Apple Puts the Kibosh on the Palm Pre’s iTunes Synch
The Palm Pre has been riding fairly high on a wave of publicity since its launch just a few weeks ago, so much so that Apple seems to have decided that it might be prudent to take a little wind out of the smartphone's sails by announcing that, although the new device's claim to be able to seamlessly synch with Apple's iTunes store may be true at the moment, that may not be the case for very much longer. Sound a little draconian? Sure enough, but business is business and anyway, this move is built into Apple's existing company line, which says that,
"Apple does not provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players and, because software changes over time, newer versions of Apple's iTunes software may no longer provide syncing functionality with non-Apple digital media players."
So, be forewarned new and potential Palm Pre owners. Apple is a jealous guardian of its markets. If you were hoping to be able to download music and movies to your heart's content via iTunes, think again, or at least do it quickly. No doubt Palm will be ratcheting up its plans for its own apps store for the Pre, the App Catalog, but that's a good way off and there's pretty much no chance that it will feature anything to match the entertainment media of iTunes. So, although it is definitely premature to write off the Palm Pre, it is probably not too early to remove its equally premature mantle of iPhone killer.
--Tom Milnes
Ray180 on June 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I think it's a little premature to say Apple has put the "kibosh" on iTunes syncing with the Pre. Apple would love for people to believe that but I think the potential backlash and negative goodwill it would create will convince Apple otherwise. Even if Apple does proceed with this threat, I'm sure there will be another work around in no time. On the other hand, one can never overestimate the hyper proprietary nature of Apple.
Kendall on June 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Shouldn't you actually wait until Apple blocks it before you complain?
Why do you think it so offensive for Apple merely to say they do not want to take support calls when your Pre does not sync? Why should they?
DBinSD on June 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
So, Kendall, does this mean Microsoft should be allowed to disable iTunes' ability to work on Windows computers? I mean, I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind if 90% of the computers in the free world were suddenly incompatible with its media store, its music players and its phones.
Diogenes on June 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Just another reason to avoid i-anything. As if I needed another...
Will on June 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM
This is a simple disclaimer. "Someone else is promising you compatability with our software and we're letting you know that we're not going to be testing that compatability, so it may break." At which point, Palm can try to fix it.
It's no big deal. It's no big conspiracy. ITunes happens to be an undocumented, but "open" format in XML. Apple doesn't publish the specs for that format, it's simply reversed engineered by others. They're not GOING TO publish a spec for that format. That format is subject to change.
If Apple were using "hidden, undocumented" Windows API calls in their software, and MS changed those API, Apple is SOL, and would need to adapt and work around it.
That's all that is going on here.
Sarge on June 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
"I mean, I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind if 90% of the computers in the free world were suddenly incompatible with its media store, its music players and its phones. "
Apple would just get the government to cripple Microsoft for them. More.
After all, only majorities can discriminate, and only market leaders can be anti-competitive, right?
Stan on June 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Try doubletwist, as seen on boing boing: http://www.doubletwist.com
BigFrank on June 18, 2009 at 01:04 PM
First of all, the sync isn't technically seamless. They tweaked the way that the Pre is recognized as a USB device such that while to the OS it will look like a Pre, to iTunes it will look like an iPod. In the common vernacular, this is known as an "unauthorized hack".
So why is it draconian for Apple to say "They kludged together a solution without any input from us, and since we don't know exactly how they implemented it, we cannot be responsible if their hack doesn't work with future versions of our software"?
I find it sadly humorous that people want to blame Apple for Palm's shortcomings.
Steven Den Best on June 18, 2009 at 01:05 PM
I wonder, at what point will this become an anti-trust violation? If the iTunes Store eventually comes to dominate the online music business, then Apple's music business becomes like Microsoft's OS business, and using it to lock in other products from the same company and to exclude products from other companies might be illegal.
Microsoft legally can't prevent FireFox or OpenOffice from running on Windows. At what point will it become illegal for Apple to prevent Palm from using the iTunes store?
Concerned Citizen on June 18, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Steven has a point. Remember how Kodak used to force people to use their developing services when you bought their film -- that little yellow envelope you got that you either mailed the roll back to Kodak with or gave to your drugstore who in turn sent it in to Kodak for processing? I don't see much difference. Buy iTunes and you are stuck using Apple's hardware to play it back.
Jake on June 18, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake. Who ever called the Pre an iPhone killer? I know that's what the lazy tech press likes to call any smart phone these days, only to denigrate the "claim" seconds to later as a form of mockery. It's lazy journalism.
Sean on June 18, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Apple's proprietary improprieties were what convinced me to buy a generic MP3 Player.
Of course, back then it was the "downloads only playable on iPods in case you change your mind down the road, or if something revolutionary comes along you have to re-purchase the media in a non-iPod format" BS that turned me away.
Apple's lifelong hatred of cross-platform compatability has always kept me away, cool as some of their stuff is.
PCs didn't take over because they were better than Macintoshs. You'd think they'd learn that strong-arming customers will only work with the religious few.
