How Palm Re-Enabled iTunes Sync
precentral.netI'm still trying to figure out why iTunes only talking to iPod is (according to Palm) any more of a USB agreement violation than Nikon Capture only talking to Nikons, HP printer software only talking to HPs, or any other vendor software/vendor hardware combination that only works with the vendor's devices.
Palm's confused if they think a compatibility check is a violation as opposed to, say, faking a hardware vendor ID. USB hardware IDs and network MAC addresses clearly have to respect the vendors' address spaces or the hardware standard falls apart.
Seems more likely this is a play to, yes, have the Palm device get press, but also ensure their site gets Page Rank from all the unique news articles' and blog entries' inbound links.
It's one thing to only be compatible with one device, but it's an entirely different matter to actively prevent other devices from working. I'm pretty sure no other camera companies are trying to get their cameras to work with Nikon Capture.
The USB spec requires that USB devices be connected-device agnostistic. That is, they must be capable of communicating with any device, over USB, that knows the proper codes/bytes/etc.
Hiding the codes/keeping them secret, like most vendors do, is okay -- the USB spec does not require disclosure.
BUT changing the codes to prevent interoperability is prohibited by the USB spec b/c it defeats the whole point of the USB spec.
Palm should ask themselves whether flaky on-again/off-again integration with iTunes is really better for their users than writing a standalone sync program like Blackberry.
I don't really get Palm's reluctance to write good sync software. They've been avoiding it since the 90s.
Well, there's no need. Windows comes with good media sync software. Most Palm data syncs with web services.
What's missing is a quality experience with iTunes, particularly on OSX. Emulating an iPod seems like a quick and easy way to provide an optimal user experience. Plus, they get publicity when Apple pulls the dickhole move that makes them seem like a big, abusive corporation.
It's quick, but what about the Pre owners who don't follow Gizmodo daily and don't know what's going on when their phone suddenly stops syncing after an iTunes upgrade?
This episode is reminiscent of what I went through working as the 'integration guy' at an educational web startup in the early 2000s. We were in Palm's position, trying to pull data out of systems created by companies that were either indifferent or hostile to our product, so the integration tended to break frequently and without warning. It's not a good way to satisfy your customers. They don't care that you're striking a blow against the establishment - all your customers care about is that your product broke without warning.
Palm should've kept using their own USB ID and Manufacturer string, and allow users to override them to impersonate an arbitrary vendor. Including, of course, Apple. This way the Palm is in the clear, and it's the user that is responsible for the actual act of vendor/device impersonation.
But all things considered, all this will simply lead to Apple ditching USB or layering a custom encrypted protocol on top of it. So Palm's current hack is a temporary solution.
I'd guess the USB Vendor ID switch was to trap Apple into matching vendor IDs, so that they'd have a case with the forum. That's my assumption, as apple's response was obvious from the moment the Pre came out.
Instead of this pissing match over the horrible iTunes, Pre, Google, and Amazon need to get together and make better media software.
Now that the Pre is actually masquerading itself, Apple could go after them for trademark infringement!
The result of Sega vs Accolade suggests that trademark protection wouldn't be extended to identification for interoperability reasons.
Back in the day, AOL and Microsoft went through a similar war their messaging service. It was great from the consumer's perspective, interesting from the hacker's perspective, and petty from a business perspective--like the insistence on trying to kiss the hot girl in the bar last Saturday, drunk.
Now, here's the other thought: Apple has a lot of reasons to block imitation devices from accessing iTunes, the least of which includes perhaps security issues for its users, but also for the fact that being able to access iTunes, iTunes Store, and iTunes content might have very specific clauses drafted in its agreements with Apple's content partners. By not protecting that, Apple in itself might be in legal trouble.
So, this isn't just pettiness that Apple is taking in full delight of. Just a bit.
I don't think that we can really site security issues on this, as the pre cannot access any DRM data at this point. So there cannot be any aggreements with vendors.
Only if the Pre was accessing DRM protected media would that be a valid point. I think there is more than a dash of pettiness involved here.