Palm plays cat-and-mouse with Apple, reenables iTunes sync

[Mr. B]

I don't know if anyone has been following this sory but I've been keeping up with it and I find the issue quite amusing.

When Palm first enabled "MediaSync" that allowed the Pre to work with iTunes, Apple shot back by updating iTunes and locking the device out. Now, Palm has decided to turn this into a game by working around Apple's workaround with its latest update to webOS.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...nd-mouse-with-apple-reenables-itunes-sync.ars

Basically, the Palm Pre fakes out iTunes by appearing as an iPod. Apple is not pleased. I laugh heartily.

 

[drasche]

I was surprized when Palm first annouced that the Pre was capable to synchronize with iTunes when Palm had the Palm Desktop software and everything they need to synchronize a device. And it had plugin capability (conduits, they were called).

Cat and mouse strategy is not a good move IMO, they play with their customer base. Now we'll see how Apple react but it should be the last move. Palm should understand it's not up to them to decide what to do with a software (iTunes) that does not belong to them.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Well, they're going to get sued.

Not to mention this behavior by Palm will probably help justify that ACTA treaty which apparently is still being drafted and is totally kept secret in the US on the grounds of national security to keep it from the people who it will ultimately affect.

 

[Amaris]

I was surprized when Palm first annouced that the Pre was capable to synchronize with iTunes when Palm had the Palm Desktop software and everything they need to synchronize a device. And it had plugin capability (conduits, they were called).

Cat and mouse strategy is not a good move IMO, they play with their customer base. Now we'll see how Apple react but it should be the last move. Palm should understand it's not up to them to decide what to do with a software (iTunes) that does not belong to them.

Agreed. Hooray they can do it, now switch it back.


J.

 

[Lindley]

Palm should understand it's not up to them to decide what to do with a software (iTunes) that does not belong to them.

They're not doing anything to iTunes. They're simply configuring their own product to give it additional functionality.

That said functionality is present without Apple's consent is a niggle, but hardly illegal. And what would Apple sue for? Their own inability to secure their software?

 

[pheonix]

Wow palm almost seems desperate...

 

[drasche]

http://www.precentral.net/how-palm-re-enabled-itunes-sync

Palm Pre spoofed its identity to say Hello, I'm a deviced manufactured by Apple.

Which apparently the USB authorities forbid (see article for details).

 

[Data Holmes]

This should be fun. Has anyone took on apple this blatantly before?

 

[Venardhi]

I honestly don't even see what Apple's problem here is. The iPod is and will remain the preferred mp3 player for anyone who wants one and getting non iPod users on iTunes means more songs sold, and a potential foot in the door towards brand loyalty with someone who might otherwise not consider apple products.

 

[David cgc]

Because they don't want to be in the position of having people complaining that their Pre isn't working right with iTunes and blaming Apple for the failure of compatibility.

 

[drasche]

The Pre, and other devices if other manufactures decide to follow the same path. Plus the fact Apple developped iTunes, that costs some money and Apple might not like the fact that Palm is commercially taking advantage of that development for free.

 

[Venardhi]

Apple is still making money in the end though.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

The Pre, and other devices if other manufactures decide to follow the same path. Plus the fact Apple developped iTunes, that costs some money and Apple might not like the fact that Palm is commercially taking advantage of that development for free.

Whether they like it or not is kind of irrelevant, i think everybody agrees they don't like it (hence disabling it in the previous iTunes update). The question is, do they have a legal case? I don't know. Apple isn't exactly known as the most 'open' company in the world and is usually quick on the legal trigger so if they have a real case i have to image they will go for it.

This isn't the first case of legal chicken between Apple and Palm though. Apple implied in a statement that they might considering suing Palm for using multi-touch, Palm then implied that they had several older Palm patents which Apple may have violated and might consider suing (counter-suing?) Apple. In the end, nobody sued anyone else.

The simple fact is, if you use USB to sync, there are certain USB guidelines you have to follow. Shutting off access to specific other USB devices might be a violation. As might be Palm's counter-move of apparently spoofing the iPod USB ID.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

If you buy a device that has to make questionably legal workarounds to work with iTunes, then maybe you bought the wrong device. Cause iTunes is def where it is at.

 

[pheonix]

^^--Palm obviously thinks so.

 

[drasche]

The Pre, and other devices if other manufactures decide to follow the same path. Plus the fact Apple developped iTunes, that costs some money and Apple might not like the fact that Palm is commercially taking advantage of that development for free.

Whether they like it or not is kind of irrelevant, i think everybody agrees they don't like it (hence disabling it in the previous iTunes update). The question is, do they have a legal case? I don't know. Apple isn't exactly known as the most 'open' company in the world and is usually quick on the legal trigger so if they have a real case i have to image they will go for it.

This isn't the first case of legal chicken between Apple and Palm though. Apple implied in a statement that they might considering suing Palm for using multi-touch, Palm then implied that they had several older Palm patents which Apple may have violated and might consider suing (counter-suing?) Apple. In the end, nobody sued anyone else.

The simple fact is, if you use USB to sync, there are certain USB guidelines you have to follow. Shutting off access to specific other USB devices might be a violation. As might be Palm's counter-move of apparently spoofing the iPod USB ID.

I agree with your arguments. And regarding the USB guidelines, Palm's counter-move is a violation as well.

I'm curious to know where will this go.

 

[Meredith]

Palm should have just let the hackers do it as this move opens them up to lawsuits.

 

[Noname Given]

This should be fun. Has anyone took on apple this blatantly before?

Yeah, Microsoft

 

[Arrqh]

If you buy a device that has to make questionably legal workarounds to work with iTunes, then maybe you bought the wrong device. Cause iTunes is def where it is at.

And if you use software that has to make questionably legal workarounds to keep devices that they don't like from talking to it... oh wait

Both Apple and Palm's behavior in this matter is equally questionable.

 

[Chess Piece Face]

If you buy a device that has to make questionably legal workarounds to work with iTunes, then maybe you bought the wrong device. Cause iTunes is def where it is at.

And if you use software that has to make questionably legal workarounds to keep devices that they don't like from talking to it... oh wait

Both Apple and Palm's behavior in this matter is equally questionable.

No, not at all. Apple's software is sitting there being itself. Palm's device is pretending to be something it isn't to trick the USB rules. Come on.