I regularly tell my customers that regarding email, if they don't want to read it on the front page of the Washington Post tomorrow, don't email it. Of course, using encryption is really the answer, but most people don't know how to use it, and our employer doesn't encourage confidential information to be sent via email anyway.
It is safer just to deliver it personally or via secure messenger.
"But that's not what's going on here. Apple is going out of their way to block doing that. That's my point. I think it's dumb for them to go out of their way to do something so anti-consumer."
No, they're blocking PALM'S efforts, not YOURS as an individual.
They are two separate things. YOU have the right to alter your property any way you want or have the ability to do.
PALM doesn't because they are trying to make money off of their efforts.
Two different things altogether. Stop twisting MY arguments.
"You don't know what you're talking about."
Nice to make an assertion when you didn't answer my argument. Prove that Palm's actions aren't harmful, and try to stay away from generalities that don't add to the argument.
As to the protocol, I suspect you don't either.
"Um. It's not like I said Apple would fail because of this."
No, but you have asserted that they will lose business because of it. I think the market will prove you wrong.
Apparently, you think it's "dumb" because you have failed, in this instance, to see where Palm is taking actions that are, in and of themselves, dumb.
Because of Palm's actions, their customers now have no sanctioned way to sync their Pres to their iTunes music, because they have no way to prevent Apple from enforcing their own rights. Sorry, but not only was that a dumb move, but it is arguably illegal. I am no fan of the DMCA, but I'd bet an argument could be made that their actions violate at least one provision of it.
And in spite of your denigration of morality, business ethics is NOT a bad thing, nor is it necessarily good business practice to do unethical things and expect future business partners to fully trust you to live up to your side of an agreement.
Palm's actions WERE wrong, ethically, since you insist on making ethics a part of this argument, and they have been publicly slapped down because of it.
You still haven't answered why Palm's actions in ignoring the public API that RIM has so successfully used were GOOD business practice, since their customers have now been left high and dry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Palm DID develop its own software
Rude? I was rude? I wasn't the first to use the term TROLL because my opponent disagreed with me! Don't go getting all high and mighty with the ethics of discussion when you were the first to go south on it.
And yes, calling someone a troll is an ad hominem attack, period, it is attacking the messenger not the message.
No you haven't explained "this" any more times than those that believe as I do have as well, that's why this is a discussion, you know, where BOTH sides have a chance to air their point of view?
" Because of Palm’s efforts, Palm’s customers won’t have to go out of their way to install software to use iTunes (which most won’t even do in the first place). "
See? You've already undermined your own argument. First of all, "because of Palm's efforts", their customers now have NO WAY to sync their Pres with their iTunes music. That is because the way they did it was counter to the USB protocol, illegal, and just plain unethical to boot. Apple is under NO obligation to continue to allow Palm, or any other third party manufacturer, to continue to use Apple software for their own purposes.
So, no, it DOESN'T "just work", nor should it.
Oh, and here we go again with the ad hominem, calling me a fanboy. Just another technique to make an argument where you have none.
Sure, I understand your argument, but you are wrong.
Palm made a bad business decision in failing to write their own software to take advantage of a publicly available API to link to their customers' iTunes Libraries, because they have NO WAY to stop Apple from blocking their attempts to keep doing it. This is evidenced by the fact that Palm's last update to the Pre failed to even TRY to do it again. I notice you haven't even tried to answer to the fact that RIM has done it right and has no issues with syncing Blackberries to iTunes.
In spite of all your insults and twisting of the facts, you are still wrong, no matter how often you try to say you are not, and no matter how often you insult me personally.
Sure, go ahead. If YOU have the ability to alter the iTunes software on your computer to sync with your Pre, or other MP3 player, go ahead. Apple doesn't care, but they won't help you fix it if you bork it up. Just like Ford won't cover, under warranty, the mess you might make putting in a bigger aftermarket engine. But yeah, you CAN do it.
But PALM doesn't have the right to unilaterally use another company's software to sell their own products. Not without licensing it.
