MobileInfocenter

Comments on: Apple Passively Warns on iTunes Syncing

iTunes IconApple has posted a new support document regarding iTunes syncing and unsupported digital media players. In what is almost certainly a thinly veiled reference to the Palm Pre's media sync mode, Apple's document warns that it does not support, nor tests for compatibility with "unsupported third-party digital media players" and can not guarantee future compatibility with newer versions of iTunes.

DigitalDaily's John Paczkowski reached Palm's PR chief Lynn Fox (herself a former Apple employee) for comment who said "Palm's media sync works with the current version of iTunes, If Apple chooses to disable media sync in a future version of iTunes, it will be a direct blow to their users who will be deprived of a seamless synchronization experience. However, people will have options. They can stay with the iTunes version that works to sync their music on their Pre, they can transfer the music via USB, and there are other third-party applications we could consider."

Return to Story - Permalink

Article Comments

 (64 comments)

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.

Start a new Comment Down

Was that not Always the policy?

anika200 @ 6/17/2009 11:06:35 AM # Q
I seem to remember this being in the release notes or licenses agreement for a while. There will be solutions to solve the problem if there is a change.
Reply to this comment

Why should Apple care??

chuckwjk1 @ 6/17/2009 1:36:22 PM # Q
It really should not matter that another player can use Itunes. Apple should be happy with that as it would place funds in their pockets. I know others who have been sued for tying software to "their" hardware to the exclusion of all others.
Palms owned: IIIe-> M125-> T|T-> T|3-> Tx-> Treo608 (unlocked)
RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/17/2009 2:18:51 PM # M Q
I think apple cares bc palm is exploiting a hole in iTunes to do a limited media sync.

iSync is the preferred way for 3rd parties to sync and there's nothing stopping pre users from copying media files from their iTunes directory to the pre.

why would palm exploit the hole to allow iTunes syncing? it gives them free press for a short time - that's all.

palm knew apple would plug this hole eventually.

RE: Why should Apple care??
SeldomVisitor @ 6/17/2009 3:17:40 PM # Q
As pointed out earlier, maybe Apple does NOT care. If those cautionary words have been there for some time then they necessarily have nothing to do with Palm.

Just because 479 different literally-Me-Too-Media sites say "Apple threatens Palm!!!!!" that doesn't make it so.


RE: Why should Apple care??
bhartman34 @ 6/17/2009 6:54:07 PM # Q
jca666us wrote:
why would palm exploit the hole to allow iTunes syncing? it gives them free press for a short time - that's all.

I'm not even sure this is a "hole", per se. All the Pre does is set a metatag that announces itself as an iPod. (And it doesn't do it on the root hub, so if Apple really wanted to, they could've prevented this years ago.)

I agree with others that there doesn't seem to be a risk for Palm here. There's no reason for Apple to bother blocking the Pre.

Apple actually benefits from the Pre's access to iTunes. The Pre can read non-DRM'd AAC, so anyone using the Pre can buy non-DRM'd songs from iTunes. Why would Apple want to stop that? Is there anyone on the planet who's never heard of an iPod before (outside of maybe the jungles of sub-Saharan Africa)? Someone who buys a Pre isn't going to turn around and return it just because it doesn't sync with iTunes. If iTunes was a decisive factor for them, they'd have an iPod or iPhone already.

RE: Why should Apple care??
abosco @ 6/18/2009 7:16:18 AM # M Q
On the contrary, I think that allowing the Pre to sync with iTunes gives people subscribing to the Apple ecosystem an alternative. Apple doesn't care about song sales. They publicly state that they barely break even on the iTunes store. But it increases sales of that oh-so-profitable complementary good, iPods. If people can buy songs and sync it to their Pre, Apple is not benefitting from that.
RE: Why should Apple care??
bhartman34 @ 6/18/2009 1:14:39 PM # Q
abosco wrote:
On the contrary, I think that allowing the Pre to sync with iTunes gives people subscribing to the Apple ecosystem an alternative. Apple doesn't care about song sales. They publicly state that they barely break even on the iTunes store. But it increases sales of that oh-so-profitable complementary good, iPods. If people can buy songs and sync it to their Pre, Apple is not benefitting from that.

