Comments on: How Palm Re-Enabled iTunes Media Sync (Round 2)

Spin it Lynn, spin it! While Palm is at it working tirelessly for the freedom of consumers, go ahead and open WebOS out to everyone for use on other devices, because this would "offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own without interference across devices and services". She has a future in Washington in case Palm does fail. :-)
Pat Horne

Palm is in the wrong here.

(1) Palm gives iTunes users additional choice.
(2) Apple takes it away.

What was that you were saying about twisted logic?

1. Palm is violating USB implementation rules by hacking Apple's vendor ID into the Pre.

Who cares? Not the iTunes user who gets a seamless sync experience with their Pre.

2. Apple is under no obligation to allow syncing with anything other than Apple supported devices.

They're also under no obligation to deliberately block other devices.

3. Apple provides an open format to allow any software to sync itunes content with any device.

Which means nothing to someone who wants to use iTunes to manage their sync and not some third-party middleman.

Again: Palm gave iTunes users extra choice. Apple took it away. It really is that simple.

Why do you hate freedom so much, jca666us? Are you a terrorist?

Palm will care - they're also violating DMCA rules.

LOL. Boing Boing puts it best:

Hardly, unless you're prepared to accept the recasting of shaky legal doctrines-the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention provisions-as moral principles. Remember the attempts of Lexmark and Chamberlain to prevent generic printer ink and garage door openers? They believed that the DMCA meant that competitors couldn't defeat hardware locks to make products compatible with their own. It's a legal artifice, and in those cases, even the courts didn't buy it.

Correction - Palm gave Pre users additional functionality.

What, Pre owners can't be iTunes users too? iTunes was out long before the Pre, you know.

Palm gave iTunes users extra choice. Apple took it away.

Please, cite more irrelevant laws to argue the case against user choice. It's funny. In a sad sort of way.

Yes, Palm is clearly in the wrong here. Why didn't I see it before?

>The VID exists so that you can plug that device into your computer, and the
>OS will read that ID, downloading and installing the appropriate drivers.

That's one possible use; however Apple is using the VID to ensure apple products are syncing with itunes.

>Essentially, the VID and PID together are supposed to say to the OS, "Hey,
>I'm an Apple iPod. Go fetch the device drivers that will make me work with
>this OS."

We're not talking about an OS here, we're talking about an application a vendor (Apple) has written to interoperate with their (Apple) products.

Tell me where Apple ever advertised itunes as a cross platform - cross vendor sync solution?

>What Apple is doing with the VID (if this is the case) is the exact opposite
>of the purporse for which the VID was intended. The VID was intended to
>allow devices to communicate how to allow software to interact with the
>USB peripherals.

Device drivers come into play however; if I have a logitech mouse, I shouldn't expect my microsoft mouse to work with logitech's drivers.

Likewise, Apple has drivers written so that the ipod and iphone can interface with itunes.

>The VID doesn't even really have a place in applications. It's for the OS to
>recognize the device and install the right software to make it work.

However, in a situation where a vendor is spoofing another vendor's ID - then Apple has no choice but to block unauthorized access using the VID.

if you don't like their "walled garden" uninstall it and use something else.

jca666us wrote:
No one's forcing you to buy apple or use itunes.

if you don't like their "walled garden" uninstall it and use something else.

As I have stated many times over, dipstick, I haven't bought Apple, and I don't use iTunes. Why would I willingly use such crap?

So I have no need to uninstall it, and I already do use something else.

But had I ever been ignorant enough to purchase any AAC format, DRM infected music from Apple in the first place, I'd have done everything in my power to break the DRM, make as many copies for myself to play wherever I wanted to in whatever format I wanted to and to sync it however I wanted to with whatever devices I wanted to. And so I applaud the effort of others to open up Apple's "walled garden" as much as possible.

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

jca666us wrote:
That's one possible use; however Apple is using the VID to ensure apple
products are syncing with itunes.

Correct, but as I noted, this is an improper (and frankly, moronic) use of the VID. The purpose of the VID is to ensure that the OS pulls down the correct driver for the device. It's not there to intentionally sabotage devices in reference to software. Its purpose is to prevent users from ending up in AppleLand, where only an Apple mouse works with an Apple computer, attached to an Apple printer, supported by an Apple wi-fi card. Part of the reason that Apple doesn't see a problem in doing this is because their hardware model has always been, "It's Apple, or go f*ck yourself." And that's why Apple systems are more expensive than PCs. In general, PC users want no part of that. PC users grew out of that in the 1980's.

jca666us wrote:
We're not talking about an OS here, we're talking about an application a vendor (Apple) has written to interoperate with their (Apple) products.

The application in question is messing with an OS-level ID. If iTunes was a set of drivers, it would be a completely different story. iTunes is an application, period. This application is using a VID to intentionally thwart non-Apple products.

jca666us wrote:

Tell me where Apple ever advertised itunes as a cross platform - cross vendor sync solution?

iTunes is cross-platform, to a certain extent. It works on Windows and Mac machines. (I haven't tried running it in Wine, but I suspect you'd probably be able to run it in Linux, as well, if you tried hard enough.) And they most certainly do market it to Windows and Mac machines.

As far as being cross-vendor, Apple has, for a while now, provided songs in non-DRM'd AAC format. Therefore, any player that can use such files (e.g., the Pre) is compatible with that format. In addition, even before they did this, Apple provided instructions on their site for converting the DRM'd music to MP3 format (by burning the music to CD and then ripping the songs). Sure, that's not the same as a native sync, but the point is, they encouraged people with other devices to use iTunes. The thing they foreclosed was a direct sync.

jca666us wrote:

Device drivers come into play however; if I have a logitech mouse, I shouldn't expect my microsoft mouse to work with logitech's drivers.

But Apple doesn't make or supply the drivers. Palm does that. Apple is supplying the user application. If I buy a Logitech mouse, I shouldn't expect Microsoft drivers to work with it (altough Microsoft does, in fact, supply drivers for lots of 3rd party hardware). But I do expect to be able to use Microsoft Word with my Logitech mouse, as long as I have the Logitech drivers installed.

jca666us wrote:

Likewise, Apple has drivers written so that the ipod and iphone can interface with itunes.

No, Apple hasn't written drivers so that the iPod and iPhone can interface with iTunes. There's nothing special that the drivers for the iPod and iPhone do with iTunes. The only thing either the iPod or iPhone do is announce themselves as one or the other. Other than that, they're your garden variety USB media players. And that's what has Apple so cheesed off right now: It turns out that the "tight integration" between iTunes and iPods/iPhones exists entirely in the devices announcing themselves as such. That's all. Nothing else.

jca666us wrote:

However, in a situation where a vendor is spoofing another vendor's ID - then Apple has no choice but to block unauthorized access using the VID.

You've got that backwards. Apple was using the VID to block other vendors before Palm mimicked the VID. To state the situation bluntly, they've been intentionally screwing consumers over for years using this method. It's not something that just happened when the Pre came out with iTunes syncing.

Will it ever end?

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

Or at the very least partner with another company.

They obviously didn't try to license itunes...instead they're attempting to co-opt apple's proprietary technology.

That's ip theft.

Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

So then, when Apple finally reprograms it to kill the Pre hack (again) - will you finally shut up?

>And Palm haven't approached Apple to license iTunes because they don't
>have to.

Others have - Palm, by reverse engineering itunes to get the Pre to talk to it have engaged in ip theft.

>If they did, do you really think Apple would have allowed this to go on as
>long as it has?

We shall see.

>Do you really think they wouldn't have sued Palm as soon as Pre hit the
>market, instead of entering into a software update war with them?

Don't start crowing yet freak...let's see what happens.

One day, its "itunes sucks - why would anyone want to use it"

Today, it's "itunes users need the freedom to move there content where they want"

itunes users already have that freedom - you wouldn't know because you don't use itunes. What palm is doing is attempting to do is co-opt itunes sync capability for their own competitive advantage.

Some would consider that ip-theft - at the very least, spoofing the vendor id goes against the rules of the usb consortium.

as this is a bit of a gray area, we will need to see how this shakes out - before anyone proclaiming any sort of victory.

The only painful thing is listening to you spout palm's company line. If the roles were reversed, you'd still be arguing for Palm.

Freak = Palm Sheep

Here you go freak, I'll type your response for you, "Baaa Baaaaa Palm Baaa Baaaa Freedom Baaa Baaaaa itunes Baaa Baaaaaaa"

>Then they came for the WMP users, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
>a WMP user.

>Then they came for the Linux users, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
>a Linux user.

>Then they came for the Mac users, and I didn't speak up because I was a
>Windows user.

>Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Equating an intellectual property issue with the Nazis rise in power is laughable. You're far from Martin Niemoeller!

Why doesn't a dingo eat you? Then again, the poor dingo might get sick and die.

>(I realise it's impossible for your tiny mind to reconcile the idea that
>someone can support consumer freedom without using a particular product,
>but I'll try anyway.)

This has less to do with consumer freedom, and more to do with Palm attempting to pull a fast one!

that makes you wrong on both counts!

iTunes - 50 million people can't be wrong!

if iTunes is so shitty - why is palm so intent on hitching their wagon to it?

question remains - why are palm so intent on hooking into iTunes if it's shit?

Certainly has nothing to do with consumer freedom.

More likely Palm's self interest!

Palm made a version of iTunes for windows to increase their market share!

oops - silly me. palm doesn't write their own sync software anymore - they co-opt other companies intellectual property!

Question answered. :)

Since it was accomplishing the task it was used for, it can be done. Might not be what you would consider the best approach, but it can be done.

>That would be a legitimate concern, if this had anything to do with altering
>code. It doesn't. The only thing going on here is the Pre announcing itself as
>an Apple product.

However, as I said, this could potentially damage a user's itunes library. It's a device that isn't an ipod - masquerading as an ipod.

I didn't say such damage was likely or probable - but possible.

>Not exactly. See where I highlighted? The organization maintans and
>assigns the ID's. They make the decision on how they're used properly.

Again, if Apple wants to close off syncing - and use xml to be interoperable, that's their choice. No one is forced to use itunes - it's proprietary technology.

>That's why Palm is going to the USB-IF with this issue: It's not just
>up to Apple how they want to use the ID. (I'm not 100% convinced that the
>USB-IF will side with Palm on this one, since Palm's transgression was
>more "letter of the law" and Apple's was more "spirit of the law", but it's still
>not Apple's decision to make.

I disagree here - they own the id; it's their decision ultimately.

>Would it be any more acceptable if iPods didn't work on any Windows
>machines, rather than just not working on Dells, for example?

There was a time when ipods only worked on macs. That was apple's decision at the time. They write the software (itunes), they decide what can and cannot sync with it.

I'm not saying that the vendor ID in and of itself is IP - however emulating an ipod - in order to sync with itunes is violating apple's IP.

>I had to help a friend buy a system recently. I've done the comparisons.
>Take two equally-equipped systems, spec for spec, one Mac-based, the
>other Windows-based, and pound for pound, the Windows machine is
>always cheaper. The most you can say is that the Macs have some
>features you can't find on Windows machines (e.g., some features of the
>Mac OS), but if you price on the hardware, the Windows machines are
>always cheaper.

I'd look at the Mac Pro's and compare them to comparable PC hardware - they're slightly cheaper.

>I didn't say iTunes was "messing with" the ID. It's simply misusing it.

I'd say it's a gray area - and we'll see how this gets resolved. Ultimately apple owns itunes and can do with it what they want.

>And it's not like the Vendor ID is sacrosanct, anyway. Devices "spoof"
>other devices all the time, for compatibility. (How many no-name brand
>mice spoof being "Microsoft" mice?) The USB spec specifically allows for
>that.

Usually, I've seen something along the lines of "Microsoft compatible mouse"

That's not what Palm has done.

>iTunes, on the other hand, only has one hardware-dependent function -- the
>firmware updates. And the Pre has that covered, because it doesn't identify
>itself as an iPod or iPhone.

I'd love to see an iphone firmware update applied to the Pre.

>Frankly, that's what's a little specious about this whole debate: The Pre isn't
>technically identifying itself as an iPod or iPhone.

It is when in media sync mode:

"Product Identification" = "iPod"

"Vendor Identification" = "Apple"

Seems like it's technically identifying itself as an ipod.

>Cross-device is different from cross-platform. But you're not correct on
>that, anyway. Apple specifically tells users how to use iTunes with other
>products.

>http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2698

I am correct in that - Apple may tell you how to move AAC files to other players, but nowhere do they state itunes will sync with third-party media devices.

>Actually, Palm has at least three methods I can think of:

>1) Media Sync (with or without iTunes)
>2) Drag and Drop
>3) the Amazon MP3 store

#4 - Use the xml standard apple has developed to sync media from itunes with third party devices.

>So what good does it do to fight over a USB sync method this year?

Ask Palm that question - lol!

The onion is about as technical as you can go :)

jca666us wrote:
>"Moronic" would certainly be the adjective I'd use to describe it, since it
>doesn't, and can't accomplish this use.

jca666us wrote:
Since it was accomplishing the task it was used for, it can be done. Might not be what you would consider the best approach, but it can be done.

I could send out a mass e-mail with my new password just before I change it, too. What does the fact that it cam be done have to do with anything? The question is, does what you want to use accomplish your goal. Using an openly-available number as a password (which is essentially what Apple's doing) is not security.

>That would be a legitimate concern, if this had anything to do with altering
>code. It doesn't. The only thing going on here is the Pre announcing itself as
>an Apple product.

jca666us wrote:
However, as I said, this could potentially damage a user's itunes library. It's a device that isn't an ipod - masquerading as an ipod.

Yes, I remember you said that. It was wrong the first time you said it, too. The Pre can't potentially damage a user's iTunes library. The Palm itself never touches the iTunes library. iTunes does. That's the advantage (from a stability point of view) of using this method: Everything is done by iTunes as soon as the Pre sends the VID. All the Pre does is sit there and get synced.

jca666us wrote:
I didn't say such damage was likely or probable - but possible.

It's not even remotel possible. It's a red herring, which is why Apple isn't using that argument. The only claim they're making is that the third party solutions aren't liable work in future versions of iTunes.

jca666us wrote:

>Not exactly. See where I highlighted? The organization maintans and
>assigns the ID's. They make the decision on how they're used properly.

Again, if Apple wants to close off syncing - and use xml to be interoperable, that's their choice. No one is forced to use itunes - it's proprietary technology.

They're free to block iTunes some other way, but the USB-IF is in control of the VID and PID, as far as the spec goes. They're free to violate the spec, just like Palm is, but the point is that under the agreement, they're not free to do whatever they want. The only issue is what are the consequences of not being compliant?

jca666us wrote:

>That's why Palm is going to the USB-IF with this issue: It's not just
>up to Apple how they want to use the ID. (I'm not 100% convinced that the
>USB-IF will side with Palm on this one, since Palm's transgression was
>more "letter of the law" and Apple's was more "spirit of the law", but it's still
>not Apple's decision to make.

I disagree here - they own the id; it's their decision ultimately.

So are you arguing for compliance to the spec, or not? You can't argue that Palm is bad for breaking one part of the agreement and then say Apple's okay for violating another part.

>Would it be any more acceptable if iPods didn't work on any Windows
>machines, rather than just not working on Dells, for example?

jca666us wrote:

There was a time when ipods only worked on macs. That was apple's decision at the time. They write the software (itunes), they decide what can and cannot sync with it.

The difference is who's doing the blocking? iPods didn't work on Windows at one time because Apple hadn't written drivers to work with Windows. At the time, the decision was intentional on Apple's part, because the Grand Master Plan was to entice people to use Macs by dangling iPods in front of them. When that failed (dismally), Apple switched gears and decided to just be happy that people were buying iPods and to try to get as much of that action as they could.

It would be an entirely different situation if Microsoft put code in Windows that blocked iPods from syncing, which is essentially what Apple is trying to do with iTunes. Apple is blocking access to iTunes to try and keep the MP3 market to themselves. As a legal issue, it might be fine for them to do, but it's hardly the kind of behavior they would applaud, if it happened to them.

jca666us wrote
I'm not saying that the vendor ID in and of itself is IP - however emulating an ipod - in order to sync with itunes is violating apple's IP.

Matching features of your competitor's product isn't a violation of IP rights. Is OpenOffice violating Microsoft's rights when they create an export filter that uses the Word format? It's the same thing. Essentially, OpenOffice allows you to use your files in Word when you want to, which is a big selling point (although OpenOffice isn't actually "sold"). And because of this interoperability, MS takes a big hit. But you don't see Ballmer standing around crying about it, or updating Word to break OO, do you?

>I had to help a friend buy a system recently. I've done the comparisons.
>Take two equally-equipped systems, spec for spec, one Mac-based, the
>other Windows-based, and pound for pound, the Windows machine is
>always cheaper. The most you can say is that the Macs have some
>features you can't find on Windows machines (e.g., some features of the
>Mac OS), but if you price on the hardware, the Windows machines are
>always cheaper.

jca666us wrote:
I'd look at the Mac Pro's and compare them to comparable PC hardware - they're slightly cheaper.

The only time the Macs come out on top is if you compare them not by vendor, but by part. The average PC doesn't come with all the hardware that a Mac does, so if you do a part-by-part comparison, I could see the Macs coming out slightly less expensive. But if you compare the main specs (CPU speed, RAM, HD size, CD-ROM, basic peripherals), the PC comes out on top. It's only when you add in things like the integrated camera in the Mac desktops, the special plugs, the available SSD drives, etc., that the Macs start to look more reasonable.

>I didn't say iTunes was "messing with" the ID. It's simply misusing it.

I'd say it's a gray area - and we'll see how this gets resolved. Ultimately apple owns itunes and can do with it what they want.

jca666us wrote:
>And it's not like the Vendor ID is sacrosanct, anyway. Devices "spoof"
>other devices all the time, for compatibility. (How many no-name brand
>mice spoof being "Microsoft" mice?) The USB spec specifically allows for
>that.

Usually, I've seen something along the lines of "Microsoft compatible mouse"

That's the PID identification you're seeing. Palm doesn't spoof the device, either. Palm spoofs the vendor.
That's not what Palm has done.

>iTunes, on the other hand, only has one hardware-dependent function -- the
>firmware updates. And the Pre has that covered, because it doesn't identify
>itself as an iPod or iPhone.

jca666us wrote:
I'd love to see an iphone firmware update applied to the Pre.

You won't ever see that, unless someone downloads the firmware independently (outside of iTunes) and flashes the firmware themselves somehow. That's certainly not impossible, but that would have nothing to do with Palm or the VID.

jca666us wrote:

>Frankly, that's what's a little specious about this whole debate: The Pre isn't
>technically identifying itself as an iPod or iPhone.

It is when in media sync mode:

"Product Identification" = "iPod"

"Vendor Identification" = "Apple"

Seems like it's technically identifying itself as an ipod.

I'm not sure where you're getting that info from. Here's what the Pre actually spits out:

Bus 002 Device 057: ID 05ac:8002 Apple, Inc.
Device Descriptor:
bLength 18
bDescriptorType 1
bcdUSB 2.00
bDeviceClass 0 (Defined at Interface level)
bDeviceSubClass 0
bDeviceProtocol 0
bMaxPacketSize0 64
idVendor 0x05ac Apple, Inc.
idProduct 0x8002
bcdDevice 0.16
iManufacturer 1 Palm Inc.
iProduct 2 Pre
iSerial 3 4ab9ad039bf3bc6

Notice that the PID says right there what it is: Pre

Translation: It's a an Apple device named "Pre". Now, obviously, there is no such thing. That's why a user's Pre won't go apesh*t and download and install iTunes and drivers for the iPod/iPhone when they connect the Pre to their computers. To the system, it's not an iPod. It's only an Apple product.

>Cross-device is different from cross-platform. But you're not correct on
>that, anyway. Apple specifically tells users how to use iTunes with other
>products.

>http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2698

jca666us wrote:

I am correct in that - Apple may tell you how to move AAC files to other players, but nowhere do they state itunes will sync with third-party media devices.

You've missed the point entirely. Apple doesn't say, "You cannot use your third party device with iTunes." Instead, they tell users how to do it. In fact, some enterprising people have written plug-ins that sync with iTunes by exploiting this very tactic: Syncing iTunes by way of a virtual CD-ROM image. Basically, it works like this:

1) User installs the plug-in.
2) User buys songs on iTunes.
3) User plugs in his/her device.
4) The songs are "ripped" on to the virutal CD-ROM in MP3 format, and are sent to the user's device from there.

It's actually quite an elegant solution.

The fact of the matter is, if iTunes makes compatible formats, there's zero that's preventing them from syncing any USB device with iTunes, from a hardware perspective. (As I've pointed out before, there's nothing special about an iPod or iPhone with regards to iTunes syncing.)

What Apple is doing is the equivalent of Microsoft Word rejecting any DOC-formatted document that didn't have a metatag identifying it as having come from Word, or, on the hardware side, preventing users from using Microsoft mice or keyboards in OpenOffice.

After all: It's Microsoft's OS. They should be able to decide what software and hardware runs on it....right?

jca666us wrote:

>Actually, Palm has at least three methods I can think of:

>1) Media Sync (with or without iTunes)
>2) Drag and Drop
>3) the Amazon MP3 store

#4 - Use the xml standard apple has developed to sync media from itunes with third party devices.

First, let's get the facts right. Apple hasn't developed an XML standard. They've developed an XML file in the form of the iTunes library. And while it's true that anyone can interface with it (being an XML file and all), it's nonsense to believe that they have Apple's blessing to do so. Apple can't prevent it, but they would if they could.

Second, the XML file is useless for syncing. The iTunes library XML file has one job: to describe your collection, and where it is. How, exactly, is that of any use in providing a syncing solution? It isn't. The XML library is useful in producing things like playlists, but that's it -- and that's trivial.

And the fact that anyone can write a program to interface with the iTunes library misses the point entirely. The real issue is that there's nothing intrinsic in iTunes that makes it incompatible with another player. If someone likes iTunes, they should be able to use it with any player that supports iTunes' file formats (which at this point, would be any AAC or MP3 player).

jca666us wrote:

>So what good does it do to fight over a USB sync method this year?

Ask Palm that question - lol!

The answer from Palm's perspective is obvious: They may not be here in another year, if the Pre fails utterly. Palm's prospects aren't as bad this year as they were this time last year, but I doubt anyone will be pouring champagne until a) the App Catalog is out of beta (at which time there will be many more syncing solutions for users, anyway), and b) the Sprint exclusivity period is over.

And yes, I'm saying they were desperate when they thought this up. I see no point in pretending otherwise. But the fact is, if it works, it works. That's not to say I think it's the best use of the developers' time, but it's not a heresy, either.

So the argument really comes down to, Palm wanted the most commonly downloaded, most commonly used, and most widely available music playing software to sync its devices seamlessly. That's smart from the perspective of Palm's limited resources, but hardly Palm's 'right' which is how they are spinning this fight.

You're exactly right. But forget about both Palm and Apple for a minute here. What's best for users of iTunes? How does Apple locking out the Pre benefit them?

I'm really not taking Apple's or Palm's side in this debate. I'm on the side of us plebs who actually use these gadgets and these programs. Seamless interoperability benefits all of us, and Apple are actively standing in the way of it. I understand the business motivations behind that decision; Apple wants to protect their lucrative iPod business. But just because it's good for Apple doesn't make it good for the user.
Tim
I apologise for any and all emoticons that appear in my posts. You may shoot them on sight.
Treo 270 -> Treo 650 -> Treo 680 -> Centro

I don't believe anyone would disagree that wider interoperability with itunes would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, two issues are at play here:

1. Apple's IP is being violated with Palm's USB hack - if it were Palm, or Microsoft in this situation - they would have no choice but to defend their IP, or lose it.

2. itunes is proprietary apple software - they can do with it what they please.

So I agree - Apple will be forced to take this to court.

Apple's IP is being violated with Palm's USB hack - if it were Palm, or Microsoft in this situation - they would have no choice but to defend their IP, or lose it.

Please, no legal advice, armchair lawyer. Remember that imminent Apple/Palm lawsuit you were willing to bet money on awhile back? Do you really need to embarrass yourself again?

And this thread was going so well without you...

jca666us wrote:
1. Apple's IP is being violated with Palm's USB hack - if it were Palm, or Microsoft in this situation - they would have no choice but to defend their IP, or lose it.

IANAL, but I don't see any IP being violated by the USB hack. USB is standards based. All that is happening is that legally owned files are being transferred to a device. The did not copy any code from Apple. There are no patents violated in identifying a device as something it is not. The USB standards group is the only entity that probably has a standing in this case, in that Palm is probably violating their rules, but then again I haven't seen the rules set forth by them either.

Oh and by the way, I briefly fondled a Pre early this week. I can't see what the big deal is about it. I can say I don't want one even if it gave you a direct line to God (or SJ for the evil Jobs Cult Advocate).

jca666us wrote:
Regarding Palm's nonsense with the USB Implementers Forum:

All the USB Consortium wants is for any USB device to be able to talk to any other USB device. Ensuring USB *devices* from one manufacturer are not prevented from being accessed by another *devices*.

Compatibility between *devices*.

Hi, jca666us.

You need to read the documents of the USB-IF. Compatibility between devices isn't what the USB-IF is about. It's compatibility between software and hardware. The issue is whether or not your new USB webcam is going to be recognized by Windows and available to e.g., Skype, not whether or not one USB device is recognizable to another. Most USB devices can't act as hosts in the first place.

itunes isn't a USB device; there is nothing saying that the software on each device needs to talk to any other USB device (except for the delusional wishes of Ruby).

You do realize that if USB devices suddenly all decided to pick and choose which applications they worked with, there'd be no point to USB at all, don't you? "Plug and play" isn't about devices playing nicely with each other. It's about devices working with the OS and software. If companies can suddenly start choosing which software their USB devices work with... Well, welcome to the world circa 1989 (at best).

On the bright side, I'm sure Microsoft would love the idea of Microsoft Office (and Windows) working only on Microsoft mice and keyboards.

If Apple was not allowing Palm's device ID from connecting to a Mac, that *would* violate the spec.

The device ID doesn't "connect" to anything. That's not the device ID's job. The device ID's only job, in the USB spec, is to tell the OS what the device is, so that the OS can download the requisite drivers. It's only within the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field that the Vendor ID or PID "connects" to anything. Apple is perverting the purpose of this ID in iTunes, to cause it to do exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to do. In reality, the vendor ID has nothing to do with security, or gatekeeping. Its sole purpose is to let the OS pull down the proper drivers so that the device can work with the machine. Using it to lock out a device from your software is both contrary to its intended purpose, and the height of asshattery.

However, spoofing another manufacturer's device ID (such as Palm is doing to achieve media sync with itunes) is in direct violation of the spec.

Okay. Just show me where it says that the vendor ID is supposed to be used for lock-outs of other hardware. I don't think you can, because nothing I've read of the spec or the contracts that vendors agree to address spoofing of IDs. Instead, they talk about what your product must do to qualify for the spec (what tests have to be run, etc.). In fact, USB devices don't even have to have USB-IF certification. All USB-IF certification gets you is a logo on your box. It's not as if Palm or the Pre would be banished forever from USBLand, even in a worst-case (for Palm) scenario.

By the way: Palm was on the contributors list of the spec in 2007:

Arthur Zarnowitz Palm arthur.zarnowitz@palm.com
Dave Peters Palm dave.peters@palm.com

You can read the document here:

http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/CabConn20.pdf

Spoofing the Vendor ID may in fact be a violation of the spec, but it's hard for me to see how, considering how devices routinely misidentify themselves when installing to Windows (e.g., a mouse installing as a "generic Microsoft mouse", when it is no such thing).

One might also argue that the Pre is correctly identifying itself, despite the Apple VID. Here's the output from lsusb:

Here we see the line with the Vendor ID (05ac, for Apple)...

Bus 002 Device 039: ID 05ac:8002 Apple, Inc.
...

But the Manufacturer is listed as "Palm Inc"., and the product is "Pre".

iManufacturer 1 Palm Inc.
iProduct 2 Pre
iSerial 3 4ab9ad039bf3bc6
bNumConfigurations 1

If the USB-IF board does consider this spoofing, it will have to weigh that against what Apple was doing, which was also a violation of the spec. (If you doubt that, by the way, look up their interoperability testing criteria. Interoperability is something the USB-IF takes seriously, and it has a much greater effect on the user experience than spoofing someone's VID.)

It seems there are examples that support both sides of the argument and Palm has waded into a gigantic gray area.

No, they really haven't. Palm has given iTunes users more choice. Apple wants to take it away.

Black and white.

jca666us wrote:

"Plug and Play" is about the host OS identifying the device and allowing the OS to install the appropriate drivers. Then when those drivers are installed, applications can use those drivers to access those devices.

Right. And if software decides to subvert that model by blocking certain Vendor ID's (or, in this case, blocking all Vendor ID's but Apple's), then it subverts Plug and Play. It's hard to imagine an example which subverts Plug and Play more, in fact. The whole purpose of Apple using the Vendor ID in this way is so that when you plug in your non-Apple device, it won't work with iTunes. In other words, you plug, but it doesn't play.

jca666us wrote:

However, if I buy a logitech web cam, the logitech CD that comes with it, only installs drivers and support applications for use with the logitech web cam.

I can't go and use another brand with it - how do they do it? By querying the device and looking at the device ID string it sends back.

First, it's not true that you can't install Logitech drivers from CD with another company's webcam installed. The system will happily let you do it. The drivers just won't work. This isn't because the drivrs query the VID. (They don't.) It's because the drivers weren't made for the webcam in question. (In fact, in the case of webcams, you can sometimes substitute one company's drivers for another. It depends on how different the hardware is.)

Support apps are a different matter. These are usually proprietary. But they don't query the VID in these apps, generally, because they don't have to. When you install such software, you usually have to register your device, which entails giving up things like its serial number, and that tells the manufacturer that you have one of their devices.

Secondly, in general, you don't have to install the drivers for USB devices from CD, precisely because they're Plug and Play. The whole point of being Plug and Play is that the drivers are drawn from the system (either from the drivers installed w/ the OS, or from the Internet). The only useful apps on most USB device CDs are the proprietary support apps you allude to above, and even there, in most cases, you can find better software to do the same task.

But again, the point is "Plug and Play" means that yes, your webcam will work in any USB-enabled Windows application, because the driver is provided by the OS, not the application. So the VID comes into play at the OS level, but not the application level. All the application does (under the spec) is to query the port for a device. The application doesn't need to know or care what device it is, in particular, or who made it, because the OS has already set it up for the purpose it's being used. The application's job is simply to pass the data, and let the OS worry about how to do it.

jca666us wrote:
The (subtle) difference here is the the itunes installer contains *both* the device drivers and the application code.

The iTunes installer contains drivers for the iPod, that's true. But the iPod would work fine in iTunes without Apple's drivers, because Windows also comes with iPod drivers. Secondly (and this is the part you don't seem to be understanding), the drivers Apple supplies have nothing to do with iTunes syncing. That's all done at the application level, not the driver level. If the drivers had anything to do with the syncing, you wouldn't be able to use a Pre to sync iTunes, with or without the Apple VID, because the driver wouldn't work with the Pre. (Notice, I didn't say it wouldn't install. I said it wouldn't work.)

jca666us wrote:
That's not the way the world works in 2009; if I buy a nokia, or a blackberry, or a samsung phone, each have applications that are specific to their phone.

If I plugged an iphone in while using their software, it won't work - OMG - those manufacturers are locking me out of their user experience!

That software wouldn't work because the Blackberry and Nokia phones have features that don't match the iPhone. Not because the manufacturer (Nokia or RIM) is blocking them. In the case of Blackberry, it looks for whether or not you have an online account with them (so it can pull down your e-mail to your computer). There's nothing comparable that iTunes does with players, and it's blatantly obvious that compatibility is not the issue. That was a passable argument before iTunes abandoned DRM, but not now.

jca666us wrote:
If Palm attempted to spoof them, they would get ripped apart.

There would be no reason to spoof RIM or Nokia VIDs, since neither company a) is stupid enough to try to "protect" their software with the VIDs, b) (more to the point) neither Nokia or RIM's software is compatible with Palm devices, and c) neither Nokia or RIM would care, since they don't sell the software to customers, and don't market the software as the reason to buy their phones.

When it comes right down to it, that's Apple's biggest problem: They're selling the phones by hyping the software, but they're not selling the software. Instead, they're giving away the software. And worse than that, they haven't been upfront about blocking other devices, if that's what they wanted to do. If they really wanted to tie iTunes to the iPod, they should've been above-board about it, rather than feigning incompatibility and "support issues", as they initially did when Palm made this move.

>On the bright side, I'm sure Microsoft would love the idea of Microsoft
>Office (and Windows) working only on Microsoft mice and keyboards.

The difference here being that those devices installed are crucial to the operation of your computer.

It depends on what applications you're running. Plenty of servers run without mice or (at least, directly) keyboards attached to them. But with Microsoft Office, both are necessary components. And that's the point: If Apple can say "P*ss off" to any individual device (or, as they're doing, all non-Apple devices), then any software vendor can do it, and you get balkanization. That's what I meant about going backwards. Who would want to live in that kind of technological hell?

jca666us wrote:
Palm has waded into a gigantic gray area.

That much, we agree upon. I personally think, based on the USB-IF's goals and mission, that they would come down on Palm's side on this though, because Apple is using the VID to subvert the main benefit of USB.

>The device ID doesn't "connect" to anything. That's not the device ID's job.
>The device ID's only job, in the USB spec, is to tell the OS what the device
>is, so that the OS can download the requisite drivers.

jca666us wrote:
Right, so if I plug in an ipod, the appropriate drivers are installed, and itunes can connect to it. All apple did was attempt to minimize Palm's violation of the spec by more clearly identifying an ipod as an ipod.

So what was the excuse for this chicanery before Palm did the spoofing? You're getting the timeline confused: Palm was able to enable syncing by spoofing the VID, and then Apple reacted by changing the VID again. It's been the VID all along that's done the lock-out. They weren't "trying to minimize Palm's violation of the spec" at that point, because the spec hadn't been violated by Palm. Apple subverted the purpose of the spec by using the VID that way in the first place.

jca666us wrote:
They aren't in any way patching the OS or disrupting the Pre user experience under windows - they are ensuring that only apple-approved devices connect to itunes.

Of course they are. Here is the sequence of events again:

1) Palm uses the VID to sync with iTunes. (Some) Pre users rejoice!

2) Apple modifies the iTunes code to look for something different. (Some) Pre users are bummed.

3) Palm changes the VID again to enable sync. (Some) Pre users erupt in cheers!

Notice what happened: The Pre initially worked, and then it didn't, because of a deliberate move on Apple's part.

>Using it to lock out a device from your
>software is both contrary to its intended purpose, and the height of
>asshattery.

jca666us wrote:

Obviously you can't use it the way it's intended if a company (Palm) is violating the spec.

The reason you can't use it that way is that it's not designed to be used that way. That's simply not what it's for. If you want an example of a device designed to require certain hardware, look no further than SmartCard ID's. You plug a USB key into your machine, fire up your VPN software, the software reads the encrypted key, and it lets you on to the network. If Apple wanted to lock out all other devices from iTunes, all they had to do was implement that kind of system in the iPod's firmware. What they did was both lazy and stupid. Lazy, because it took the least amount of work, and stupid because someone was bound to figure it out someday.

The other reason you can't use it that way is because only the USB-IF licensees would be affected by any action the USB-IF took. A reasonably-skilled hacker could modify the Pre's firmware (which, again, is just a flavor of Linux), with no consequences whatsoever. Why? Because they wouldn't be modifying iTunes at all. They'd be modifying the Pre, and I somehow doubt Palm would object to that.

>Spoofing the Vendor ID may in fact be a violation of the spec, but it's hard
>for me to see how, considering how devices routinely misidentify
>themselves when installing to Windows (e.g., a mouse installing as a
>"generic Microsoft mouse", when it is no such thing).

jca666us wrote:

Considering that itunes is not an OS extension, but rather an application, the owners of the application can do whatever they want to keep unauthorized devices (Pre) out of the mix.

It makes no difference whether it's an application or an OS extension (i.e., driver). The only issue is what it does to "Plug and Play". (There may be an anticompetitive angle to this, but that would depend on how much of the market iPod/iTunes has, and I'm not well-versed in that.)

jca666us wrote:

Nothing Apple has done has gotten in the way of "Plug and Play"

I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this. Apple has fixed it so that within iTunes, a USB "Plug and Play" device, when plugged in, won't work with iTunes unless it's made by Apple. How does that not get in the way of "Plug and Play"? They've made it so that when you plug, it doesn't play.

jca666us wrote:
>One might also argue that the Pre is correctly identifying itself, despite the
>Apple VID.

Using the Apple VID is an obvious misidentification!

I'm not arguing that they didn't use Apple's VID, but as I pointed out, there are many portions of the Device ID where it does reference Palm, and even the Pre by model, specifically. They wouldn't be able to (and clearly aren't) using any Apple drivers with this technique, and as far as I can tell, the only advantage using someone else's Vendor ID would give you in the Plug and Play model (as it's supposed to work) is being able to pull down their drivers. Now if Palm was piggybacking on Apple's drivers, that might be a problem, but the way they implemented the VID, they can't do that. It's the VID + the PID that tell you what the device is. Either one alone won't do that, and the Pre is using the correct PID.

The reason the USB-IF gets concerned about VIDs has nothing to do with the vendors. It has to do with users. It can ruin the user experience if a device misidentifies itself, because the system will potentially pull down the wrong driver.

You can read a thread about this on the USB-IF Developers' Forum:

http://tinyurl.com/klodnw

In the case of the Pre, though, this isn't the case. A Pre attached in Media Sync mode won't pull down the wrong driver. It won't attempt to pull down any driver at all. It thus has no practical effect on the user experience, whereas the lock-out by Apple does have a practical effect. That's why I think it would probably not be something the USB-IF looks at too harshly.

It could be seen by some as underhanded, but it's largely a tempest in a teapot, whichever way the USB-IF decides the issue. No one's going to care if the Pre doesn't have the USB logo on the box, and Apple's not going to be overthrown by the Pre, whichever way the decision goes.

Palm isn't giving you anything additionally; there is an open API for accessing itunes data which Palm is conveniently avoiding using. They're too lazy to write their own interface into itunes which Nokia, Blackberry, and others have already done.

Why should the iTunes user have to install additional software to sync media that they own, when syncing capabilities are built right into the program they used to purchase that media in the first place?

They shouldn't. Palm are giving iTunes users additional choice. Apple want to take it away.

This is solely about Palm trying to gain a competitive advantage through unethical means

Actually, that would be Apple who's doing that, by deliberately locking their competitors out. But I can see how you would be confused, what with your mental condition and all.

jca666us wrote:
Well, let's see...RIM uses the XML file; they're not accessing itunes DB directly.

It should be noted that what they're doing, they're not doing with Apple's blessing. That much is clear from the press release that Apple put out with the newest iTunes update, as well as their legal maneuvering with BluWiki.org.

The bottom line is this: Apple is attempting to protect iTunes because iTunes sells iPods and iPhones. It doesn't matter one bit if a compnay spoofs their VID or hooks in through XML. Apple doesn't want them to do either one, which is why they issued a statement saying that future updates might break third party (not just Palm) device syncing.

People buying music on iTunes doesn't benefit them nearly as much as people buying iPods and iPhones, so the fewer of the other devices, the better for Apple.

counting on a palm victory?

doubtful...palm is in the wrong here!

SeldomVisitor wrote:
What is being restricted is NOT access to iTunes, but access to iTunes as a false iPod. (Emphasis added.)

Here's the problem: The only way to sync with iTunes (i.e., not just the iTunes library, but iTunes itself) is to use the Apple VID. No device other than the Pre actually syncs with iTunes. At best, they use the library.

(Incidentally, while using the Apple VID is masquerading as an Apple product, it's not the same as masquerading as an iPod. Palm left the PID intact, so the Pre is seen simply as an Apple product, rather than an iPod or an iPhone.)
.
Apple's objective is to keep any non-Apple product from syncing with iTunes, which is why they use the VID that way.

I don't believe that Apple should block other devices that way (for the same reason that Microsoft shouldn't block other hardware vendors, and Palm shouldn't block other vendors from using its software. Software is a tool. As long as you pay the asking price, you should be able to do whatever you please with it. You can't go crying to Apple if it does something unexpected with an unapproved device, of course, but Apple shouldn't be so spiteful as to intentionally sabotage you because you're not using their hardware. That's what aggravates me about this: There's nothing intrinsic in iTunes that won't let another device work. The only thing in danger if you use iTunes with a non-Apple device is Apple's business plan (which involves giving the blades away for free, and selling you the razor).

And it's not a copyright issue, either. The copyright holder is the music label. As long as you pay for the music, they don't care. But Apple doesn't get enough of a cut of the tracks they sell, so they depend on selling the players. Since non-Apple players can use everything but the apps and the movies (which are still DRM'd), a huge reason for people to buy iPods (and maybe iPhones, depending on what they use them for) is gone if you can plug anything else into iTunes and have it work.

On the other side, if the Pre can sync with iTunes, that's one less reason for many users to stick with the first-gen iPhone (at least).

That's what this brinksmanship is about. Palm is on the white knight side of the equation (in terms of openness), but it could've easily been the other way around. If Palm had demoed WebOS in Jan 2008 rather than Jan 2009, the roles may well be reversed right now.

It's apple's software, they can define how it's used.

As we've all learned from these events, Apple's wishes mean sweet dick all. They can "define" to their heart's content, but it won't stop users doing whatever the hell they want.

Nothing is forcing you to use itunes.

And nothing is forcing Apple to block Palm's syncing.

learn how to spell.

palm is grasping at straws here...

freak - i'm not going anywhere...

Gary
Tech Center Labs

Gary
Tech Center Labs