Two different concepts. One is personal, which is correct as you say it, the other is commercial, and you are wrong about THAT.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Palm DID develop its own software
Look, troll, (see, I can make ad hominem attacks too!) what PCs are called today has nothing to do with the argument. All that was done UNDER LICENSE, which Palm's actions certainly were NOT.
Your argument that Palm made an extraordinary effort to emulate the iPod makes no sense either. Please explain what good business sense it makes to do something HARD to avoid something EASY??
I will, because they wanted to ride upon Apple's success. Instead of designing a system between an MP3 player and a music management app, which is the TRULY hard job, they did the relatively easy job of just making their device fake being an iPod, because Apple has already done the hard part.
...and yeah, what they did IS the user friendly way, since they were obviously unable to do anything user friendly themselves.
But only good at twisting the facts and what people say.
"Because that protocol says that they don't. The Foundation noted specifically that the ID tags are for the exclusive use of the owning company. Because the software is Apple's, and nobody has a right to use their software to make money without Apple's permission. Or have the rules changed in some way recently?"
That's a quote you used when you said I was inserting some moral argument. Please, tell me where exactly I made a MORAL argument? It is a matter of legal rights, not morality. Stop twisting my arguments.
"No, but you do not seem to be able to conceive what ownership means."
Sure, I do, but again, you have twisted the subject. My argument was about APPLE's rights to use their software according to their own business model. If you have the ability to alter the iTunes software on your Mac or PC to allow your Pre to sync with it against Apple's wishes, go ahead, Apple won't stop you, nor will they sue you. They won't provide any technical support if you screw it up, but like you said its yours to alter as you see fit!
But PALM doesn't have those rights, because they are doing it, obviously, to sell their own product, which is in competition with Apple's products. THAT is a legal matter, not a moral one.
"You seem to have put some silly moral thing on top of that. What we're saying is that even though they're using the USB protocol inconsistent from the rules, Apple would be smart to let it go."
Again, what moral argument? The protocol is meant, for TECHNICAL reasons, to allow a company to identify their OWN products when they are plugged into a computer. To allow just any Tom, Dick or Harry to use anybody else's ID means chaos in the marketplace, and for all I know, there could be technical implications as well. There is most likely a reason the protocol was written that way, and I'd guess morality has bupkis to do with it.
Why should they allow a competitor to make their product more competitive against Apple's products? Apple has, I am sure, a long term roadmap for where their products are meant to go in the future, and having to babysit devices that belong to third parties so they don't break with each iTunes update is most likely not on it, nor is that roadmap meant to allow third parties to sell their products by piggy-backing on Apple's innovations.
Apple has, again, a public API that allows companies like RIM to connect to the iTunes Library by writing their own software that rides upon those companies' own innovations and fully implements their own devices' features. What's wrong with that?
"Huh? I am wrong in having an opinion? "
Again, thanks for the straw man. Your post about how APPLE is wrong is wrong. You've got the wrong angle to this story, and several of us have come on here to make that point.
Yes, the Pre will fail. it will fail because Palm has half-heartedly designed it, manufactured it as a poor quality piece of crap that has a huge return rate, and failed to write their own software to allow THEIR customers, not Apple's, to connect with their music according to Apple's PUBLIC API, like RIM did.
So yeah, the market will decide, because there aren't so many folks that have a screwed up angle on this story that'll fail to buy an iPod or iPhone because Apple defended their own product from an unscrupulous competitor - so Apple's sales figures will continue to rise, like they have since 2001.
Obviously, they DO think its a big deal since Palm brought the complaint to that forum in the first place.
I blame them for being lazy, or cheap, or both, for failing to do what they SHOULD have done in the first place - emulated RIM and write their own software!
Because that protocol says that they don't. The Foundation noted specifically that the ID tags are for the exclusive use of the owning company. Because the software is Apple's, and nobody has a right to use their software to make money without Apple's permission. Or have the rules changed in some way recently?
"artificial restrictions"?
Ownership is artificial? Since when? What is so "magical" about the right to use one's own property in a manner consistent with one's business model? Especially a model that's making money hand over fist?
Palm is using the USB protocol in a manner inconsistent with the protocol's published rules of use, as evidenced by the recent response to Palm's letter published a while back.