But someone who buys the Pre isn't buying it because of its ability to sync with iTunes. If what you want is iTunes integration, you buy an iPod or an iPhone, because they've been available for years.

RE: Why should Apple care??
abosco @ 6/20/2009 12:01:28 PM # M Q
If someone has an old iPod and all of their music is on iTunes, they had no other choice but Apple unless they wanted to manually deconstruct their audio and sync it to another device. Having the Pre be able to sync with iTunes makes this possible.

It is absolutely a big deal that the Pre syncs with iTunes.

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 3:57:28 PM # M Q
may be not such a big deal after all:

in benchmarks the iPhone 3gs is faster than the Pre.

Pre stands for Pre-historic.

When will we see an sdk that supports more than just web apps for the Pre? 2010, 2011???

RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 6/20/2009 4:25:16 PM # Q
When will we see an sdk that supports more than just web apps for the Pre?

So, out of horribly morbid curiosity, what is it that you think the current Mojo SDK can't handle?

We know already that 3D games will be a challenge - although perhaps not as much of one as people might think, given recent demonstrations of HTML5's capabilities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uofWfXOzX-g

We know that those who needed it have already been given deeper access - Classic, for instance, or Docs 2 Go.

So what's your beef? (y'know, apart from being a nutcase who every day sinks ever-deeper into a personal fantasy-land of epic Apple-Palm warfare. Boy, I bet that patent lawsuit is just exploding in there by now - if Apple haven't won it already, that is!)

RE: Why should Apple care??
mikecane @ 6/20/2009 5:21:49 PM # Q
>>>Pre stands for Pre-historic.

OMG. Did your little mind create that on its own or did you have a lot of help?

Give me a frikkin break. The Pre hasn't been out for even a month and tinythinkers are carping in their usual tunnelheaded fashion.

webOS 1.x is not done. I've said it all along. I told Palm itself on Twitter I expected an OTA update this week, on Wednesday, to blunt the iPhone 3GS. I guess the debugging kept them going because they didn't get it out until Friday.

Still.

And all these eejits whining over the lack of SDK should look beyond playing with themselves and consider what's most likely happening in the real world of people who actually *do* things:
http://pdnblog.palm.com/2009/06/an-update-on-the-early-access-program-and-the-sdk/#comment-1491

What is hugely funny is that the full potential of webOS won't even be *glimpsed* until the final SDK is out there. So all these eejits talking about how webOS has nothing to offer will look like the eejits they really are in a few months. Keep a list of the eejits so you know who to ignore in the future.

RE: Why should Apple care??
nastebu @ 6/20/2009 7:17:32 PM # M Q
WebOS really is an amazing bit of software engineering. It's really quite amazing that the first phone to be competitive with the iPhone is from Palm. Palm pulled off a better OS than Google! And the news that they can get an SDK out so quickly is quite amazing. It took Apple a year.

Not that the jury isn't still out. WebOS long term might end up being unstable, for example, but gee-whiz credit Palm for an amazing bit of work to get this far.

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 7:41:43 PM # Q
>So, out of horribly morbid curiosity, what is it that you think the current
>Mojo SDK can't handle?

Freak, we know what the SDK won't be able to handle - anything of reasonably high performance - you do know the difference between HTML/Javascript and binary applications, right?

>We know already that 3D games will be a challenge - although perhaps not
>as much of one as people might think, given recent demonstrations of
>HTML5's capabilities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uofWfXOzX-g

As usual Freak, you really pull this stuff out of your butt without thinking.

The O3D demo is running under desktop Safari (and is available for Mac & Windows) - not (yet) available for any mobile platforms - certainly not for Mojo - LOL!

Maybe in a few years when hardware performance improves we might see this - however this is no replacement for Palm's (current lack of) binary application support.

>We know that those who needed it have already been given deeper access
>- Classic, for instance, or Docs 2 Go.

