Be Excellent To Each Other

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ ... alm_i.html



Background: the Pre syncs with iTunes by (falsely) presenting a USB device ID taken from Apple's range, and thus pretending to be an iPod. Apple have nobbled this.

Note that Apple haven't changed the Pre's ability to play DRM free tracks bought from the iTunes music store, which will still work fine. They've only sabotaged the Pre's ability to use iTunes as a sync solution. I'm not sure they are in the wrong here; they put a lot of work into iTunes and it's not fair for Palm to just ride along with that. I think the antitrust people won't care, because the songs will still play on the Pre, users will just have to find a different way to get them on there.

Basically, I think Palm were rather silly to try this. They should have written their own sync client.

iTunes is shitty software anyway.

Also, can't you just put MP3s onto it? That's what I do with my 5800, and no synching is required.

Although if you have any DRM'd music on your computer, you are asking for exactly these kind of problems.

iTunes doesn't sell DRMd music any more.

I don't know how you get music onto a Pre, outside of an iTunes sync. I assume that's not the only way.

Edit -- and the Pre plays a range of codecs, including AAC-MP4 and mp3.

USB cable, pops up as a removable drive, drag and drop?

Is that not how all phones do it?

Edit: So this is Apple going out of their way to make it harder to play music bought from them on a device which doesn't have an apple on it? That is pretty bullshit.

Apple are arseholes, they really are. It's a testament to how good the iPhone is that I'll own one and voluntarily install iTunes on one of my PCs (although not my main one).

Microsoft are a bunch of saints and their behaviour is positively genteel compared to the bullying, thuggish tactics that Apple liberally employ when it comes to defending what they see as their turf. TBH I don't know why Apple don't get in a lot of trouble with the same bunch of whiners in EU-land who like duffing Microsoft up at every opportunity they get.

In what area are Apple a monopoly? I am not aware of any. They are certainly the 800 pound gorilla of digital music distribution, but they are far from a monopoly even there, and digital music is still small compared to CDs.

And the EU did take an interest in iTunes, anyway. They were making noises in 2007 about a formal investigation, which was a bit part of the reason it went DRM-free. In fact, Apple wanted the store to be DRM free from the beginning -- DRM was implemented at the behest of the record studios. As iTunes tracks can now be played on any device[0] that can play the AAC codec[1], the EU is satisfied.

[0] who's manufacturer isn't too lazy to write a sync solution.
[1] which is licenced, owned, and controlled by Yamaha, and nothing to do with Apple, so Apple cannot block any third party OEM from playing the format. [citation]

It's very fashionable to knock Apple for bullying tactics, but I don't think the facts stack up.

Frankly I think Palm were daft for ever wanting to use iTunes - it's not as though sync is difficult.

my sansa mp3 syncs with windows media player. So why can't it be allowed to sync to itunes?

doc no offence but you do seen to have a bias where apple is concerned.

Microsoft have let them do that. If Microsoft didn't let third party companies sync with WMP, then they wouldn't be able to. Rest assured that if MS were a dominant player in the music field, they would be allowing only Zunes and WM phones to sync, and everyone else would be out in the cold; it's only because they are the underdogs that they will play nicely. That's just business.

Simple UI that scans the PC for files the Pre can play, a "make playlist" set of dialogs, and a sync button. The only reason I can see for them doing this was to try and provoke a reaction from Apple, and garner a little PR along the way.

Maybe. That's not disputing the facts I've laid out there, though, is it? The Pre can still play music bought from the iTunes music store; that's the bottom line here. Apple would be wrong to block that, granted, but they literally can't anyway because AAC is an open standard and iTunes tracks don't have any DRM. Palm made a stupid decision with this iTunes sync doodad and they deserved a smack for it.

It's a bit cheeky. Kind of thing you'd expect a dodgy Chinese firmwared mp3 player to do.

It's breaking the USB rules too, has the whole world gone crazy?

I think it was done so they could whine to the press about Apple being big bad bullies, and thus garner some sympathy and some column inches. Atrocity Exhibition and Kovacs have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

I've been using iTunes for about six years now and love it. It's bestest.

swallowed what? To be honest i am not bothered either way. Just if microsoft had done that they world would have been up in arms. It is only apple that make you use their product. If that is ok by you.

There's a third party ActiveSync?

Uh... I have to disagree there, they wanted it enough to take peoples money.

The record studios refused to sign over any content without DRM during the negotiations before go-live. So it was DRM or no store.

how come other companies could do drm free then?

Like who? Keep in mind the iTunes Music Store went live in April 2003.

i am not sure. I have never used itunes. And itunes only went drm free after play did. I think. They could have lead in the revolution but did not.

They couldn't have led the revolution, is the point - the studios wouldn't let them.

but the studios let others? You can see my confusion.

5 years later, when the global market for download music was wildly different - where if people wanted DRM-free music they could quite happily rip it off the internet for fuck all if they wanted. In 2003, we didn't have the pirate bay. If you wanted downloaded music, you had to put up with DRM. In 2008 (when play launched their store), they had the leverage to say "Well if we don't offer it DRM-free, people will just steal it and you'll get nothing".

Oh, and Apple started selling DRM-free stuff from EMI before the Play.com store opened.

fair enough. But apple did have the power before 2008 to do it as market leader, but it took play to start it

I just mean, when given the option to sell DRM'd music, they said "yes please". They chose to do it, and were happy to do so. You can't just say "it was someone else's fault" when they were the ones who chose to sell DRM music.

It really wasn't an option though, was it? Don't forget that early on, a lot of the labels were refusing to sell downloadable music at all, there was no chance of them saying yes to a DRM-free agreement.