Why the heck is Apple being excoriated here, when they have done nothing wrong but defend their own turf?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong, and Palm is wrong, and the market will prove it.
Sounds to me that Palm's engineers went out of THEIR way to avoid doing what they should have in the first place - engineer their own music management software to hook into the iTunes Library - which is a PUBLIC API Apple provides in order for companies to do just that.
Why would an independent company want to lock their customers into using another company's software? Palm could have just as easily designed and written their own music management software to do what RIM did, and then would have had a device whose OS was written specifically to take advantage of their OWN music management software, which could have been written to do things the PALM way, instead of the Apple way.
But this way, they are subject to Apple's whim in how they will write and release future software, and Apple NEVER publicly announces future product roadmaps.
Bad move on Palm's part, just on this score alone, but when you pitch in their using that spoofed ID, they were wrong all over, and the USB folks are calling them on it!
Again, this is NOT Apple's fault, it is PALM'S fault, and they have nothing to gripe about.
"The point of this post is - why would Apple do that?"
Obviously, because the USB ID protocol uses that as a way for a company to identify a product that has connected to a USB port. That has nothing to do with keeping others' products OUT, but identifying one's OWN products so your OS can do what it is supposed to do with that product! It will distinguish between an iPhone and an iPod, so iTunes knows which is connected.
It was PALM'S illegal use of that ID that brought this to a head, why do you defend the illegal use of that ID on Palms part?
Again, Apple has provided a perfectly useable public API to allow third parties to connect with the iTunes Library, which RIM has very successfully done. Nobody complained when RIM came out with their own app! Nobody asked them why they weren't using iTunes, did they?
If Apple deliberately allowed other companies to use iTunes, they would be obligated to see that their software didn't break anything on those third party devices. Obviously, that would be a huge addition to the cost of updating iTunes. Apple is not a non-profit charity.
The answers are the same, in this case. Palm has no "right" to misuse an open standard protocol to hitch a ride on another company's software without permission.
The social standard until now has been that one does NOT do such things, and I see no changes in the legal arena that would make that change.
Spoofing the USB ID is the only way Palm can do that without some form of altering Apple's software directly, and THAT would violate at least the DMCA and probably also Apple's copyright.
What is so hard about Palm using their own resources to just do it right and write their own software? As I noted, that would bring their own innovative resources to bear, from people that designed the hardware, so that they can take full advantage of their own device's features and capabilities.
Using iTunes locks their customers into using Apple's solution, which may not be completely compatible with all the Pre's features.
Sorry, but riding on someone else's hard work is just plain lazy, and it does nothing to foster one's own innovation.
"That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, however."
No, it's not. Apple owns the whole product, top to bottom. THEY have innovated, busted their butts writing solid, innovative software integrated with equally innovative hardware to produce a line of products that are designed to work together. It is not "right" for them to dilute that user experience by allowing third rate competitors to piggy back on their success.
This is imply an issue of a third party wrongfully using an ID tag in the USB protocol for purposes for which it was not designed within that protocol. Again, Apple has allowed third party connectivity to users' iTunes music through a PUBLIC API, allowing third party manufacturers to use their OWN innovative creativity to link that library to their own devices, specifically activating those devices functions and features in ways that iTunes may not be able to do.
Opening up the use of iTunes LOCKS third party customers into using iTunes.
Why do you think that is in any way good for third party innovation?
"Nonsense like this is why a company like Apple shouldn't be handed a media monopoly on a silver platter."
They weren't HANDED that monopoly, they EARNED it, one iPod at a time, by millions of individual consumers making independent decisions about what product to buy.
"The point is that Apple assumes a position of entitlement..."
"entitlement"?? When THEY own the rights to iTunes? Why the heck AREN'T they entitled to control it? THEY wrote it, THEY innovated the way in which we interact with our music.
Again, Apple has provided a PUBLIC API which companies CAN use to connect to the iTunes library - they just need to write their OWN software to do so.
RIM has done it, and very successfully, too. What makes Palm so special?