And since the access granted has been minimal - we can safely speculate that much of it is subject to change (or has not been finalized).

Maybe in 6 mos. or a year we'll see a proper SDK - but it's not there now.

>So what's your beef?

No beef, just making a statement to see how long it took to set you off - not long. You're such a Palm apologist, it's not even funny.

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 7:50:15 PM # Q
>webOS 1.x is not done. I've said it all along.

Hah - that's funny - you don't need to be Nostradamus to see webos isn't finished.

I believe the OTA was a good first step - let's see how Palm does in the coming weeks and months. Their track record for s/w updates is abysmal.

>I told Palm itself on Twitter I expected an OTA update this week, on
>Wednesday, to blunt the iPhone 3GS.

"Blunt the iphone 3gs" - now that is even funnier - you've been smoking too many blunts to be making a statement that inane.

>What is hugely funny is that the full potential of webOS won't even be
>*glimpsed* until the final SDK is out there.

And that potential will be "blunted" - no pun intended - until Palm gets support for native applications running under webos.

One thing that can be seen by comparing the Pre with the iphone 3gs is (considering they run near identical hardware - and both use webkit) - is how fast that hardware can actually run.

RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 6/20/2009 9:02:25 PM # Q
we know what the SDK won't be able to handle - anything of reasonably high performance

Such as? You keep saying this, but without citing any specific examples. Funny, that.

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 9:09:42 PM # Q
Well idiot - if you knew anything, you'd know that anything computationally intensive would run much faster in a compiled language then in javascript.

You did go to high school, didn't you?

RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 6/20/2009 9:53:11 PM # Q
And still not one specific example. A pattern is emerging...
RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 10:22:14 PM # M Q
let's see stupid:

- the video game example

- any apps that would need direct access to neon - look it up

h.264 encoding - if the pre ever offers video recording


RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 6/21/2009 12:01:49 AM # Q
So in other words, for 99% of apps that aren't games the Mojo SDK will work just fine. Yet somehow it's not a "real" SDK?

If you going to try and argue with all and sundry about this, the least you could do is not contradict yourself within the space of a few posts.

(By the way, it's perfectly possible for Palm to develop a Mojo API that handles video encoding, just as one already exists for decoding. webOS uses gstreamer, which is more than capable of it.)

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 6/21/2009 8:02:56 AM # M Q
freak,

half of your responses are "it's possible" - however it isn't possible TODAY!

For a guy who works in a restaurant - you knowan awful lot about programming. That was sarcasm, BTW.

RE: Why should Apple care??
twrock @ 6/21/2009 9:21:15 PM # Q
Wow did this thread deteriorate. And amazingly, I didn't even have a part in that! :-)

Two things I've said before and I say them again:

-Regarding "whatever" Palm is going to release (like the SDK), just wait and see. All sorts of rubbish was spewed about what webOS was or wasn't going to be by all sorts of people who didn't know jack squat. Rubbish and FUD.

-WebOS isn't for everyone. If you want the coolest handheld gaming machine, go out and buy something else. What is so difficult about that to understand? Why does webOS have to be exactly what you want it to be before it can be considered an "great product"? Who appointed you "jello sheriff of the house"?

I agree with bhartman34: "If what you want is iTunes integration, you buy an iPod or an iPhone, because they've been available for years." Why, if iTunes integration is critical for you, wouldn't you just buy an iPod or iPhone? Just "buy into" Apple already and be done with it! Why are you even looking at the Pre or webOS? Is there something wrong with your iPhone or iPod that makes you want something else? Then go whine at Apple about it and maybe, just maybe, Steve Jobs will listen to you and do it your way. ;-)

(Disclaimer: If in reading the above post you somehow think I was speaking specifically to "you" and not just some hypothetical Palm-hater or Apple-loving fanboy, then all I can say is "if the shoe fits....")

Hey Palm! Where's my PDA with Wifi and phone capabilities?

