you can buy a zune phone. Won't you be cool then!

Really? All it does is reinforce my decision not to buy Palm products. If they can't even license someone else's software to provide a decent user experience, they should be writing their own.

Then again, after using Palm devices from 1996-2001, I stopped because they had absolutely no respect for Apple users as proven by the extra expense in hardware, less software included, and the long delay to get synching working on OS X. In short, the hell with Palm and their sinking ship.

Yes, licensing! It's still a wonder for me how licensing isn't the first thing that gets discussed in this debacle:
Palm would pay licensing fees to lawfully connect and sync to iTunes with Apple's approval.

What's with all this bs about the bad guy and the underdog? I see only frustrated users and duplicitous impostors (palm, here) claiming they want the best user experience for their customers. Who are they kidding?

let's not kid ourselves.

apple hasn't licensed iTunes syncing to a non-apple product and years, and would never allow palm the capability at any price.

And that's why there will likely be a lawsuit in the EU.
If you notice that sort of thing is handled differently there.

A lawsuit in the US would see Apple winning.
In the EU, Palm would prevail. I, however disagree with the above poster and think that this would simply lead to separate EU-iTunes/US-iTunes.

Which would leave me in whatever same situation I'm in now... lol

Or re-enforces someone's decision to buy ONLY Apple products. :)

Faggots and fashion lemmings buy Apple products, Mactard.

Seconded

If this is the general attitude of the Pre community about iPhone users, then I'm so glad I'm on Apple's side of the fence. I'm not gay and not a fashionista but still enjoy my iPhone, so you can all go to hell...

Gee, and here was me wishing I could sync my iPhone with anything other than iTunes.
iTunes pretty much blows as a media player. All it offers is the easiest way to actually buy DRM free music for the rest of the world outside the US.
I have to run a windows virtual machine just to sync my damn phone. I much prefer amarok as a music player and organizer. If iTunes were IE, amarok would be firefox. Open, extensible and actually useful rather than being a marketing front for the parent company.

Don't you have an App in your iPhone that calls the Waaah-mbulance to come get you?

LMAO -- How long did it take you to come up with that? Oh, as long as it took you to look into the mirror before composing your note. Your note is about as mature as Palm's handling of their self-made situation.

Now, that pastey-faced android looking girl-in-the-field looks like your described "faggot fashion lemming". Truth be know, even she probably made a call on her iPhone once the Pre shoot was over.

i am happy about it. i love my iMac's and Mac Mini.... this is a good thing for me.

If patents and copyrights did not exist, man would be evolving 10x faster than we already are. Lets all just get along and share info in the process. I promise, you will not be disappointed.

I disagree. Patents can provide powerful profit incentive to innovate.

Umm... No! The purpose of patents and copyrights is to ADVANCE the useful sciences.

BINGO! Someone who actually understands the original intent of copyright/patents. This is why they EXPIRE!

The problem is the duration of copyright has been so far extended and they are legally allowed to file a new patent with just minor changes to allow a patent to live indefinitely. It is stifling innovation as much as it is helping.

You realize that some products take so long to get to market that they are barely protected for 7-10 years (eg. medicines). If you hate patents, then you have innovation. Look at the copycats in China -- guess what? No one wants to make anything original over there as it will get copies.

Well to be fair the original purpose of copyright and patents may have been to advance the useful sciences. That is why an exclusive monopoly was given for a relatively short term. Originally copyright protection was something like 14 years. Afterwards, the works would pass to the public to use as it deems fit for the benefit of all.

Now the protection is over a hundred years. It always seems to change right before Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain. I think it is fair to say the original intent changed when our legislative leaders were paid off and the public has become complacent.

Wrong. If patents and copyrights did not exist, companies would not be forced research and develop better products than the ones already being used because, well... they could just use existing products. How much of an incentive would it be for a company to spend thousands, or even millions of dollars to develop a product if they knew the guy next door will copy what you did and sell it at a fraction of what you spent. Doesn't sound like a good idea now does it.

I don't see what the big deal about this is. Palm does not need iTunes for music transfer. Palm simply understands that a lot of people find it convenient for the Pre to sync with iTunes. I don't see why every manufacturer isn't doing what Palm has done. Palm is not hacking iTunes, just disguising their media sync mode to look like iPod's. It's not as if Palm is stealing anything away from Apple. If anything they are helping Apple to get new iTunes customers! Believe me, the ability to sync with iTunes is not going to make people buy Pre or not buy Pre. This should be win win for both sides. But being the monopolistic, grandiose brand that Apple is, they view it as a snub.

Are you sure? It's prevented me from buying a Pre. I haven't wanted to move my massive library to another player just to sync with the Pre, so I've opt'd out for a while on buying the Pre. That, and I hate Sprint. But, a webOS will be available on another network soon.