"What I've never understood is how Apple is allowed to block OSX etc from installing on non-apple hardware..."
Because it is part of a comprehensive product, and their software is designed to sell their primary product - hardware. What you want is like using software from the onboard computer in a BMW in your Ford. Why the heck should BMW be amenable to actually altering their software to make it work on another manufacturer's product?
"And don't say its because Microsoft has a monopoly...apple has just as much a monopoly on itunes...its own hardware..OSX etc etc etc"
sorry, you don't get to set the conditions, here. It IS because Microsoft is a monopoly - in the Operating system market.
iTunes is part of Apple's offering in the MP3 player market - an identifiably DIFFERENT market! In the desktop OS market, it has a market share in the single digits, so it gets to play by different rules than the monopolist.
"No one has a right to hook into another company's software without permission, as Palm is trying to do.
Why not? Again, this is a serious question."
Because Palm is a signatory to the USB Forum, which sets standards for industry use of the protocol. It is something they agreed to, and are being called to account for it. That protocol says that only the company the ID identifies is allowed to use that ID.
Allowing Palm to continue to do this dilutes the authority of the protocol, and thus its usefulness.
They can EASILY write software that is specific to their own device and its functions, and even innovate using their own software while allowing users to have access to their own music, using Apple's public API.
Isn't that called innovation? Isn't that what you always hold up as an example? Apple is actually allowing companies the opportunity to innovate using their own creativity and their own devices, while simply using iTunes would do none of that, but simply allow users to do things APPLE'S way.
Crap. That's EXACTLY what you and Mike are asking!
Why is it wrong? Because both Palm and Apple are signatories to the USB Implementers Forum [USB-IF], a member group that oversees the implementation of USB in the industry, and IT has ruled, on Palm's own inquiry, that Palm has wrongfully used Apple's USB ID in piggy-backing on Apple's software.
Because PALM agreed to adhere to the industry standard, and they have failed to live up to that standard!
THAT'S why it's wrong.
Apple has provided a perfectly acceptable method for third parties to access the iTunes library, using the third parties' own, proprietary software, without stepping into Apple's territory.
What the heck is wrong with that? It allows those third parties to write their own software that meshes perfectly well with the features and functions of their own devices, and allows for those third parties to innovate with their own ideas while allowing customers access to their own music stored in an iTunes library.
I always thought innovation was what Techdirt was all about!
Even if a case is obvious, the government will take it an investigate it, because that gets the case ON THE RECORD and sets a precedent.
That means that any future cases like it don't need a full investigation, but can then be dismissed simply through reference.
A case may SEEM open and shut, but until it is examined in full, by people that know the subject, one never knows. A full and open investigation will expose any unusual aspects of the case, and will fully document it.
On the post: Google Destroyed Missent Bank Info Email Unopened... As More Legal Questions Are Raised
Re: Why are they emailing such information?
It is safer just to deliver it personally or via secure messenger.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um, what?
And yet, you support Palm's efforts at locking their customers into using iTunes!
No wonder you don't want to buy a Pre!
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Off-base
No, they're blocking PALM'S efforts, not YOURS as an individual.
They are two separate things. YOU have the right to alter your property any way you want or have the ability to do.
PALM doesn't because they are trying to make money off of their efforts.
Two different things altogether. Stop twisting MY arguments.
"You don't know what you're talking about."
Nice to make an assertion when you didn't answer my argument. Prove that Palm's actions aren't harmful, and try to stay away from generalities that don't add to the argument.
As to the protocol, I suspect you don't either.
"Um. It's not like I said Apple would fail because of this."
No, but you have asserted that they will lose business because of it. I think the market will prove you wrong.
Apparently, you think it's "dumb" because you have failed, in this instance, to see where Palm is taking actions that are, in and of themselves, dumb.
Because of Palm's actions, their customers now have no sanctioned way to sync their Pres to their iTunes music, because they have no way to prevent Apple from enforcing their own rights. Sorry, but not only was that a dumb move, but it is arguably illegal. I am no fan of the DMCA, but I'd bet an argument could be made that their actions violate at least one provision of it.