RE: Why should Apple care??
nastebu @ 6/22/2009 4:43:38 AM # M Q
Arstechnica spent a lot of their reciew of the Pre talking about how it was really a Blackberry killer not an iPhone killer. Their point was that the is was built with enterprise use in mind.

I didn't understand much of it, but it made sense as a strategy to me. As twrock said, different phones for different folks. The Pre doesn't seem to be simply an iPhone clone. It's really trying something different. That's a very good thing.

RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 8/10/2009 8:48:03 PM # Q
Revisiting months-old threads can be fun sometimes...

jca666us said:

h.264 encoding - if the pre ever offers video recording...
...however it isn't possible TODAY!

http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/VideoRecording

Well whaddaya know. Turns out you were completely, utterly wrong! (Again!)

I'm shocked.

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 8/11/2009 4:56:46 AM # Q
What are you trying to prove Freak? Exaggerating and lying to make your claims won't make them any more valid.

There no gui and no sound. Not something a user can, you know, use!

It will require, like all of the other half-baked ideas in webos - continued development.

When Palm has integrated video capture into webos UI and made it easy for users to actually use, get back to me.

The iphone had video capture after a few months too - not many people used it.

You can now crawl back under your rock.

RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 8/11/2009 7:22:43 AM # Q
What are you trying to prove Freak?

Feel free to scroll back up this thread, but it went something like this -

*I originally asked what it was you thought couldn't be accomplished with webOS

*You named h.264 encoding, and SHOUTED that video recording was not possible TODAY, even though I'd already told you that gstreamer was more than capable of it.


Tim
Apologies in advance for all emoticons, LOLs, ROFLs, and any other form of depressingly annoying Internet shorthand that appears in my posts.
Treo 270 -> Treo 650 -> Treo 680 -> Centro

RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 8/11/2009 10:00:40 AM # M Q
freak,

the pre could be capable of interdimensional travel - however - if there's not an interface built in for it - then it the phone isn't capable of it.

otherwise palm would be advertising it as a feature - they're not.


RE: Why should Apple care??
freakout @ 8/11/2009 4:07:36 PM # Q
^^ WINNER: Most Bizarre Interpretation of "Capable" Ever Seen
RE: Why should Apple care??
jca666us @ 8/11/2009 7:42:49 PM # Q
Hey, if you can't use certain functionality - doesn't matter if the hardware is capable if you can't use it.

Also the pre's 8 gig limit and the lack of an sd card slot - limit the usefulness (and functionality) of this nonfeature even more.

Also I'm using Palm's interpretation of "capable" - when they advertise the Pre capable of video recording, let me know.

You're trying awfully hard to prove something - hey when is o3d coming to the pre to provide a high quality gaming experience via JavaScript?

Bejeweled for the pre is amazing - Lmmfao!!!

Reply to this comment

The bigger question

freakout @ 6/17/2009 4:00:47 PM # Q
Who on Earth would want to use a piece of junk like iTunes in the first place?
RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/17/2009 4:46:36 PM # Q
Palm obviously does freak - otherwise their piece of junk iclone wouldn't be configured to sync with it.
RE: The bigger question
vetdoctor @ 6/17/2009 6:58:55 PM # M Q
Lots of people are familiar and comfortable with iTunes. This let's the Sprint salesman say, "Its the same as an iPhone".
RE: The bigger question
hkklife @ 6/17/2009 7:10:55 PM # Q
Anyone who is really tech-savvy (at least who uses the Wintel platform) enough should just use the faster, easier, less cumbersome/intrusive USB mass storage drive mode for dragging & droppping of their various pieces of media.

Thank you very much Apple & Palm, but I'll continue to manage my media the old-fashioned way. I detest iTunes, especially under Windows, and would never even consider using it to sync my device even if I HAD a Pre.
Pilot 1000->Pilot 5000->PalmPilot Pro->IIIe->Vx->m505->T|T->T|T2->T|C->T|T3->T|T5->Zodiac 2->TX->Verizon Treo 700P->Verizon Treo 755p->?