But, I do agree that Apple should license out access to iTunes to other media players. But, I'm sure that license fee would be super expensive. And, they wouldn't really want to license it out as they couldn't make changes when they wanted as they'd have to worry about compatibility with other hardware devices.

Apple doesn't need to license anything, they already publish the iTunes Library XML spec which anyone can use to write software that will sync a non-iPod device with your iTunes library. RIM is doing just this for the Blackberry, and as was mentioned above DoubleTwist already has software shipping that lets you sync your iTunes media with a non-iPod device. Palm's insistence on using shady and unsupported methods is puzzling.

Keno, you nailed it on the head.

1. Apple certainly could license access to iTunes to other media players.
2. As a corollary, other media player manufacturers have NO right to access iTunes without said license.
3. In deciding whether to license, Apple has to weigh the pros and cons. The pro is that it increases exposure to the iTunes ecosystem, and makes the "everything should be interoperable and free!" people happy. The con is that it has the potential to SLOW development of the iTunes ecosystem, because they now have to worry about compatibility with future versions of iTunes, and upgrade paths.

bingo!

"Believe me, the ability to sync with iTunes is not going to make people buy Pre or not buy Pre."

That's a moronic statement. I wouldn't buy a a pre that doesn't sync with itunes. Not because I love itunes, but because i have too much invested in it. I promise you, 'will it sync with itunes' is being ased all the time.

You're so hilariously wrong I wonder if you're joking.

This is actually wrong. Apple does not make money on the content. They make it on the ipods. iTunes is set to facilitate sales of iPods period. So if everyone could just steal Apple's work (1000's of hours writing iTunes, negotiating deals with record/movie companies, etc.) it would certainly cannibalize Apple's sales.

Actually I seem to remember apple makes $0.09 per song. Well, that was a long time ago when itms just opened and everything was $0.99, now with the variable pricing structure the value probably is different.

Estimates range from $160 Million to $390 Million per year in profits for the itunes music store.

I'm probably worse for apple, when ITMS first came out the only songs I "bought" were with my Pepsi cap codes from their promos with Pepsi the first two years. Since then I try to download the free single(s) of the week every week. Other than that the music I listen to is either ripped from my cd collection(via iTunes) or from other legitimately free online sources plus a lot of my listening has shifted to podcasts. So Apple has made nothing off me.

Now having said that I will likely continue to carry my sandisk sansa express mp3 player (yes I have striped the drm off my "purchases") for music/podcasts and confine my phone to Phone/PIM/internet activities. I couldn't care less if the pre syncs with iTunes.

What rock do you all hide under?????????????? ITUNES IS THE LARGEST MEDIA RETAIL OUTLET IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They control 20% of the overall market. Even if they were making 1% off the sale of files that is a huge amount of income. Do some math, if someone buys an iTouch for $250 and then buys over a 2 year period time buys 10 songs a week that is an additional $1040 of gross going into Apples pocket.

Apple has used this muscle to force artist, record and movie companies to agree to exclusive content deals and reduced profit shares. Apple has forced four major record companies to the set price for downloads and will not allow the artist or labels to control how the files are sold. For example a number of companies have pulled content because Apple will not allow album only sells. Some would say this is good for music fans cause they can pick and choose songs they like but it also conflicts the artist ability to control how their art is distributed and presented. It also great effects their income and the labels ability to advance money for future recordings and tour support.

Yes, but who buys ten songs a week? I have four iPods. The only time I use iTunes to buy music is when I get a free gift card. I use it all the time though to download free music, videos, Pod casts, etc. I use the application store to download free applications. I suspect I am costing Apple money. Further, I guess more people are like me.

Why buy music from greedy music labels when it is still legal under Section 1008 of the Copyright Code to borrow music on CDs from friends and the library and burn to another CD for non commercial purposes?

I don't really want to burst your bubble, but the copyright act doesn't actually allow for this.

This statement pertains to you personally owning the media (physical or digital) and making copies of it.

That said, what you are talking about is pretty much impossible to track without "Big Brother" looking over your shoulder, so you should be ok...

The very fact that Palm goes through so much trouble to sneak into the iTunes store is proof that it provides a huge advantage to them.

If Apple is going to make iTunes available for Windows, then they may as well make iTunes available other USB-driven MP3 devices. I mean, why go 'outside the eco-system' of Apple with a Windows version of iTunes and then say that allowing for the use of non-Apple MP3 players is a violation of their hardware/software philosophy? If they truly wanted to drive everyone to Apple hardware, they wouldn't allow for iTunes to be used on non-Apple devices.

Unless of course, iTunes is a sort of 'carrot' to get people to switch to a Mac. I dunno.

Money. Windows is so far more vastly used than Apple's OSs, that they want to capitalize on the exposure by creating mac-ware for Windows OSs. But reverse the flow then Apple bitches!

