Palm WebOS 1.2.1 now available, 'fixes' iTunes media sync
By Thomas Ricker 
posted October 3rd 2009 4:20AM
posted October 3rd 2009 4:20AM
posted October 3rd 2009 4:20AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'm sure that Apple doesn't really care that much about 375,000 that couldn't pass the ATT credit check and had to settle for the Pre. They probably don't have credit cards to activate an iTunes account anyway.
*Sigh* This is all gonna end in tears.
They way Palm did this is brilliant. Apple will file a lawsuit requiring Palm to basically undo this update. But now Palm has told hackers how to do the modification necessary to work with iTunes and I doubt Apple is going to be able to do much more to stop it now. If you emulate the USB Vendor ID, how many more checks are there? Develop your own proprietary connection? I'm sure this would be an easy hack to apply to future builds of WebOS should they be forced by Apple's hand to change their methods.
The legal way to do this:
1. write your own damn sync app.
2. either scan directly the files, or used iTunes scripting to get the data.
Palm is showing itself to be an extremely lazy company trying to ride on Apple's software efforts when there is a clear, and very legal, approach they could be taking instead. See new Blackberry Mac Sync Desktop software.
3 cheers to you.
You forgot a third and least troublesome way!? Get Apple to license iTunes compatibility for Pre.
Though I personally will not use iTunes for anything, it forced me to move my music collections around between all my 5 computers, because I can not simply add even a track or a single photo to my iPhone 3g without resyncing the whole damn lot, and the last time my computer (a 2008, macbook) had a problem, I could not retrieve the music I had on my iPhone. But many iPhone and iPod users are dumb enough to tolerate these kind of unnecessary hassles. Now I'm wiser I use copytrans and only use iTunes to restore my pawned firmwares.
Double twist. Great sync app for video, music and photos. will even look at your itunes library. DONE FIXED.
Fight the power Palm, the spirit of Chuck D is watching over you.
whats itunes?
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/ITunes
Fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes
*pouts =T*
Good grief. The iTunes database is a standard format for a reason, so that other programs can access it. Palm IS allowed to sync with your iTunes database, but not through Apple's interface for syncing iPods. They need to use their own program. It's just not kosher to use someone else's syncing software for your own hardware without permission.
+10 to you
thankfully there are a few posters with an actual brain.
Not counting the good comics I am starting to see a new RDF emerging, perhaps the PDF, otherwise known as...
Palm's Demented Few
hmmm, that's got a certain catchiness.
How has Palm done this? By once again making the Pre masquerade as an Apple device. Plug your Pre into your computer and set it to Media Sync and it identifies itself like this:
USB Product ID: 0×1209
USB Vendor ID: 0×05ac (Apple, Inc)
Manufacturer: Apple Inc.
A brazen move, considering the USB-IF specifically warned Palm against doing exactly this in its Sept. 22 letter to the company.
"I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.
Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days".
Palm is playing a very dangerous game that they can't win.
Worse, not just lose, but end up bankrupt.
Someone needs to stop Rubinstein, his tantrum at old boss Jobs is going wreck an important company. As he is now the CEO (I think that's the role) isn't such an action a crime under the corporations act (is in Oz).
Rubinstein could end up in jail.
"Apple has a long history of leveraging open source technology into OS X."
Well, that's a nice way of saying "takes open source code and uses it in a proprietary, locked down way".
@ i.am.joes.liver
"that's a nice way of saying "takes open source code and uses it in a proprietary, locked down way" "
Of course MS fanboys would not have a clue about what they're talking about. Apple does not just utilize open source technologies while still keeping them open, but is also a major contributor to many of them. For example, that superb Chrome web browser people love to use is based on WebKit, an open source foundation Apple created and is now co-developed with Google. (Safari is also based on the same WebKit source.) The results are spectacular specially when contrasted against that pile of proprietary garbage called Internet Explorer.
http://webkit.org/ (notice how the logo is a golden Safari browser icon?)
Kind of ironic that Windows is THE most proprietary and locked down OS in the market and that their users ignore that fact.
How ironic, Apple is the new Microsoft and Palm is the new Apple.
I guess the new Apple kiddos weren't alive when Apple hacked their Macs to connect to windows networks or created things like Boot Camp.
(RDF and \s ahead)
No that doesn't count. Apple had a license (somewhere in my pocket) that says it was ok to get into windows networks. Oh and BootCamp was the best software ever.
@ Chris
when Apple hacked their Macs? How is it hacking if the developer/manufacturer makes changes to their own product? Your statement doesn't make any sense.
As for connecting to Windows networks, Apple has a long history of leveraging open source technology into OS X. Thankfully the government forced Microsoft to open its closed Windows system to allow network interoperability with non-Windows systems.
What does Boot Camp have anything to do with anything in this article?
@FoxKenjii
Please see Wikipedia for a definition of hacking, since you clearly have no idea what it means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_(technology)
And so several years ago, when Apple incorporated 3rd party software to force interconnectivity with Windows networks, yes this was HACKING. And what does a long history of leveraging open source software have to do with anything???? I could have a long history of leveraging open software to gain access to people's networks, and so that would not be hacking b/c I have a history of it? You make no sense Kenjii.
Mentioning Boot Camp has everything to do with comments that claim it is wrong or even lazy to leverage someone else's industry standard to your own benefit, namely iTunes in the case of Palm, and Windows in the case of Apple.
@ chris
By way of your twisted and poorly comprehended term of "hack" (even from Wikipedia), then any company who makes changes to their own software is doing a hack. That's kind of a pathetic way of trying to prove your point regardless of logic isn't it? By the way, you also poorly comprehend the use of the word "leverage."
Apple has a long history of leveraging available open source technology like, you know, SAMBA. That bit of open source technology that lets UNIX, Linux and OS X exchange files and print services. In 2002 Apple leveraged SAMBA by integrating it into their next OS delivery: OS X 10.2 Jaguar, thereby enabling Macs and Windows PCs to talk to each other.
http://samba.org/samba/what_is_samba.html
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
Apple does not violate anything by leveraging Intel's EFI and allowing Windows to boot in Macs. In the other hand, Palm is blatantly violating the USB Implementer Forum's rules regarding Product IDs:
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/palm-fights-apple-on-pre-itunes-syncing-usb-if-smacks-palm-down-20090923/
So as you can see, Apple has done nothing wrong.
yes but there is nothing illegal about Boot Camp. You can actually partition and format a drive to be Windows ready without it. And BC doesn't break any of the security in Windows so that you can use an unauthorized copy. believe me, some months I have to call in 20 times to reactivate Windows for my roommate who has to have it on his computer cause the realtor software he uses was never ported to Mac.
@ LAGirl
You are right, Boot Camp is not illegal, but neither are the changes in WebOS v1.2.1
If anything, I would say Apple modifying iTunes to not work with the Pre is monopolistic behavior. And if it could be proven that Apple has a monopoly on the digital music player industry, then they could get hit with a big anti-trust suit. Imagine if MS kept on releasing updates to break Windows operability with Boot Camp or to break windows networking operability with Macs.
@chris
You sir clearly didn't bother to think before you wrote what you did (twice). Each copy of Windows that Boot Camp runs has to be licensed just like any other copy of Windows. Microsoft is happy to sell that license, and to point out that even Mac users find Windows necessary. Boot Camp is no more illegal than a custom-built PC box. Both are sold as hardware that can run Windows. Both need a boot manager to run, either EFI or BIOS. Boot Camp just puts the necessary instructions in the Mac EFI to allow Windows booting, which is not installed by default. The main difference between a Boot Camp-enabled boot sequence and some random PC's boot manager is that Boot Camp allows the user to choose to boot into OS X or Windows.
I don't get why Palm isn't instead trying to fund some open source project like Songbird. If I could get a more well rounded Songbird and some nice integration with the Palm, I'd ditch my iPhone.
Why stop at preventing Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes?
Since Mac OS X is property of Apple Inc and Mac OS X is not a monopoly, Apple should have the right to prevent Palm Pre from working in Mac OS X. Palm should not be lazy and should build its own OS, maybe support one of the Linux OS in Mac computers.
Should we tolerate or even encourage such such anti-consumer behaviour since it is not legal for Apple to do so?
Yeah, because the best thing for Apple to do is alienate even more of it's miniscule market share.
Other companies, such as RIM, have their own software that allows syncing to iTunes libraries, Palm just needs to stop being lazy and mooching off of the success of iTunes. To do so only hurts them in the end... word that advertised compatibility is only temporary because they are doing so in a shady way only hurts sales. There are very few people that are going to argue that Apple is the bad guy in this scenario.
I'm sure that PALM has a long term plan. They can't keep patching the WebOS to fool iTunes. They're hopefully just buying time, making a lot of noise to divert attention away from a much more sinister plan; like maybe having their own music store. It would be the right time to do it. A couple months after the app store has gone viral.
Palm does not need to develop software. They need a driver that will recognize a Pre's usb ID, when it is recognized the driver creates a fake software device that declares itself as an iPod hooked up through usb. Then the driver passes through sync info to the Pre.
This will circumvent the USB-IF's problems. This will also eliminate the need to update the Pre to fix sync.
it's just a different version of the same violation., problem not solved. the only solution is for Palm to stop playing with Apple's codes and either join up with something like Double Twist or do as Blackberry did and make their own software for use with the XML files
Thank you, Palm.
I'm an OSX user, and haven't found a music manager as good as iTunes for OSX. By enabling iTunes sync, i am a one device guy again (got tired of carrying my, just recently broken, 3rd generation iPod and blackberry). The 5GB limitation of the Pre sucks, but meh. Some music is better than no music.
Palm may find that taking a bite if an apple will only end up with them getting sick due to the poison in said apple
I felt the need to put my two cents in. I can actually see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, you have Apple, who is trying to protect a product (iPhone) that is in direct competition with the Palm Pre. After all, one of the biggest perks of buying an iPhone is that you can easily sync your existing iTunes library to your phone. By allowing Palm to keep this game going, they can potentially lose future iPhone customers. I definitely get that. The dilemma comes when you have a customer, like me, who has owned several iPods over the years and has, consequently, also used iTunes for most of my music purchases. Of course I can choose to use my iPod and Pre simultaneously. But there are times when I would like to listen to music I paid for, using software I've been familiar with, and do it without the need to carry both my phone and my iPod (and using different music software for each product). And Palm has given me that flexibility. Palm definitely could've gone the legit route and paid whatever royalties to Apple to allow syncing with their software. But would Apple have allowed this to happen, legit or not? I highly doubt it, with their own directly competing product still out there.
This iTunes thing seems really absurd. Palm really needs to either strike an agreement with Apple to use iTunes legitimately or they need to partner with (or purchase) a third party music management provider that can import an iTunes library automatically and call it a day.
I just want to play my iTunes tunes on the device of my choice. I purchased them fair and square. Why can't I play thm on my Palm Pre? What's all the freakin fuss?
How about we forget about the itunes sync issue since its not really needed anyways. My opinion on it is "WHO cares if it does or doesnt" The only reason this keeps happening is because everytime apple breaks it and palm fixes it, PALM get more free publicity as the battle goes on. How about engadget does a story on why PALM cant get the bluetooth functionality of the PRE fixed. Check the support forums. There are more than a few pissed off people and they all want to know why RIM can get it right but PALM cant.
Simply put...Apple is telling you were you can or cannot place your music. To get Apple's API, somebody's gotta pay. And that cost is passed down to us consumers. Why do I have to pay for access to music that I already own. USB is meant to be interoperable...meaning ..whatever you connect with it too should never be inhibited from working. The PRE was initially released with the ablilty to synch with ITunes, who stopped that feature?..Apple. Apple told the PRE owners that they cannot use ITunes when in fact UBS standard requires interoperability. So who is playing fair? And who bought the music?.And who has the right to put that music on any device? Choice!!!...It's what makes this world go around!!
Apple is definitely in the right here. It's not like they have taken advantage of any legal ways to allow its devices to connect to any other companies software. I mean if they ever did use a competitor's software for the benefit of it's users it would make them guilty of some mad hypocrisy.
I mean just imagine a world where an iphone could connect to a Windows PC, or Microsoft Exchange or Microsoft Outlook. That would just be crazy.