And in spite of your denigration of morality, business ethics is NOT a bad thing, nor is it necessarily good business practice to do unethical things and expect future business partners to fully trust you to live up to your side of an agreement.
Palm's actions WERE wrong, ethically, since you insist on making ethics a part of this argument, and they have been publicly slapped down because of it.
You still haven't answered why Palm's actions in ignoring the public API that RIM has so successfully used were GOOD business practice, since their customers have now been left high and dry.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Palm DID develop its own software
And yes, calling someone a troll is an ad hominem attack, period, it is attacking the messenger not the message.
No you haven't explained "this" any more times than those that believe as I do have as well, that's why this is a discussion, you know, where BOTH sides have a chance to air their point of view?
" Because of Palm’s efforts, Palm’s customers won’t have to go out of their way to install software to use iTunes (which most won’t even do in the first place). "
See? You've already undermined your own argument. First of all, "because of Palm's efforts", their customers now have NO WAY to sync their Pres with their iTunes music. That is because the way they did it was counter to the USB protocol, illegal, and just plain unethical to boot. Apple is under NO obligation to continue to allow Palm, or any other third party manufacturer, to continue to use Apple software for their own purposes.
So, no, it DOESN'T "just work", nor should it.
Oh, and here we go again with the ad hominem, calling me a fanboy. Just another technique to make an argument where you have none.
Sure, I understand your argument, but you are wrong.
Palm made a bad business decision in failing to write their own software to take advantage of a publicly available API to link to their customers' iTunes Libraries, because they have NO WAY to stop Apple from blocking their attempts to keep doing it. This is evidenced by the fact that Palm's last update to the Pre failed to even TRY to do it again. I notice you haven't even tried to answer to the fact that RIM has done it right and has no issues with syncing Blackberries to iTunes.
In spite of all your insults and twisting of the facts, you are still wrong, no matter how often you try to say you are not, and no matter how often you insult me personally.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: It's Your Property
But PALM doesn't have the right to unilaterally use another company's software to sell their own products. Not without licensing it.
Two different concepts. One is personal, which is correct as you say it, the other is commercial, and you are wrong about THAT.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Palm DID develop its own software
Your argument that Palm made an extraordinary effort to emulate the iPod makes no sense either. Please explain what good business sense it makes to do something HARD to avoid something EASY??
I will, because they wanted to ride upon Apple's success. Instead of designing a system between an MP3 player and a music management app, which is the TRULY hard job, they did the relatively easy job of just making their device fake being an iPod, because Apple has already done the hard part.
...and yeah, what they did IS the user friendly way, since they were obviously unable to do anything user friendly themselves.
Maybe you should practice making sense...
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Off-base
But only good at twisting the facts and what people say.
"Because that protocol says that they don't. The Foundation noted specifically that the ID tags are for the exclusive use of the owning company. Because the software is Apple's, and nobody has a right to use their software to make money without Apple's permission. Or have the rules changed in some way recently?"
That's a quote you used when you said I was inserting some moral argument. Please, tell me where exactly I made a MORAL argument? It is a matter of legal rights, not morality. Stop twisting my arguments.
"No, but you do not seem to be able to conceive what ownership means."
Sure, I do, but again, you have twisted the subject. My argument was about APPLE's rights to use their software according to their own business model. If you have the ability to alter the iTunes software on your Mac or PC to allow your Pre to sync with it against Apple's wishes, go ahead, Apple won't stop you, nor will they sue you. They won't provide any technical support if you screw it up, but like you said its yours to alter as you see fit!
But PALM doesn't have those rights, because they are doing it, obviously, to sell their own product, which is in competition with Apple's products. THAT is a legal matter, not a moral one.
"You seem to have put some silly moral thing on top of that. What we're saying is that even though they're using the USB protocol inconsistent from the rules, Apple would be smart to let it go."
Again, what moral argument? The protocol is meant, for TECHNICAL reasons, to allow a company to identify their OWN products when they are plugged into a computer. To allow just any Tom, Dick or Harry to use anybody else's ID means chaos in the marketplace, and for all I know, there could be technical implications as well. There is most likely a reason the protocol was written that way, and I'd guess morality has bupkis to do with it.