Why would Apple release iTunes for Windows? To sell iPods. That is the ONLY reason iTunes exists is to sell iPods and iPhones.

iTunes is a carrot to get people to use or continue to use the iPod/iPhone on whichever platform. It's purpose is simply to drive iPod/iPhone sales.

It is called the iPod and iPhone. Apple wants iPod and iPhone users who use Windows to be able to use iTunes to manage their Apple manufactured devices. The first year the iPod was on Windows Apple relied on third party software to load and manage the device. It also sold separate Windows and Mac iPods. The Windows version came with USB and the third party software. The Mac version came with Firewire and iTunes. Apple had to pay licensing fees and worry about making sure the iPod was compatible. Now all iPod and iPhone users have unified software. The downside is Apple decided to do away with Firewire on iPods in order to be able to offer one unified product. That was too bad as Firewire allowed Mac users to use an iPod to boot up a Mac and store a user folder. Real useful.

So, iTunes is strictly about controlling the iPod and iPhone.

"But being the monopolistic, grandiose brand that Apple is, they view it as a snub"

Maybe they just feel that they have plenty of resources to cause a little headache for Palm, while Palm, who has about 1 employee for every 30 at apple, will have to dedicate a higher percentage of their workforce to come up with and implement solutions to this rather insignificant issue.

I think Palm is on the right side here, but I'd prefer those (or that) developer(s) to be working on resolving one of the many issues the community has listed.

Then again, Apple released an update for iTunes solely for blocking the Pre which must have had some non-insignificant (sorry double negative) overhead, whereas Palm is going to be updating the Pre regularly for a while and can include this easily. I guess the resources consumed isn't so heavily in Apple's favor.

If Apple wanted to get into a copyrights or patent war, Palm would crush them. Remember Palm invented PDAs! Apple took lots of Palm's old expired patents from the 90s to create the iPhone. Trust me, Palm has broken no copyright/patent laws is NOT worried!

I wouldn't say that Palm literally invented the PDA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)

Ecoteric, this whole thread you've been spouting off nonsense. Please, if you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's very clear you don't, stop talking. How many times can you be wrong before you're embarrassed enough to shut up?

Palm did not invent PDSs, although they had a lot of success with them in the late 90s. Apple had their own PDA well before the Palm Pilot existed. In all fairness, both parties have violated quite a few of the patents of the other party, which is probably why the case hasn't gone to court. Either side could lose, if Apple loses, it would cost them a lot of money. If Apple wins, it would be the end of Palm.

Apple wouldn't even have to win a lawsuit against Palm... just the mere threat of one would be enough to kill Palm. A little legal sabre rattling and Wall St would tank Palm's stock in a heart beat.

However, doing that would probably raise the ire of the DOJ's anti-trust division, so both parties need to tread lightly.

That being said, I can't imagine why Palm didn't just license the access to begin with. Apple's probably pissed that a lot of old iPhone/iPod people are over designing stuff at Palm now. So I'm assuming that they tried to do it, but were rebuffed by Apple. However, why they went this route and programmed a while Media Sync mode instead of just reading the iTunes XML file like Blackberry/DoubleTwist does is beyond me. It's a very reckless move, as Palm doesn't have enough reserves to fight Apple.

googling for an hour on interface patents gives you 10+ patents that Palm owns and Apple is using. Guess what Palm lawyers could do to that turtle neck ego of Apple. Guess you wont be buying APPL then. Palm can take down Apple any time it wants and I am just talking about the UI patents. There is a reason why Apple has not touched Palm on patents. So keep keep you wall st. comments to urself next time. Palm has the DNA and now the talent behind a killer product now.

Palm is playing games right now. Palm is brewing an application equivalent or better than iTunes, and it takes time to develop one. So, for time being Palm is making its users happy by keeping Apple at the fence.

Checkout the comments at macrumors.com 300+ in a day, burning like anything.

I am sure Apple will react with a bazooka this time, it seems fun to me!!

A simply case of "forget the option of choice" according to APPLE. They dont like people's right to choose. Palm is preserving the right for people to choose ITunes or any other way to synch.

That's the thing... Palm isn't giving us an option. Try having playlists using USB mode... you can't do it! It's so annoying. I'm forced to use the iTunes standard (even if I do it with MediaMonkey or otherwise). I don't want Apple's file structure on my iPod. I'd rather have my own, use my own tools. Palm keeps correcting iTunes support and that draws them away from supporting .m3u playlists or on-the-go-playlists. Palm ISN'T giving us a choice. They're forcing us to use iTunes. We should be pissed about this, not happy!

That's the thing, you don't NEED any other option. Drag and drop over USB works perfectly well as a basic alternative.

Playlists, playlists, playlists, playlists, playlists!! You obviously didn't read what I said before responding. You cannot sync playlists by USB/Drag-and-drop. You need iTunes as of now. This is broken functionality that I wish Palm would focus on fixing instead of playing games with Apple.