TMLutas on June 18, 2009 at 01:47 PM
If you sell something, like Visual Studio, which promises to make Windows compatible executables, and a competitor, like Apple, uses that tool to port iTunes to Windows, any crippling of iTunes for Windows would be illegal and morally wrong. Money changed hands and Apple got a promise just like all of Microsoft's developers.
Apple does not sell software or even give it away to allow non-Apple phones to sync to iTunes. For well over two decades, a chunk of their business model has been to discourage that sort of painting outside the lines. This is one of the reasons why Apple successfully changed chip lines not once but twice so far on its Macintosh computers while Microsoft's attempts to diversify (remember NT on the PPC?) or move off (Itanium anyone) have had many more problems. If x86 died and some other chip took over the market, Windows software would be in much more trouble than Macintosh software.
This capability of changing chip families nearly at will requires that Apple regularly change their undocumented stuff in order to maintain that mobility. On high profile use of undocumented interfaces they will do it often enough until the firm that is violating the rules stops. anybody who's been paying attention to Apple's business model has known this since the late 1980s. It's not new and was puzzling until that first chip change from Motorola's 680x0 series to PPC happened. Then it made perfect sense. It still does.
Sigivald on June 18, 2009 at 02:33 PM
ConcernedCitizen: Uh. What?
iTunes downloads are AAC. AAC is an open, standard format.
Before early 2009, the songs downloaded were DRM protected... because the record labels demanded it. Apple always claimed to be against it, and by dropping DRM when they could proved their sincerity on the matter. (Before then, you could hack the DRM off your files, or burn to CD and re-encode, which was awkward, but the latter was at least completely supported.)
So "stuck using apple's hardware to play it back"?
Wasn't true even in early 2008. Sure as heck isn't true now - not remotely.
As to the main post, Apple's never had a responsibility to make sure that it didn't break third-party hacks in future changes. Ones where Palm's hardware pretends to be an iPod, to synch from iTunes? Not Apple's problem.
There is an approved, standard way of synchronising with an iTunes library - it's to parse the iTunes Library XML file and copy the files over. It's not rocket science, and I'm pretty sure the guys at Palm could probably manage it.
Mark on June 18, 2009 at 02:33 PM
What a shame, because I would much rather own a device made by Palm than Apple. There is not an Apple product made that is not a piece of junk, with the iPod being the most egregious example. Those things break if you look at them wrong.
Tom on June 18, 2009 at 02:39 PM
@Steven: The iTMS is *already* dominating the online music business. The claim that "if you buy from iTMS you can't play your stuff anywhere else" is a canard. iTMS sells its tracks in unprotected AAC format, an open format that any music player manufacturer can choose to implement.
Randall on June 18, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Not that I have a dog in this fight (I buy MP3s from Amazon) - but the threat isn't that the Pre's approach is unsupported (which is true and reasonable), it is the implied threat that Apple will make a change specifically to break the hack that Palm worked out to allow it to synch with iTunes.
Sure Apple has every right to do so, and Palm will quickly enough figure out a new work around.
Brian on June 18, 2009 at 06:12 PM
I'm sure Apple will kill this in the next iTunes update, and claim it was an accident. I would if I were them. These are products in direct competition, and Palm is acknowledging the fact that the ability to sync with Apple's software is a competitive advantage for their product.
The idea that there would be a "backlash" to this is absurd. Are iPhone users going to switch to Palm in a sign of solidarity? Of course not. The "negative goodwill" will come solely from internet forum kids who own neither product, as is typically the case.
Pavel on June 18, 2009 at 06:24 PM
I have always fount I-Tunes very invasive and suspect in their installs. So I just buy my music for my Pre at Amazon with one click. Seamless, painless and doesn't support a semi-evil monopoly.
clazy on June 18, 2009 at 08:00 PM
If anyone with a Pre is worried, they should just reject ITunes upgrades.
This rumor is likely Apple's way of dampening Pre sales without even doing anything.
Finally, why does anyone use ITunes? It's hideous and clunky.
Stephen Macklin on June 19, 2009 at 04:22 AM
Apple has a tantrum and messes up your iTunes sync? No Problem.
http://www.doubletwist.com/dt/Home/Index.dt
Craig - web traffic guy on June 19, 2009 at 07:30 PM
Uh... ya what about applying the same strictures to Ipods as to Internet Explorer and Windows. It seems fair in a business sense but unfair in that the rules are not evenly applied.
Isn't the Ipod the category killer like Windows? HMMM...
meditation on June 30, 2009 at 01:30 AM
Soundcrank - lyrics, album artwork, new music releases, music recommendations, iTunes software downloads
Soundcrank is the best site to get lyrics and album artwork, find out about new music releases, and get music recommendations. Get iTunes software downloads http://www.soundcrank.com/
discount moncler down jacket onlines sales on February 26, 2010 at 11:18 PM
I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have ed hardy clothing you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. http://www.edfashionclothes.com/