Why should they allow a competitor to make their product more competitive against Apple's products? Apple has, I am sure, a long term roadmap for where their products are meant to go in the future, and having to babysit devices that belong to third parties so they don't break with each iTunes update is most likely not on it, nor is that roadmap meant to allow third parties to sell their products by piggy-backing on Apple's innovations.
Apple has, again, a public API that allows companies like RIM to connect to the iTunes Library by writing their own software that rides upon those companies' own innovations and fully implements their own devices' features. What's wrong with that?
"Huh? I am wrong in having an opinion? "
Again, thanks for the straw man. Your post about how APPLE is wrong is wrong. You've got the wrong angle to this story, and several of us have come on here to make that point.
Yes, the Pre will fail. it will fail because Palm has half-heartedly designed it, manufactured it as a poor quality piece of crap that has a huge return rate, and failed to write their own software to allow THEIR customers, not Apple's, to connect with their music according to Apple's PUBLIC API, like RIM did.
So yeah, the market will decide, because there aren't so many folks that have a screwed up angle on this story that'll fail to buy an iPod or iPhone because Apple defended their own product from an unscrupulous competitor - so Apple's sales figures will continue to rise, like they have since 2001.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Palm DID develop its own software
I blame them for being lazy, or cheap, or both, for failing to do what they SHOULD have done in the first place - emulated RIM and write their own software!
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Off-base
Because that protocol says that they don't. The Foundation noted specifically that the ID tags are for the exclusive use of the owning company. Because the software is Apple's, and nobody has a right to use their software to make money without Apple's permission. Or have the rules changed in some way recently?
"artificial restrictions"?
Ownership is artificial? Since when? What is so "magical" about the right to use one's own property in a manner consistent with one's business model? Especially a model that's making money hand over fist?
Palm is using the USB protocol in a manner inconsistent with the protocol's published rules of use, as evidenced by the recent response to Palm's letter published a while back.
Why the heck is Apple being excoriated here, when they have done nothing wrong but defend their own turf?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong, and Palm is wrong, and the market will prove it.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Palm DID develop its own software
Why would an independent company want to lock their customers into using another company's software? Palm could have just as easily designed and written their own music management software to do what RIM did, and then would have had a device whose OS was written specifically to take advantage of their OWN music management software, which could have been written to do things the PALM way, instead of the Apple way.
But this way, they are subject to Apple's whim in how they will write and release future software, and Apple NEVER publicly announces future product roadmaps.
Bad move on Palm's part, just on this score alone, but when you pitch in their using that spoofed ID, they were wrong all over, and the USB folks are calling them on it!
Again, this is NOT Apple's fault, it is PALM'S fault, and they have nothing to gripe about.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, because the USB ID protocol uses that as a way for a company to identify a product that has connected to a USB port. That has nothing to do with keeping others' products OUT, but identifying one's OWN products so your OS can do what it is supposed to do with that product! It will distinguish between an iPhone and an iPod, so iTunes knows which is connected.
It was PALM'S illegal use of that ID that brought this to a head, why do you defend the illegal use of that ID on Palms part?
Again, Apple has provided a perfectly useable public API to allow third parties to connect with the iTunes Library, which RIM has very successfully done. Nobody complained when RIM came out with their own app! Nobody asked them why they weren't using iTunes, did they?
If Apple deliberately allowed other companies to use iTunes, they would be obligated to see that their software didn't break anything on those third party devices. Obviously, that would be a huge addition to the cost of updating iTunes. Apple is not a non-profit charity.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Off-base
The social standard until now has been that one does NOT do such things, and I see no changes in the legal arena that would make that change.
Spoofing the USB ID is the only way Palm can do that without some form of altering Apple's software directly, and THAT would violate at least the DMCA and probably also Apple's copyright.
What is so hard about Palm using their own resources to just do it right and write their own software? As I noted, that would bring their own innovative resources to bear, from people that designed the hardware, so that they can take full advantage of their own device's features and capabilities.
Using iTunes locks their customers into using Apple's solution, which may not be completely compatible with all the Pre's features.
Sorry, but riding on someone else's hard work is just plain lazy, and it does nothing to foster one's own innovation.
Isn't that what Techdirt is supposed to be about?
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Missing the point
No, it's not. Apple owns the whole product, top to bottom. THEY have innovated, busted their butts writing solid, innovative software integrated with equally innovative hardware to produce a line of products that are designed to work together. It is not "right" for them to dilute that user experience by allowing third rate competitors to piggy back on their success.
This is imply an issue of a third party wrongfully using an ID tag in the USB protocol for purposes for which it was not designed within that protocol. Again, Apple has allowed third party connectivity to users' iTunes music through a PUBLIC API, allowing third party manufacturers to use their OWN innovative creativity to link that library to their own devices, specifically activating those devices functions and features in ways that iTunes may not be able to do.
Opening up the use of iTunes LOCKS third party customers into using iTunes.
Why do you think that is in any way good for third party innovation?
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
They weren't HANDED that monopoly, they EARNED it, one iPod at a time, by millions of individual consumers making independent decisions about what product to buy.
Get over it.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Off-base
"entitlement"?? When THEY own the rights to iTunes? Why the heck AREN'T they entitled to control it? THEY wrote it, THEY innovated the way in which we interact with our music.
Again, Apple has provided a PUBLIC API which companies CAN use to connect to the iTunes library - they just need to write their OWN software to do so.
RIM has done it, and very successfully, too. What makes Palm so special?
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re:
Because it is part of a comprehensive product, and their software is designed to sell their primary product - hardware. What you want is like using software from the onboard computer in a BMW in your Ford. Why the heck should BMW be amenable to actually altering their software to make it work on another manufacturer's product?
"And don't say its because Microsoft has a monopoly...apple has just as much a monopoly on itunes...its own hardware..OSX etc etc etc"
sorry, you don't get to set the conditions, here. It IS because Microsoft is a monopoly - in the Operating system market.
iTunes is part of Apple's offering in the MP3 player market - an identifiably DIFFERENT market! In the desktop OS market, it has a market share in the single digits, so it gets to play by different rules than the monopolist.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Off-base
Why not? Again, this is a serious question."
Because Palm is a signatory to the USB Forum, which sets standards for industry use of the protocol. It is something they agreed to, and are being called to account for it. That protocol says that only the company the ID identifies is allowed to use that ID.
Allowing Palm to continue to do this dilutes the authority of the protocol, and thus its usefulness.
They can EASILY write software that is specific to their own device and its functions, and even innovate using their own software while allowing users to have access to their own music, using Apple's public API.
Isn't that called innovation? Isn't that what you always hold up as an example? Apple is actually allowing companies the opportunity to innovate using their own creativity and their own devices, while simply using iTunes would do none of that, but simply allow users to do things APPLE'S way.
Pretty lazy on Palm's part, I'd say.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is it wrong? Because both Palm and Apple are signatories to the USB Implementers Forum [USB-IF], a member group that oversees the implementation of USB in the industry, and IT has ruled, on Palm's own inquiry, that Palm has wrongfully used Apple's USB ID in piggy-backing on Apple's software.
Because PALM agreed to adhere to the industry standard, and they have failed to live up to that standard!
THAT'S why it's wrong.
Apple has provided a perfectly acceptable method for third parties to access the iTunes library, using the third parties' own, proprietary software, without stepping into Apple's territory.
What the heck is wrong with that? It allows those third parties to write their own software that meshes perfectly well with the features and functions of their own devices, and allows for those third parties to innovate with their own ideas while allowing customers access to their own music stored in an iTunes library.
I always thought innovation was what Techdirt was all about!
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Let me get this straight
On the post: Why Is The FCC Even Giving The Time Of Day To RIAA's Bogus Radio Witchhunt?
Jake is right
That means that any future cases like it don't need a full investigation, but can then be dismissed simply through reference.
A case may SEEM open and shut, but until it is examined in full, by people that know the subject, one never knows. A full and open investigation will expose any unusual aspects of the case, and will fully document it.
Next >>