...if you're the kind of person who doesn't use playlists.

Doh! ...Apple's file structure on my *Pre.

Preserving the right for people to choose? Dude, have you not realized that Palm instead of letting you choose to use their own software (they have none at the moment) they are forcing you to use someone else's ? I'll preserve my "right to choose" and choose to drive my neighbors BMW because I cant afford one on my own. Man these comments are getting retarded, and they say "apple fanboys" are bad...

I think that palm will win in the end and all of the drama will sell more pre's. Apple will be looked at as the bad apple so to speak in the palm.

You're a retard.

i pray they make their own solution and also keep fixing their itunes compatibility issues just to needle apple.

I think that palm will win in the end and all of the drama will sell more pre's. Apple will be looked at as the bad apple so to speak in the palm.

This is a disappointing update. Where's the email search? What about password storage for the web? Any battery improvements? Still no ability to open PDFs from the browser or forward text messages?
We're talking basic improvements here; features that have been on PDAs for nearly a decade.
The iTunes enabling is no big whoop since there's plenty of other software that does the same, plus you still have the issue of certain files being non-transferable.

you do realize that there are battery improvements and i don't know about you but the exchange update is a HUGE update and much needed for me. so for me that alone is worth it.

Oh, and the cut and paste functionality is still pretty weak. I'm enjoying my Pre - gave up my iPhone for it - but these simple enhancements need to be made, and soon.

I still holding breath for the european Pre so that I - at least - can deinstall that damn iTunes and put my iPhone into the display :D Maybe I am too much an oldschool kid but copying my content to a memory card or something equal was always the simpliest way for me. Especially when purchasing content from good old Napster in WMA-format. In short, I dont care that USB-ID-war! :-P

best regardz and keep the good work here at PreCentral!

Sounds like the IE issue. Why did they force MSFT to provide choice? Same way, Apples will have to open up iTunes otherwise it will be considered a monopoly (in addition to a corrupt company).

I don't think its Apple's job to support every MP3 player under the sun in iTunes. On the flip side, I don't think its appropriate (and its clearly anti-consumer) for Apple to actively prevent other MP3 players from working with iTunes.

Throughout this saga I have seen many people criticize Palm for not making a sync solution of there own. Is that what people really want? Yet another media player? Out of the box this player works great with Winamp, RhythmBox, Windows Explorer, and many other media managers. Palm wants to work with everyone and adding iTunes support is just another step in that goal. I have all of my music organized specifically and intricately, and for that reason I would never use iTunes because it messes with this. I use Winamp (Pro) in Windows and RhythmBox in Linux (Ubuntu). Amazon's MP3 downloader is configured to download MP3's exactly where I want them so they integrate perfectly into my collection. Using iTunes is the last thing I want to do... the pain of migrating is too high and the benefit is zero. Similarly, many people have their entire music collection organized in iTunes and migrating to anything else would be painful. Many people who purchase the Pre already own an iPod and although they can sync by other methods it would be "nice" if the Pre just worked with their current setup. So, Palm has tried to be "nice" and gotten it to work.

Apple is the one to criticize here. Blocking the Pre does not benefit users in any way and clearly hurts users who faithfully own an iPod (or use the iTunes store) but choose the Pre for their phone (maybe ATT is an option for them, huh Apple?). This is yet another example in a long history of Apple attacking their own customers. Those of us who don't own an iPod (or don't really use their iPod, like myself) aren't affected by this... its Apple customers who are hurt by this.

Carl, how do you sync playlists using "Winamp, RhythmBox, Windows Explorer, and many other media managers"?

I don't use playlists a lot so I'm not sure if Winamp supports those... obviously Windows Explorer won't do that for you. You tell Winamp where to store media on the device (or let it use its default settings) and you can sync just about anything Winamp can play. I believe RhythmBox does do playlists, though I've only tried syncing songs. For RhythmBox you should connect the Pre using the Media Sync mode so that RhythmBox thinks its an iPod and syncs playlists the same as it would for an iPod. For Winamp you'll want to use the normal USB mass storage mode... I guess I'll have to check and see if you can sync playlists that way.

Winamp creates and uses m3u playlists out-of-the-box and will also work with other formats as well. If you create a playlist in Winamp and save it in the Media Library, you can sync it with your device which will copy all the mp3 files in the list as well as the original playlist file. If the device reads playlists, it can pick up the playlist file and play it just like it was in Winamp.

Windows Media Player supports playlists and syncing. I've used it in the past on cheapie MP3 players, although I haven't used it on my Pre yet. "Yet", however is the operative word. I had to reinstall Windwos 7 a week or two ago when the beta expired and that required me to reinstall itunes. NOw it wants to wipe my Pre so I can resync it again. I get tired of that crap. Windows Media Player does actually sync pretty well and it doesn't require you to wipe your player just to sync.

I'm normally anti-Microsoft, but this is a case where they actually have a good product that is more compatible than Apple, so I'm going to switch.

Playlists are important to me. I read a lot of audiobooks and often it's the only way to keep the books in order, especially if they have very similar names.

Playlists don't sync in anything except iTunes. Music on the Pre is essentially broken without iTunes... that's what I'm trying to say.

Some of us seem to live in fantasyland.

1. Distribution of music via iTunes is NOT an agreed upon standard, like HTML. It was internally developed by programmers paid by Apple (actually, I believe that a portion of the code was purchased by Apple from another privately held company that produced SoundJam. The point is, iTunes is privately financed. Apple hires people to run it and pays for the (not insubstantial) bandwidth necessary to distribute music, TV shows, and movies.

2. The ability to purchase and organize music files via iTunes is undeniably major selling point for a MP3 device and confers a significant marketing advantage for the device in question.

If I were Apple, I would be flattered that Palm wants to interoperate with me. Would I allow it? Maybe. I'd think about it. But I would want a licensing agreement and some money in return. If I allowed Palm to glom on to my system without such an agreement, I would be opening the door to allow any device to ride on my coattails for free. This is not how business works.

Let me reiterate, iTunes is NOT an open source product like Linux nor a public standard like HTML. It was developed and is maintained by real Apple employees who are paid real salaries. Its operation entails real bandwidth that costs real money.

In fantasyland, rainbows, ponies, and butterflies are free. In the real world, it is not anti-consumer to expect to be able to charge for your product.

And Apple makes the money off the downloads to pay for the development and services. Your argument is like saying gasoline is made of dinosaurs so you should only drive a T-Rex brand car.

Sigh. The analogies are getting even sillier. iTunes and the iTunes store are a product that bears significant intellectual property. It's laughable to compare it to gasoline.

Anyone can dig up crude oil, refine it, and get an essentially equivalent product to sell to gas stations. Not so with media distribution. Need convincing? See Sony, Microsoft, RealNetworks.

Why don't you try addressing my actual argument instead of telling me what my argument is "like"?

Why don't you tell us exactly what "intellectual property" of Apple's is being infringed by Palm? Which copyright, trademark or patent, specifically?

Before you answer, keep in mind that right now, in 2009, version 8 of Internet Exploder STILL includes Netscape's browser identification string when talking to web servers, which at one time would shut out browsers that weren't Netscape. And neither Netscape nor the DOJ nor the EU so much as brought that up in any of the trials.... because it's not an infringement.

Browser identification strings are a completely different ballgame. Browsers are interfaces to a public resource: the Internet.

In contrast, the Palm Pre is spoofing Apple to obtain access to an interface to a privately operated resource - iTunes and the iTunes store. It is doing so in an attempt to gain a material advantage in a market in which it directly competes with Apple. Obviously, Apple is entirely within its rights to restrict access.

What about this is so difficult to understand?

Apparently, you didn't understand the question, so I repeat: which trademark, copyright or patent specifically is Palm infringing by spoofing Apple's USB vendor ID?

In case you're uninformed, "intellectual property" includes only those three things and trade secrets, and vendor IDs in public specifications are certainly not trade secrets. But an integer can't be trademarked (ask Intel) or patented, and I'd love to see Apple try to make a court case that they have a copyright on the number 1452 (their USB vendor ID, which is what Palm is spoofing.)

So where's the infringement here? Not the whiny turtlenecked "But they CREATED it! It's THEIRS!" kind of infringement on your personal sensibilities, but the kind Apple could actually win a lawsuit over, because that's the only kind that matters. We're all ears.

Apparently, you're getting a little strident. And off-base.

Re-read the thread. it's not about whether Apple can sue Palm (nice try, though). It's about whether Apple should be criticized for maneuvering to shut out the Pre. All sorts of silly (in my opinion) analogies have been raised in an attempt to show how Apple is the bad guy here. I've disputed these, and pointed out that Apple is entirely within its rights (legally and "morally") to continue blocking the Pre, for as long as Palm wants to play this silly game.

Your attempt to flip the topic is noted, though. I presume that means you concede my point?

For the last time, Apple does NOT make money off the downloads. They make money off iPods/iPhones. This is well known.

It is estimated that Apple makes anywhere from $160 to $390 Million a year from the downloads. THIS is well known.

Neither is IE browser. Look where that took Microsoft. Your point has been refuted. QED>

Sync software does NOT equal media player! Palm does not have to re-create their own iTunes to sync, they merely need to read the iTunes XML. Just like Missing Sync and other software does today. I can sync my Blackberry with iTunes no problem, and I don't need RIM pretending to be an Apple-made iPod to do it.