RE: The bigger question
maxima2k53 @ 6/17/2009 7:59:09 PM # Q
@hkklife

i agree with u 100% **** itunes

RE: The bigger question
bhartman34 @ 6/17/2009 10:55:42 PM # Q
While USB transfer is more efficient to transfer files, there are some people who want to just be able to plug in their device and have the computer do the rest.I have a higher capacity player, so it wouldn't matter to me, but I don't think you can necessarily ignore that part of the population that just wants to be able to hook up their player and do an autoshuffle.
RE: The bigger question
freakout @ 6/18/2009 3:26:19 AM # Q
True, bhartman34, but if that's all you want you could easily use Winamp or even WMP to do the same. I don't think that's the reason for iTunes' (undeserved) popularity. The bigger ones would be:

(1) iPod lock-in
(2) The music store

It can't possibly have anything to do with the software itself, because it stinks to high heaven and runs about as fast as a one-legged wombat on Valium.

RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/18/2009 5:12:51 AM # Q
Freak, when is the music store you wrote in your mother's basement being released?

That's right - at this point there is no ipod "lock in" for music - any fool (like you) can copy music files to your Pre from the file system.

There is no "lock in" on video files you put into itunes - unless you purchase DRM'ed videos.

Palm could easily allow media sync with itunes in ways that don't rely on reverse-engineering itunes.

Either they're too lazy or can't afford to do it.

RE: The bigger question
freakout @ 6/18/2009 6:30:14 AM # Q
(facepalm)

No. (You idiot). "iPod lock-in" means that the iPod syncs natively with iTunes and only iTunes. It's what everybody uses because everybody has iPods.

By the way, how's that Apple-Palm lawsuit going?

RE: The bigger question
abosco @ 6/18/2009 7:25:34 AM # M Q
I got hooked on iTunes in college. When you're in a building with 100 other students, do you know the size of the music database that everybody collectively creates? I downloaded it and everybody appeared on the left-side, by name. My roommate happened to have one of those iTunes wireless speaker access points. Parties got easier because of iTunes.

My music library is about 8 GB. Not big enough to smother anybody, but too big for me to want to manually control the songs in something like WinAmp or WMP. iTunes just makes it easier, even if it does take a good 15 seconds to load.

RE: The bigger question
hkklife @ 6/18/2009 8:35:43 AM # Q
Computerworld has a new piece up on the article and interviewed me briefly on the matter. Apparently a lot of new Pre owners CW spoke to are seeing the iTunes sync capability as a mission-critical feature.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9134514

I believe a few of my words were taken out of context within the interview and/or they misinterpreted my comments about "some users" being disppointed and wrote that *I'd* be disappointed. I could give a rat's arse about iTunes and the Pre and, like Freak said, would gladly use something like DBPower Amp, WinAmp or even Windows Media Player over iTunes. My point of contention isn't with music manager software in general, but rather the sluggish, bloated pig that is iTunes under Windows. And I will still buy physical CDs or MP3s from Amazon vs. from iTunes whenever possible.

Back on topic: I agree with jca666us in that the whole situation should have been handled better from the start. Palm should have either just ignored iTunes entirely OR tried to come up with a "real" solution instead of the current fingers-crossed, "it may get broken any day now" generic iPod method.


Pilot 1000->Pilot 5000->PalmPilot Pro->IIIe->Vx->m505->T|T->T|T2->T|C->T|T3->T|T5->Zodiac 2->TX->Verizon Treo 700P->Verizon Treo 755p->?

RE: The bigger question
rmhurdman @ 6/18/2009 9:08:17 AM # Q
I disagree. What Palm should have done is... wait for it... talked with Apple first. I bet it would have been an easy sell, if it presented benefits for both sides. Palm: easier syncing; Apple: more exposure to the Apple ecosystem and the app store (Pre users will see the app store, realise the Pre store sucks, and consider buying an iPhone).

What was stupid (and has always been stupid about Palm) is that they didn't ask first. They just went ahead and emulated an iPod, hoping Apple wouldn't react. So that's put Apple in the position of having to remind everyone: If your Pre doesn't sync with iTunes after an update, talk to Palm, not us.

RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/18/2009 10:07:17 AM # M Q
No. (You idiot). "iPod lock-in" means that the iPod syncs natively with iTunes and only iTunes.

freak you inbred hillbilly - iPods can also sync with winamp.

blackberry does a media sync with iTunes - how can they do it without pissing off apple and palm can't?

easy blackberry didn't come up with a hack. palm did and they'll get burned by it.

It's what everybody uses because everybody has iPods.

RE: The bigger question
chuckwjk1 @ 6/18/2009 10:24:13 AM # Q
OK,...

This makes more sense... I guess. They really should let folks know when the want to do this kind of thing. Otherwise, the user gets hurt.
Palms owned: IIIe-> M125-> T|T-> T|3-> Tx-> Treo608 (unlocked)

RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/18/2009 3:14:14 PM # M Q
chuck,

apple has zero obligation to inform anyone if and when they flip the switch as it won't affect their customers.

palm has the obligation to THEIR CUSTOMERS to not put half-assed hacks in place and advertise them as features.

Apple doesn't owe Palm anything.

RE: The bigger question
freakout @ 6/18/2009 4:10:48 PM # M Q
Ugh. Every time I read a post by jca666us, I swear an IQ point is forcibly torn from my skull. It's like taking a shower in Stupid.

You're wrong about Winamp. It doesn't sync natively with an iPod. You first have to install iTunes and use it to put your iPod in disk mode. And that's not something the masses really care to do.

The Blackberry media sync does not integrate fully with iTunes either. Something you would know if you'd done five seconds of research on Google. (And weren't a complete ****ing idiot.)

RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/18/2009 5:07:39 PM # Q
Freak,

Let's take this slowly - in a way you can understand:

>The Blackberry media sync does not integrate fully with iTunes either.

Neither does the Pre with its itunes hack - neither does Nokia's method too. The point is - like the point on your head - that blackberry and nokia are doing their media sync in a way that doesn't piss off apple. Palm has the Pre misidentifying itself as an ipod in order to sync non-DRM'ed files with itunes - it's a first class hack - but a hack nonetheless.

My objective in mentioning winamp's ability to sync with the ipod is to tear down your assinine assumption that you're locked down to itunes and/or ipod. There are other options and methods I didn't mention - regardless, you're only locked in - if you choose to be.

Play word games all you want, but it doesn't give your statements any more validity.

Of greater importance - since this is a palm site - is Palm pissing on their customers.

If Palm gave a crap about Pre owners - they would have attempted to negotiate with Apple to license the ability to sync with itunes.

They would have used methods that weren't little more than hacks.

Obviously Palm thought this was a "must have" feature - otherwise, why implement it - and why advertise it?

Palm is obviously desperate - however they should have developed their own sync software instead of hacking their way into another company's software.

When Pre users go to use itunes and it (eventually) craps out - it's not Apple's fault, it's Palm's - for trying to give their users (what they consider) desirable features on the cheap - using half-assed hacks.

Palm only did this to get some cheap advertising - "like the iphone, it also works with itunes".

RE: The bigger question
nastebu @ 6/18/2009 6:24:03 PM # M Q
I can't believe that Palm doesn't have a plan B on this one. They've had enough to do to get webos out without coming up with media software as well. It seems likely this was a quick hack to get the pre out the door and that when they finish a more permanent solution it will be offered.
RE: The bigger question
nastebu @ 6/18/2009 6:25:59 PM # M Q
Oh, and I really like iTunes. I don't have the speed problems on my mac, but also I like the organization and user interface.
RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/18/2009 6:39:51 PM # Q
BTW FreaK, when was the last time you used winamp - if ever at all?

Next time you pull a statement out of your a$$ - do a little research - there's this thing, I think they cal it GOOGLE - where you can look such things up.

Winamp does not require itunes for syncing with an ipod.

RTFM FreaK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: The bigger question
freakout @ 6/19/2009 12:25:58 AM # Q
Freak,

Let's take this slowly

I've got a better idea: let's not. Ever again. Ugh.

RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/19/2009 2:51:15 AM # Q
Sorry to prove you wrong - not to worry - your ego will survive.
RE: The bigger question
mikecane @ 6/20/2009 5:28:23 PM # Q
>>>realise the Pre store sucks,

The Pre store?! For music? It's the *Amazon MP3 Store*.

RE: The bigger question
mikecane @ 6/20/2009 5:31:20 PM # Q
>>>It's like taking a shower in Stupid.

Really, that is *so* FTW! I'll be stealing that one.

RE: The bigger question
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 7:55:11 PM # Q
>The Pre store?! For music? It's the *Amazon MP3 Store*.

Mike instead of nitpicking and wordsmithing, try actually discussing the issue he raised.

RE: The bigger question
mikecane @ 6/22/2009 2:04:34 PM # Q
>>>Mike instead of nitpicking and wordsmithing, try actually discussing the issue he raised.

Piss off, prat. I'll type what I wish. Try skipping if you don't like it. Or even better: NOT replying!

Reply to this comment

Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?

zadillo @ 6/18/2009 9:59:03 AM # Q
Certainly it isn't like Palm didn't have their own desktop app before?

I get the idea of offering the option to use iTunes, but it seems sort of odd to me to make it like the "main" solution for desktop syncing. Just generally speaking, being dependent on someone else's software (at least one that might be interested in blocking access, or at least not caring about making it work well with your solution) seems kind of to give this impression of not trying.

It couldn't be that hard to come up with a new and better Palm Desktop, and it would give Palm a more unified experience that they had total control over the entire experience.

I guess what seems especially odd about it is why they would put so much effort and time on creating a great mobile OS but then just say "oh, and you use Apple iTunes or just USB storage mode".

RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
hkklife @ 6/18/2009 10:06:58 AM # Q
Laziness, greed, arrogance, and being broke.....y'know, the usual Palm culprits for why something doesn't work, doesn't get done to begin with or is done half-assed.

Also,being infatuated with obsessively mimicing Apple in every way possible has a lot to do with it as well.

Pilot 1000->Pilot 5000->PalmPilot Pro->IIIe->Vx->m505->T|T->T|T2->T|C->T|T3->T|T5->Zodiac 2->TX->Verizon Treo 700P->Verizon Treo 755p->?

RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
jca666us @ 6/18/2009 3:22:50 PM # M Q
let's just hope apple doesn't mimic palm!
RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 7:58:42 PM # Q
>WebOS really is an amazing bit of software engineering. It's really quite
>amazing that the first phone to be competitive with the iPhone is from Palm.

Not really that amazing - considering that:

1. They had a basic template to work from - by going against feature users wanted from Palm for years, by seeing the things apple did right (and likewise looking at areas where apple was deficient).

>And the news that they can get an SDK out so quickly is quite amazing. It
>took Apple a year.

>WebOS long term might end up being unstable, for example, but gee-whiz
>credit Palm for an amazing bit of work to get this far.

It certainly didn't hurt hiring a few Apple engineers either.

RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
freakout @ 6/20/2009 9:05:43 PM # Q
Hey doofus! Try at least writing your nonsense in the correct thread.
RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
jca666us @ 6/20/2009 9:07:40 PM # Q
**** you!
RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
mikecane @ 6/21/2009 2:16:00 PM # Q
>>>Hey doofus! Try at least writing your nonsense in the correct thread.

Well now you're just "nitpicking."

Or, truly, picking *on* a nit.

RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
jca666us @ 6/21/2009 5:38:46 PM # Q
f u too mike.
RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
mikecane @ 6/21/2009 6:10:25 PM # Q
You can dish it out, but like every other whining eejit, you can't take it. Typical.

Next!

RE: Why doesn't Palm just develop their own desktop app?
jca666us @ 6/22/2009 5:03:46 AM # Q
I can take loser - just dishing it right back at you.
Reply to this comment
Start a New Comment Thread Top

Account

Register Register | Login Log in
user:
pass: