Editorial: Palm, iTunes, and the ties that don't bind
By Nilay Patel 
posted July 30th 2009 4:00PM
posted July 30th 2009 4:00PM
Let's just say it: this is insane.
It's hard to think of a single good reason for Palm to implement iTunes syncing in webOS by spoofing the iPod, and then to play this cat-and-mouse game of hacks and workarounds with Apple. Palm's actions makes it seem like there are no other ways for a device to interact with iTunes, and the company's outraged response to Apple blocking the Pre make it seem like Apple is wrong for forbidding non-iPod devices from masquerading as iPods. But that's simply not reality, and it's not fair to Palm's customers to have to sit through a proxy war with devices that may or may not work tomorrow because Palm refuses to do what so many other companies have managed to do and simply integrate with iTunes properly.
That's right -- integrate with iTunes. Although conventional wisdom would have you believe that Apple's hell-bent on forcing the iTunes-iPod-iPhone ecosystem down your throat, it's really quite easy to use all kinds of other software and hardware with iTunes. Seriously. For example, I use a piece of software called Connect360 almost daily, which instantly makes all my iTunes playlists and media available to my Xbox 360 over the local network. Funny how Apple hasn't blocked that in the three years it's been out. I also routinely use Serato Scratch Live, which allows me to DJ directly from my iTunes library and playlists within its interface without having to do anything except check a box -- Traktor Pro does the same thing. As for devices, Salling Media Sync and BlackBerry Media Sync both sync music from iTunes to my array of portables without any fuss -- or endless petty bickering with Apple. Sure, there are some interesting antitrust questions that arise anytime any single company dominates a market as thoroughly as Apple dominates digital music, but the primary consideration is whether or not two products are wrongfully tied together, and it's hard to make that case for iTunes -- for the most part the music is DRM-free and the library is straight folders and XML files, so there's nothing keeping anyone out or forcing you to use an iPod. I'm not saying we shouldn't scrutinize Apple's actions closely -- Steve and the gang certainly manage to do a lot of things seriously wrong -- but when it comes to syncing devices and software with iTunes there's almost nothing to even consider, since it's so easy.
Apple's sure as hell competing with Palm, and engineering a crucial feature to be wholly reliant on Cupertino's goodwill when vastly better options exist simply doesn't make sense. |
Yes, it would be nice if Apple made it even easier for third-party devices to sync with iTunes -- it doesn't make me totally comfortable that the world's largest music retailer has created a system that appears to be completely closed to the average consumer, even if it's not. Before the iPod existed iTunes actually directly supported a small list of third-party players, and while no one expects Apple to expend resources on supporting non-iPod devices, I'd love to see the company acknowledge the wide variety of devices that can sync with iTunes using additional software -- "You can use your BlackBerry or Pre with iTunes, but the best experience is on an iPhone" is a pretty reasonable message to send, and it would go a long way towards softening the proprietary image that persists even though the store is now DRM-free. I'm not holding my breath, though -- and considering the amount of ex-Apple talent at Palm that's more than capable of building a top-notch iTunes sync client, I don't think Palm's customers should be forced to wait either.
One would think that iTunes syncing would support many devices to increase music sales from iTunes. Many people will not want to purchase tunes they cannot easlity sync to any device.
One might think that, but since Apple owns more than 70% of the market, it's probably more trouble than it's worth to deal with the support issues. And of course they don't want to help their competitors, which is understandable.
Why would Apple only settle for music sales when consumers need the big-money PMP to go with it?
Hey, PMPing ain't easy....
You are under the illusion that iTunes makes money, it is simply there to sell iPods.
Apple makes all it's money from selling macs, iPods, and iPhones...not by selling music. Most of their profits from iTunes sales go directly to the record companies. So no, they could care less if you can sync your iTnes music with your off-the-shelf mp3 player, they would rather you buy an iPod like everyone else. iTunes is just one more incentive.
Supposedly, due to royalties and stuff, Apple doesn't really make much money off the actual sales. It's somewhat of a loss-leader in order to sell more iPods, iPhones, etc.
"...You are under the illusion that iTunes makes money, it is simply there to sell iPods."
Heh, and you're under the illusion that a smaller profit margin means they aren't making a lot of money. I mean we don't know for sure, but profit estimates in 2007 were between $160 and $390 million: That was two years ago. "Barely breaking even" can be a smokescreen phrase to deflect claims of monopoly.
I don't know about the Itunes software making money, but the Itunes store is the largest music retailer by sales, if that doesn't make them some type of profit than damn.
Apple does help by publishing the SDK. RIM, TiVo, and all the others (even *gasp* M$) use it. Palm is just punking out of real coding, asking Apple to write their sync program.
iTunes and the iTunes store are two different things and one predates the other
initially iTunes was just a me-too media player where you could encode, edit, mix, sort and manage music - similar to iPhoto and iMovie (just imagine if you were required to use an Apple camera or display with those). Later they added a store element which was ridden with heavy DRM (and the content bought at that time still is) which required the use of their players. Now a days new purchases do not always have this DRM and in theory should work in other players.
Apple is acting like a crazed totalitarian thug by not allowing their customers to use non-Apple devices to utilize their content. I would have never imported a single audio file into iTunes if I had known of their future changes and insane requirements. Now all of the work I have done organizing my content is now forcefully tethered to the iPod and iPhone? Why didn't they make that the rule from the get go?
I atotally agree with Palm in all this.
It seems the sitaution is analgous to that of Miscrosoft and the Windows operating system. If Apple are reaching critical mass or have gone beyoond that in terms of the public using that product, then they need to fully understand that they may have to start opening up their product.
This happened with Microsoft so why shouldn't it happen with Apple. I can understand Apple wanting to keep their products to themselves, but in the long run (as with Microsoft), it becomes increasingly more difficult with the number of users growing.
Facebook is another example of where the masses are forcing the company to be more open.
On the other hand, if Apple are happy to limit the growth in the numbers of people using/buying their product, I don't see any problem in them keeping their system closed.
Since Apple doesn't want to do that (and no sane company might), they will have to accept these calls to make their system more open as part and parcel of any product/service whose users grow beyond a critical mass
@Coyo T Really your posting this Drivel AGAIN for the 6th time in this thread? This is a perfect example what is wrong with the commenters on this site. People who don't hate Apple make a good point and get voted down even though there are more apple people on this site than others (look at the polls, the proof is there).
But this moron here has been pasting this line of BS over and over and he is not low ranked? WTF is wrong with you people?
Tsing Tao, pot calling the kettle black.
I've written in my own editorial at OSNews that what Palm should do about the situation is simple. Quoting myself:
"Forget about iTunes, and go help these poor guys in San Francisco (in all intents and purposes down the road from Palm's offices), the Songbird team: http://getsongbird.com/ This player will be almost feature-complete compared to iTunes by year's end. If Palm could either finance them, or send 1-2 engineers to help them out, everyone would win: Songbird would be a real multi-platform OSS alternative to iTunes, and Palm and ANY other manufacturer would have an iTunes-like alternative that works. They could also partner with the Amazon Store to include an Amazon mp3 plugin as an alternative to iTunes Store (the Android phones do that, and it works mighty fine)."
All Palm has to do is get over their iTunes horse-view and get along with tools that can work to their advantage.
I think the issue is they are trying to take away a reason a current Itunes user would have for not buying a Pre ( "well, it don't work with itunes so It's just easier to keep my iPhone"), i dont think it's as much for new, non-itunes users.
I could not agree with you more. I don't understand why all the smartphone company's don't jump on the Songbird bandwagon.
I would love to see Palm help Songbird become viable!
Just before they slip away into irrelevance.
WTF is Songbird?
I think that's part of the problem.
I've often wondered why they want to use iTunes it's a terrible player.
Why don't they just write plugins for a selection like WMP,Winamp etc, my Samsung dumb phone syncs with Windows media player it's dead easy!
I strongly disagree. Just as I expect to be able to use non-Apple cameras in both iMovie and iPhoto I believe Apple should fix iTunes so that I can manage my content (that of which I have imported from my physical collections, the things I have downloaded like podcasts, and the content I have bought at the itunes store) on any media player of my choosing.
Winamp!! I love it. haha
@oghowie:
Not too long ago everyone thought "WTF is Palm Pre?" (and many non-techy people outside of the USA still does). They could easily adopt Songbird if they wanted to.
I think Palm is going to loose this battle in the end but only time will tell i guess...
SongBird looks pretty nice, but iTunes ROCKS on a Mac.
I guess I can understand people not liking iTunes on Windows (though I've never actually heard anyone complain about it in real life), but iTunes works perfectly for 90% of people out there.
Plus I'm in love with Cover Flow mode.
Songbird sucks, its still too buggy, and the sync plugin just plain doesn't work for me. Media Monkey is where its at, especially with the way you can specify conversions while it syncs. Spend the $40 for pay version of Media Monkey, forget about iTunes, and be happy.
First off, I think Songbird is a fantastic media player, and supports an excellent feature set, whereas iTunes is a pile of utter trash.
However, Palm using iTunes as it's primary sync software is a very smart move. They may say they're not competing with Apple, but they obviously know they are. The reason I say 'obviously' here is because I think they planned to have iTunes be the sole way to sync so that consumers would draw comparisons in a thoughtful way about the iPhone and Pre, treating them as if they are of the same class (which they are). I think Palm realizes that the average consumer, for some reason, treats Apple products like they are a separate class of product, not to be compared with their competition. Look at the perspective on Zune vs. iPod: the Zune is a perfectly good player that can compete on the same level as an iPod (not in market share, though), but no one gives it that much credit.
Palm knows that once people start drawing these comparisons, they will start seeing Palm as a credible competitor, as opposed to seeing Apple as if it were unstoppably good.
On top of that, Palm knows that when Pre's stop syncing with iTunes, 90% of their customers will blame Apple, not Palm. The lack of sync capability is just going to get customers frustrated with Apple, not Palm.
Please. You can't ask the public the stop using iTunes.
If extra software lets you sync any usb device with iTunes like you imply, then sure, just license and bundle that, even if it's a 30day trial and let the end user pay the fee for it if it's pay software. Nobody said the Pre has to sync with iTunes.
Disclaimer: I don't have iTunes, an iPod, or a Pre.
Even with finance and engineering help, they'd have a long way to capture the market share iTunes has, which is what Palm is after. Plus you say songbird will catch up year end, but iTunes isn't stagnant and i'd imagine Apple has a decent sized team working on it.
Not even counting all the publisher agreements and publicity iTunes has, I doubt many execs have heard of songbird, this is the first time i've seen it, and they'll be interested in the size of its install base and the why it should be considered over something like iTunes.
iTunes is pretty buggy on windows, its pretty bloated and it could do with incremental updates.
i agree .. pre needs to find its own software and quit trying to ride the itunes bus
love the craptastic self-promo spam, but you're on the wrong line of thinking. Palm needs to install the Apple SDK and write a sync plug-in for iTunes insteads of punking their devices to spoof iPod USB IDs. Palm can also do whatever it wants with some unknown OSS program, but since Palm wants iTunes recognition, Palm should write the little itTunes app the way M$, TiVO, RIM, and everyone else has. Spoofing bad USB IDs is ghetto, and makes the PALM dev unit look like a bad case of Russian teenagers with a sourceforge page. In the long run, it diminishes any confidence one might have for PALM's other software development. Your suggestion to have Palm send engineers down to that other OSS project would prbably kill the project you're so fond of because from the looks of it, PALM can only do ghetto hacks, and 8-bit logic.
where's paul a chapel?
"Apple doesn't sell cameras."
Apple does in fact sell cameras
MediaMonkey. Best app for windows users bar none. I love it.
Apple doesn't sell Apple branded cameras. I think that was the point.
I liked the quote on the Songbird webpage, "Songbird promises to be the Firefox of media players."—Aaron Boodman, Greasemonkey
That sounds promising. I'll keep my eye on this one, hopefully it'll blossom.
"Apple doesn't sell Apple branded cameras"
Wrong again. Apple does in fact sell Apple branded cameras. Have you really not heard of their iSight?
quix,
initially iTunes was just a me-too media player where you could encode, edit, mix, sort and manage music - similar to iPhoto and iMovie. Later they added a store element which was ridden with heavy DRM (and the content bought at that time still is) which required the use of their players. Now a days new purchases do not always have this DRM and in theory should work in other players.
Apple is acting like a crazed totalitarian thug by not allowing their customers to use non-Apple devices to utilize their content. I would have never imported a single audio file into iTunes if I had known of their future changes and insane requirements. Now all of the work I have done organizing my content is now forcefully tethered to the iPod and iPhone? Why didn't they make that the rule from the get go? iTunes was around before the first iPod even existed, it was an OS9 only app which I remember using my Creative Nomad with alongside SoundJam, Audion, MacAMP and whatnot
This just goes to show how there is one story for Apple, and another for other companies. WMP shipps in the Windows box, and is open to anybody writing components to allow syncing with any device. The EU is forcing Microsoft to ship a version of Windows without WMP to promote competition. People cheer this action, claiming that it offers freedom, choice, and breaks the Microsoft monopoly.
Apple shipps iTunes in the OS X box. It is restrictive, and if you use the software in a way Apple does not like they change the program to force people using the app in a way they do not approve. The Apple contingent cheers this action. Where is the argument that people should not be allowed to use the app in ways they do not wish in the same way there is an argument against Microsoft? I have skimmed the Apple EULA before, but I do not remember anywhere them saying that you are not allowed to use iTunes to sync to unapproved devices (so the EULA argument cannot be used like in the Psystar case).
Apple easily controlls the market in portable music players - Steve Jobs even brags about it in his keynotes showing on that big, 1984-esque video screen looming over everyone a pie chart of their super-majority marketshare. They are well on their way, if you were to believe many Apple fans here on Engadget, to controlling the market in phones. And here they are using their controlling status to block competition from having a fair chance. I would not be surprised if this is a plan by Palm to draw Apple out, so they can have some evidence for a monopoly lawsuit. After all, if Microsoft was using Windows to exclude competitors to WMP, IE, etc, Apple is in the same way using their dominant marketshare in music players, which requires iTunes to work, to exclude others when there is a proven way to use iTunes with non-Apple hardware.
Songbird has been a year away from being up to snuff with iTunes for 2 or 3 years now. All this open source software, with the notable exceptions (consumer side) of Firefox, perhaps Thunderbird, Boxee, and Pidgin, is nearly feature complete year after year. iTunes is bloated, but sure as hell works.
Personally? Download the Zune software. (pre-flame flavoring: I have 3 iPods, a Zune, and a Pre)
@coyo t
Unfortunately, while there is a W3C standard available (SMIL) for storing media playlists, Apple has decided not to use that standard - even though they are part of the comitte for defining the standard. Other companies support SMIL, such as Microsoft with Zune. I have a few iTunes playlists that I wanted to convert to Zune, perhaps this is my next programming side project...
And I remember Apple getting pissed over iPods not syncing on Windows or some bullshit with iTunes. Same goes for the Xbox 360. Why don't you play fair Apple? You can't pick and choose.
@ nohone - the reason you think that there is two different stories is because you did not read this story properly. Nilay was pointing out that iTunes is NOT restrictive, that it actually allows third-party players to interact with the iTunes library, and that there is a mechanism that other companies have been using for years without problems. Apple are not "excluding others". The question is, why is Palm not using the same trouble-free method everyone else does?
Now, the thing about Windows bundling WMP is this - the EU believes there is a problem because a) Windows has a monopoly share of the desktop and office OS market and b) by bundling WMP for free with their monopoly OS, MS are making it impossible for anyone else to write competing media player software and profit from it.
In other words, the reason for the problem is not the bundling itself, it is the use of overwhelming market share to eliminate the potential for competition. To be in trouble, you need to be a) a monopoly or close to it, b) bundling non-essential software, and c) intent on doing the bundling to reduce competition or opportunities for competition (intent is important in competition law). All three things must be true.
The reason Apple+iTunes is not considered identical, is because MacOS does not have a monopoly share of the market; indeed, they have only a small fraction of the OS market. So it is not possible for Apple to be using their (non-existent) power - their OS sales - to eliminate the potential for competition to iTunes, according to the way competition law is written.
Apple just cannot use their OS sales to eliminate competition because they're not big enough, but Microsoft (according to the EU) can. THAT is why Apple+iTunes is different to Windows+WMP.
In 2008 Jobs claimed that itunes "had 88% of the legal U.S. music download market". That's about same as windows marketshare.
There's 2 questions that people should ask:
1. Why is apple so quick to stop pre from using itunes?
2. Why apple is so quiet about this? Apple has a history of litigation and press releases but this time they are very very quiet about it.
Apple wants to protect their ipod marketshare with itunes marketshare. The more seamless devices can sync with paid content from itunes the less attractive ipods seem. Even if apple allows third party syncing from itunes xml files its an extra unnecessary step. Apple knows people dont like to install another program for syncing and they are trying to hang on that competive edge for ipods.
So why is apple so quiet about it, and doing sneaky things? They know that they are legally on shaky ground. With 88% marketshare apple is domineering the market and if they sued they would probably lose and be forced to support other devices than ipods.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, only to use the power of that monopoly to impede competition.
Palm has created an iPhone alternative. Apple has done nothing to prevent this, nor has it made any specious claims to deter people from buying the Prē. Now, Palm is equally free to create a media player and sync solution which integrates seamlessly with the Prē.
Palm is NOT, however, free to force Apple to allow their device to sync with iTunes. They are violating licenses and agreements left and right here with their actions, and they haven't a legal leg on which to stand.
Nail 1: Apple owns their USB vendor ID. It is prohibited for Palm to use Apple's ID at all, let alone in the fraudulent way in which it is using it.
Nail 2: Apple owns iTunes. They are free to set the license for its use, and to restrict its connectivity to a selected set of devices manufactured by themselves and by their partners.
Nail 3: Customers are free to vote with their dollars. If Apple's restrictions impact the consumer negatively, they will take their business elsewhere.
And the final nail in the coffin of Palm's legal chances: Apple is probably open to the idea of the Prē syncing with iTunes! Oh, but make no mistake... Palm would to have to pay (whether monetarily, with a partnership, or through some other concession) a fair price for the privilege of integrating with iTunes and benefiting from Apple's hard work.
There is no legal quandary here. Palm either needs to pay up, or STFD and STFU before something bad happens to them.
@macserv
You oversimplify things. Yes, a monopoly is allowed if you don't abuse it. And by using the near monopoly on online music sales to push ipods apple is abusing it.
If itunes had originally checked for vendor id before syncing apple might have some kind of defence, but by deliberately disabling a working syncing with vendor id check they lost that leg. It is clearly done with malice and thats what counts.
As for owing vendor id, apple doesnt own vender id. Its assigned by the usb governing body that have rules. If they come to the conclusion that apple isnt following the rules they could withdraw it. After checking usb.org the organisation have antitrust and code of conduct rules. Apple might find itself in a hotter water than they thought of.
So pulling your nails.
Nail 1. Apple doesnt own vendor id. Its assigned by usb governing body that gives them to members. For getting a vendor id manufacturer has to follow rules. If they find rules are broken they could withdraw vendor id.
Nail 2. Apple owns itunes but with a marketshare of 88% can't do anything that they want to. Windows have a similar markeshare. If microsoft disabled direct syncing of itunes and forced to use mediaplayer for it they would be burned on a stake. Its same with itunes disabling syncing. Even if they own it, a near monopoly removes privileges.
Nail 3. With near monopoly voting with dollars is no defence. This is similar as if car company owned 88% of all roads and gave everybody free use of them. But any other car companys cars had to drive a bit slower. That would amount to abuse of monopoly, same as this.
It speaks volumes that it was palm that started the complain to usb.org, not apple. Apple knows that they are in a legal quagmire and can only slow down the inevitable. Wouldnt surprice me if US and EU started antitrust investigations becouse of this.
Its actually funny you wrote this article. Since the original break I've been expounding the same message everywhere. I wrote it on the Song Bird forum and an email was sent to me from Song Bird staff with your article linked.
I've also sent in the suggestion to Palm, both on the forums and as a feature request.
I think more people need to tell Palm that this is what we want.
Stop this stupid cat and mouse, get together with Mozilla, Amazon, and S7 and make Song Bird Palm's place.
This really is a matter of which cart to hitch your horse to, and I think iTunes is the wrong cart.
"Forget about iTunes, and go help these poor guys in San Francisco (in all intents and purposes down the road from Palm's offices), the Songbird team: http://getsongbird.com/ This player will be almost feature-complete compared to iTunes by year's end. If Palm could either finance them, or send 1-2 engineers to help them out, everyone would win: Songbird would be a real multi-platform OSS alternative to iTunes, and Palm and ANY other manufacturer would have an iTunes-like alternative that works. They could also partner with the Amazon Store to include an Amazon mp3 plugin as an alternative to iTunes Store (the Android phones do that, and it works mighty fine)."
That's like saying people buy pies for the crust.
Sure you can get music from practically anywhere, heck you could probably head into the woods and find a squirrel that's willing to sell you MP3s. You can even find movies for your iPod/iPhone practically anywhere or convert them if need be. But what you will not find is a huge ready customer base that's willing to buy apps for business use to entertainment. And part of that very same customer base is also spitting out all sorts of applications daily for other customers to use on their device. Apps you can get it for your iPod Touch anywhere you have ready (free) access to Wi-Fi and instantly on your iPhone as long as you have service, which really makes downloading from iTunes on your home computer more for those mammoth sized apps.
Music and videos are what really started it all, but now the main part is everything else, and THAT is the key point.
Besides, you have people like me that would rather go to the store and buy the limited edition CDs (for the non-media bonus material) and then rip it to your computer; but would spend good money on business apps for my iPod Touch/iPhone through the App Store.
Yea I don't see why anyone would want to use iTunes anyway? I've only had bad expieriences with iTunes on how you can't add songs from different computer without wiping out an ipod. This is when i switched to a SanDisk, haven't looked back since. Mass Storage is nicer.
it's called manual mode, bro
why do people use iPhoto or iMovie when they may not be able to view their pictures and movies on non-Apple hardware sometime in the future?
@coyo t
You what? You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
Kelmon, initially iTunes was just a me-too media player where you could encode, edit, mix, sort and manage music - similar to iPhoto and iMovie. Later they added a store element which was ridden with heavy DRM (and the content bought at that time still is) which required the use of their players. Now a days new purchases do not always have this DRM and in theory should work in other players.
Apple is acting like a crazed totalitarian thug by not allowing their customers to use non-Apple devices to utilize their content. I would have never imported a single audio file into iTunes if I had known of their future changes and insane requirements. Now all of the work I have done organizing my content is now forcefully tethered to the iPod and iPhone? Why didn't they make that the rule from the get go? iTunes was around before the first iPod even existed, it was an OS9 only app which I remember using my Creative Nomad with alongside SoundJam, Audion, MacAMP and whatnot