Apple Blocks Palm Pre iTunes Syncing | Hacker News Reader

Apple Blocks Palm Pre iTunes Syncing

precentral.net

10 pointsblasdel7 comments

I'd be more upset with Palm than Apple on this one. You can't really expect to use another companies software through a hack like this. Passing it along to users as a feature is pretty shady IMO. The problem for Apple isn't the Pre per say -- it's the fact that if they don't block the Pre now they may get themselves into trouble later on when more people start using iTunes with third party devices unofficially. Eventually Apple may want to change the way iPods sync and suddenly all these users are unhappy and confused that it no longer works. They are better off doing it now when relatively few people are relying on it. Apple has zero obligation to support Palm's hardware. iTunes is not an open platform for third party devices to sync to. Palm decided to advertise this hack as a feature and now it doesn't work. That's on Palm, not Apple.

Not only is this on Palm, but I suspect they planned it. They knew Apple wouldn't allow this to happen. It forces Apple to generate their own bad press. Next step is for Palm to write a workaround and look like the hero. Except they should've been paying attention when RealNetworks tried this a few years ago. That strategy relies on turning Apple fans against Apple. And if you follow the tech industry at all you know how difficult that will be (hint: damn near impossible).

It's on Apple for explicitly targeting Palm. I'm sure Palm would've been more than happy to update their software in response to any changes by Apple.

Apple had other alternatives as far as liability goes. For example, they could've prompted the user with a warning message the first time they connected a 3d party device.

Gee, that was an amazing surprise. Not.

If Microsoft specifically set out to make their software incompatible with third parties what would happen? Oh wait it did...

Um, isn't Microsoft's whole business based on selling an OS that supports as many different varieties of hardware as possible? Specifically, in this very space, wasn't the whole point of "Plays for Sure" that there were a multitude of hardware devices made by a multitude of venders that interoperated with the Microsoft solution?

I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans on your post. I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.

Now if you want to make an argument about how Microsoft hid APIs in it's operating system so that its office suite or browser performed better than anyone else's, or how it bundled its browser to try to use it's OS monopoly to strangle competition in another market, you'd have a point. But it should be clear how those are vastly different circumstances that cannot meaningfully be applied to the case of media jukebox made by company "A" and random hardware media player made by company "B".

That's what I was referring to. Oh well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com