No, we didn't. But we did have Kazaa and Audiogalaxy and Napster, et al. There was plenty of (illegal) DRM free music around prior to iTunes. Torrents made it easier to download full albums, that's all. In the past you had to do it track by track.

Do you think we would have legal, DRM-free music download shops now if not for iTunes? We wouldn't. The record companies created a monster in the shape of iTunes, and the fragmented nature of the DRM market outside of iTunes (Microsoft have two incompatible DRM formats, for fuck's sake) meant that if they wanted to do stuff outside of iTunes, it had to be DRM free. Eventually, rumblings from the EU meant they rolled over and let Apple make the iTunes store DRM free too. Consumers won.


I don't think you can compare an illegal and legal solution.

I bet if you compared the volume of users of the napster-era services to the volume of users of torrent services now, the numbers would be overwhelmingly different. It took the record companies a while to realise that forcing DRM on distributors would negatively impact their profits, not positively - hence the early starters in the 'legal downloading' arena doing it with DRM.

I think you can, though. I think that they can be compared, because the only option for a lot of people was illegal downloading. Record companies fucked themsleves by insisting on DRM. Apple, to a certain extent, fucked themsleves, too, as they missed out on potential customers for years.

Oh, I'm at no point saying it was a good choice to make - I'm just saying it wasn't Apple's choice to make - the record companies at that time thought that the only way to secure their revenue stream was with DRM, so that's the only option they gave Apple (barring those who flat-out refused to offer downloads). They were, of course, wrong.

iTunes is a big pile of shit anyway so the less devices use it the better I say.

fucking hate itunes

Thanks for the thought-provoking contribution, Lace!

Who knows, we might have done. Either way, for Apple to have sold DRM'd music to a bunch of paying customers, and then to, in the future, go out of their way to make it more difficult for said customers to play that music on a device of their choice is an utter dick move.

Lewie, the Pre never could play DRMd iTunes songs, mind. Only DRM free ones, and after this change from Apple, it can still play DRM free ones.

Also, there is a legit way to interface with iTunes libraries. You pay a licence fee to Apple and you are allowed to write apps that read the XML library file directly, with support from Apple for your app. RIM do that for the Blackberry, as do Nokia for some of their music phones. They had to write their own GUI though.

Palm chose, instead, to ship a device with the wrong vendor ID on it's USB chip, which is a technical breach of the USB spec. Does that not smell iffy to you?

A tad yes....

Unrelated we are having problems with USB vendeor codes at the moment..

Sorry that just how I feel about iTunes. Seems Lewie agrees too!

with regards the Palm Pre jacking it for its own use, I guess Apple are within their rights to prevent that. As you've noted, Apple will allow support via licence and Palm shoulda stumped that up and developed the necessary tools to allow customers to access itunes legitimately.

But then again, why they'd want to is beyond me.
not to derail the topic, but why you would want to sync your device is beyond me. Drag and drop is much preferable in my eyes.

I've used iTunes since it was made. Always liked it, but then again it's been running on my various Macs.

Buy Macs you scrubbers.

You don't know until you try it. Honestly, I had the same opinion as you until I was "forced" to use iTunes for my iPhone. Now I'd be very reluctant to go back to messing about copying files.

"It Just Works" is the benefit really. Especially for keeping podcasts up to date, I suppose, but it's equally nice for the odd tune you've bought or CD you've ripped to automatically make it's way onto your player without even thinking about it.

I have too much music for my iPhone to store, so I keep it manual.

Can't say I'm surprised by Apple blocking the Pre. It was a shady tactic and they should have just asked/stumped up for a licence fee.

I just use a combination of standard and smart playlists to get the music I want on my iPhone.

Question- I share iTunes with someone who has questionable musical taste and listens to slightly too much Beach Boys and Proclaimers. How do i make it so when i connect my iPhone to iTunes I don't automatically get all this music? I have Florence and the Machine waiting for me but I don't want to sync and then have to manually choose what I want and dont want.

Also, I totally agree with Apples decision in this matter. Hypothetically, if Sony did something secret which allowed PS3 users to experience XBL (even if the PS3 users were paying the sub) I would be annoyed. If they want to use the service they should go through the appropriate channels.

Simples. Create two Playlists, one called 'Gilly's Superbad Moozik' and one called 'Jenny's Rubbish Toonz'. Put all your music in one and Jen's in the other (obviously crossing over on stuff you both like) and just sync your iPod to yours.

I still don't understand why people hate iTunes. Admittedly I was a Mac owner when it first launched, and it was on the Mac I developed my liking of it. But even after switching permanently to Windows-based computers about three years ago, iTunes remains the only music player I'd use.

Windows Media Player on the other hand, that's properly shit.

My media player usage on Windows is actually completely the same as it was on the Mac - iTunes for music, VLC for videos and I've seen nothing on Windows that would make me want to change from that.

Ah right, so i can just sync a playlist with my phone then? I suppose that long term that will be useful but the idea of making the playlist...ho hum. I will try and start that before my nap.

I have a really rubbish laptop and have only recently started using iTunes properly but I think it's great. I love being able to download podcasts, I now find it impossible to do housework without listening to radio 4 comedy.

I like Windows Media Player 11. It's fairly light-weight, especially compared to iTunes, and gives me the exact functionality I want, easily. I am perhaps a moron, but I've never found a way in iTunes to select a few songs and just play them, without having to fuck about creating a new playlist etc.

They acquired a license to do stuff to distribute copyrighted materials over a period of time, to obtain another license (which was unavailable for many years until the record companies grudgingly accepted that DRM can be damaging to sales) would have cost them more money, so you can see why they held off until there was a threat to their business. Welcome to the music industry, where very little makes sense.

Also, I'm with Lacesensor, I fucking hate using itunes too. Though it does do some things fantastically well, so I've not removed it from teh Windows partition.