All this talk about the iTunes store and such is a red herring. All Palm has to do is either write their own SYNC (not media player) software, or license something from someone else, and the problem is solved.

Would you be happy if this became the standard approach to syncing with iTunes by other companies? What would happen if Apple release a firmware update for the iPod that Palm is spoofing - and users end up bricking their Pre when they click "yes" to a "Do you want to update the firmware on this iPod?" dialog?

Apple isn't spoofing USB Vendor IDs here, it's a problem with Palm.

No, Palm is in the wrong here. There is a simple method they could have used to sync media from the iTunes library. All they had to do is take half a day and write a simple program to read the iTunes XML and sync the media with the Pre. Why rely on someone else's software which you have no control over. This is quite stupid of Palm and it's investors must be re-thinking where to put their money this weekend.

I love it that Palm is doin this, for two reasons. First, it's a nice marketing ploy. It's nice to see someone go after Apple. That makes me want to root for Palm. Apple makes fun of Microsoft and now Palm can make fun of Apple. Nice marketing.

Second, the further out of the way that Apple goes in excluding other vendors from their software package (iTunes), the further out on the anti-trust ledge they walk. Although there are differences, how would we feel if Microsoft started manufacturing printers and then coded their software to only allow MS printers to interact with Windows 7? Apple had 1/2 an excuse when DRM was alive and well but no more. They are clearly trying to use their near monopolist clout to enfore use of their hardware, which is reminiscient of Microsoft using their OS clout to force PC makers to install Microsoft Internet Explorer on their systems. Yes, there are some differences, but fewer than most would think.

Perfectly stated!

No, this is like if Microsoft made a media player that only synced with their own hardware play

Are you talking about Windows Media Player? Cause it will sync with just about anything.

On the subject of Zune, iTouch is going to start looking dated when the Zune HD comes out. People are going to start seeing there are options that are equal and cheaper and Apple is going to start losing market share.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you need to stop using the word marketing if you don't have a clut how it works.

Here's your marketing:

1. palm: the pre can sync with itunes!
2. user: hey it stopped working!
3. palm: we fixed it! the pre can sync with itunes!
4. user: it's not working again!

What should happen:

1. palm: we've just release ipalm, faster and quicker than itunes! syncs perfectly, and comes with every pre!

If you really think the first situation equals better marketing, you are an idiot.

I got no idea what this discussion is all about.Tech writers, bloggers, comments all get their knickers in a twist about this. All they have to do is check Apple's ever helpful helpfiles (google: itunes xml library)

The helpfiles at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660
make it quite clear and easy to get access to the iTunes playlists, no licensing required:

-----begin quote http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660 -----
Summary
The iTunes library is a database iTunes uses to organize your music. Two iTunes library files are created and maintained by iTunes for different purposes. They're both in the iTunes folder.
...
/Users/username/Music/iTunes/iTunes Library
/Users/username/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music Library.xml

Microsoft Windows
\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Library.itl
\Documents and Settings\username\My Documents\My Music\iTunes\iTunes Music Library.xml
...

iTunes Music Library.xml

This file contains some (but not all) of the same information stored in the iTunes Library file. The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your music and playlists available to other applications on your computer.

-----end of quote http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660-----

Now, if you read this, and work for Palm, take this information to anyone in your company who has heard of xml and write your own sync application please, your shareholders and customers are waiting!

Now call me an iphone owner but do you guys really think that apple is wrong for disallowing another company to benefit from their hard work in creating itunes? Am I to assume that if you spent your hard earned money and worked your ass off to build a beautiful house that fit you perfectly you'd more than happily let any old fool off the street just wander in and sleep on your floor, eat your food and so forth... right.. you wouldn't, you'd lock the door, install a fence and call the cops if they still tried to come in.

Palm needs to pony up and either buy an existing product or develop one of their own. This is what's commonly known as bad business practice and all around just kind of skeezy.

p.s. nobody says mercedes is attacking it's customers when it doesn't makes engine mounts that are incompatible with kia engines... durf.

How is Palm hurting Apple? Potentially if they gain marketshare in the PDA/SmartPhone arena... but not in terms of Media Software. In fact Palm is most likely helping Apple by bringing them a larger user base for iTunes.

iTunes is a store and all of that store's proceeds/profits go to Apple... Palm is just merely offering another device to play music that people have purchased and own. Once purchased Apple should no longer have a stranglehold on your property.

If I buy a home from a builder, I should be able to modify that home how I see fit and allow someone else to stay there, rather than the builder being my landlord and controlling the ins and outs of my property.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Go Palm! Go

That's absurd and you know it. Firstly, all of iTunes' proceeds/profits do NOT go to Apple. Around 60% of music purchase prices (and one can assume some roughly similar percentage for videos) go to the content owners. And, of the purchase price of iPhone/iPod touch applications, only 30% goes to Apple.

Apple makes its profits in the iTunes "ecosystem" by selling hardware

The "do with it what you want after you buy it" argument is flawed. One, you do not buy iTunes it is a free download. Two you DON'T have to update. People are upset that Apple is updating a free closed system to benefit their products. You didn't pay anything in the first place and therefore Apple essentially doesn't owe you anything.

iTunes is a significant expenditure for Apple, in a fair market why is it that there are so many people that feel Palm should get something for nothing. Either develop software to interact with the library file or sit down with Apple and work out an equitable agreement.

You bought a Pre or you bought an iPhone short of your warranty on said items the company who sold it to you has no contractual obligation to update it, likewise (in the case of the iPhone) there is no requirement to download the updates that are offered for FREE.

If its that big a problem don't upgrade, although at some point a revision of the iTunes store software may make old versions obsolete. This is the risk you take when you, without authorization or agreement, attempt to make your device compatible with a competitors software.

"Now call me an iphone owner but do you guys really think that apple is wrong for disallowing another company to benefit from their hard work in creating itunes?"

In a word, yes. They are wrong in the same sense that Ford would be wrong to make cars that only run on BP gas (although they put BP gas caps on their cars) or Microsoft would be wrong to force install Internet Explorer on Windows.

More to the point, though, why is Apple attacking their (iTunes) customers? Because iTunes doesn't turn much, if any profit, so they are protecting their revenue source (sale of iPods). Otherwise, why is the harmless allowance of a third-party intergration bad? Pre users should understand that it is an at-your-own-risk endeavor, but then again so is buying a printer that may (or may not) work with Windows 64 bit.

Hey Durf,

If Kia engines fit into a Mercedes without a problem (and people wanted a Kia engine in their Mercedes) and Mercedes recalled all their calls to modify them so Kia engines no longer worked, people would complain.

I never comment, but I agree, Durf is a disturbingly self assured cretan.

How are you going to compare a car that comes together in a package and under warranty and contains mechanical parts to an ipod that doesn't even come bundled with itunes? The appropriate comparison for your engine analogy would be a reference to the processor in the ipod, not itunes. Just as removing an engine from a Mercedes and inserting another one might not fit just right, removing a processor from an iPod and inserting another one may not fit just right, either.

Anonymous' analogy is perfect. Although I own a MacBook and love it, if Mac recalled my laptop to install Apple-specific USB ports, headphone jack, etc.. I would drop it like a hot potato.

The easy answer is to just not update to newer versions of iTunes until compatibility issues are resolved. The kind of person who owns a Palm Pre in my opinion is someone who is willing to take an alternate route to the iphone and people who are buying a new OS should know that the first few months may be sticky. If they do not realize that that is on them.

Inter-compatibility for all!

Actually, I found Anonymous' analogy really dumb. If anything, iTunes is the ENGINE that Apple designed and built, and the MP3 player is the car. So does Palm have a right to use the engine that Apple developed, and sell its cars on that basis?

USB ports and headphone jacks are agreed upon standards created by outside agencies. There is no intellectual property associated with their use.

iTunes is NOT an agreed upon standard like HTML. It is a program for managing digital media embedded in an ecosystem that Apple developed and maintains. It paid real money for said development and maintenance. Apple had to defend it against business incursions from competitors like Microsoft, RealNetworks, Amazon, all of whom were hell-bent on becoming the preeminent outlets for media distribution.

Tim

I've seen this stated many times in various places and I can't help but respond. In a nutshell, the statement being made by a lot of folks is this...."iTunes is Apple's property and they can do whatever they want with it".

Really? Are you sure about that? I bet Microsoft said the same thing. "We own Windows so we can do whatever we want with it....like integrate and install Internet Explorer onto it by default". Hmmm....how did that work out for them? ;)

No, dude! Stop confusing the purpose of the two. For the love of logic.

An OS is designed specifically to run a plethora of random applications. So restrictions of hardware and apps defeat the damn purpose, hence they are not there.
iTunes here is designed with sole scope to help you pass the music you buy to your shiny iPod, effortlessly. No exception.

Why are guys like you so narrow? Disappointed.

I'm not confusing the two at all. I understand that iTunes is created for a more specific purpose. And I'm not saying they should have to make an effort to support every device out there. But, when they specifically make an effort to block other devices, that is anticompetitive...that's the thin line they are walking right now.

I think the next iTunes update should have a question box that says "Is this device an Apple product?" If the user answers "No" then it won't sync. If the user answers "Yes" then it syncs and also installs the latest iPhone/iPod Touch commercials.

To Palm: Lame. Juvenile. And very unprofessional. Grow up.

+1

Question for the people who seem to think Palm is in the right here. If the Pre is claiming to be an iPod and gets trashed because it doesn't support a feature than an iPod has which iTunes naturally assumes it does because it claims to be an iPod. Who's fault is it ? Who's liable ? Apple ? Palm ?. Who knows. What Apple is doing is sensible from a liability point of view. They don't want to deal with the fallout when it hits the fan so they are making sure that iTunes only works with devices that they have developed and can support. It's a sensible business decision in a litigious society.

Now we can argue that Apple should provide third-party devices equal footing with iPods in iTunes (they should IMHO) but that's a separate issue here.

Palm is actually on a very slippery slope here. They hired a lot of ex-Apple people so could very easily find themselves on the wrong end of an trade secrets/intellectual property lawsuit if they push down the path they seem to be on which will bleed the company dry even if it does come to nothing. Not a good thing for a company that's pretty much betting the farm on this product.

Question for the people who seem to think Palm is in the right here. If the Pre is claiming to be an iPod and gets trashed because it doesn't support a feature than an iPod has which iTunes naturally assumes it does because it claims to be an iPod. Who's fault is it ? Who's liable ? Apple ? Palm ?. Who knows.

The only feature that could cause a problem like this would probably be a firmware update. Obviously, if a user allowed an iPod firmware update to get on to their Pre, [b]they[/b] would be at fault.

I don't support Palm playing this game w/ iTunes, because I think the developers have more important ways they could be spending their time. However, the "support" argument is not credible. The whole point of this back and forth between Apple and Palm is that the [i]only[/i] reason iTunes treats non-iPods differently is because of the vendor ID. There's nothing magical about iPods that make them any better with iTunes. And that's a big deal.

What would happen if Skype suddenly didn't work with any webcam other than the ones Skype sold on its website? How would you feel about it if Microsoft Word only worked with Microsoft keyboards?

The point is this: iTunes "ecosystem" is actually a result of Apple [i]sabotaging[/i] the way that iTunes works with every other device, rather than some superhuman cabability of iPhones/iPods. It's all a sham, and what Palm did proves it.

If Apple really wants to close off iTunes to non-iPods, all they have to do is have the iPod send an [i]encrypted[/i] string to iTunes as an identifier. Trying to use the Vendor ID for that purpose is a half-assed way to go about it, though.

Next iTunes:

iTunes: Are you an iPod?
Pre: Yes
iTunes: OK, updating firmware.......

Haha. Brilliant.

Yea this might get nasty for Palm here.. Since they're saying it's made by apple, apple then should be allowed to do whatever it wants to it :/

I think palm should just maybe change to the iTunes store instead of amazon's MP3 store in exchange for iTunes or something so they quit bickering lol

Haha this would be hillarious

iTunes: Are you an iPod?
Pre: Yes
iTunes: OK, updating firmware.......
Pre: Ok no problem!
iTunes: Here is the firmware!
Pre: (Looks the crappy file and just copy it to dev>null)

I've got this piece of notebook paper here that says "Genuine $100 Bill" on it. On closer inspection, the paper also has some small print that says it was printed by the U.S. government. I can take this paper to the store and spend it, right?

Great job palm failphone! Apple can do whatever the fuck it wants with iTunes, morons. You want to sync with it? Buy an iPod and shut the fuck up like everyone else.

Whats the point of coming to a Pre site to flame the pre? go back to Apple you fanboy!

Less nerd speak and more going back to your piece of shit failphone with your second rate service provider. You fuck sticks make zero sense in this arguement apple doesn't have to cater to poor people who can't afford AT&T or an iPhone, asswad.

Hrmm...

So saving $1200 over two years while getting better call quality and service... makes "zero sense" and says that someone is poor?...

Nobody is asking Apple to cater to them. In fact it is Palm who made the adaption to work with Apple... not Apple trying to work with Palm... so who is catering to whom?

Palm is not forcing people to use iTunes... they are merely offering users the choice.

On a side note:
I completely agree with the analogy that Apple and iTunes is the same/similar to Microsoft and Windows\Internet Explorer

WHY ARE PEOPLE MAD AT APPLE?
IF YOU WERE APPLE WOULDNT YOU DO THE SAME?
EXAMPLE: WOULD YOU LIKE PEOPLE USING YOUR BATHROOM? OR YOUR BED?

A/S/L ?

Apple uses iTunes (the app and the store) to sell more iPods and iPhones, period. They invest a lot of resources to make that all happen. Any revenue Apple gets from iTunes is peanuts compared to the hardware sales.

I think it's entirely within Apple's rights to block some other company (Palm) from coming along and using the iTunes infrastructure to service their own purposes and drive sales of their own devices.

Palm needs to nut up and develop their own software solution instead of riding on Apple's capability. Enough already with the rip offs -- it's a short term solution at best. Palm is demonstrating a huge lack of long term foresight.

It's like buying a burger at some competitor and then stopping off at McDonalds to steal ketchup, because the original place didn't have any. How is that fair to McDonalds?

PEOPLE NEED TO STOP COMPLAINING