Apple Blocks Pre's Itunes Access | Hacker News Reader

Apple Blocks Pre's Itunes Access

news.bbc.co.uk

10 pointstheklub13 comments

What's the real story here: is it "Apple locks out a competitor's product" or "Apple closes a security hole in their software"? Since iPhones also sync email account information and other sensitive data it's probably not a good idea to allow any USB device to pretend to be an iPhone and suck out all that data.

Likewise, the firmware updates that tend to break iPhone jailbreaking only close security holes. Apple is remarkably apathetic about whether you jailbreak your phone, since they already made their money from the phone.

I disagree. We're talking about the most closed-off and spiteful technology company here (who do make very pretty products). Not only that, but why in the world would the "security" issue be a more logical when Tim Cook said the following:

"However, we will not stand for having our IP [intellectual property] ripped off, and we’ll use whatever weapons that we have at our disposal. I don’t know that I can be clearer than that." [1]

[1]: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/26/apple...

Spiteful? Really? You think Apple as a company acts out of a bitter, vicious, unreasoning desire for revenge? I think closing security holes and protecting IP both sound like far more reasonable motivations.

Love to see evidence to the contrary, though. It's sure to be juicy stuff.

Spiteful as Apple could be, I would characterize "not allowing rogue USB devices to spoof iPhones and suck sensitive data out of iTunes" as a definite security issue as well as a definite IP non-issue.

This just goes beyond stupidity and hugely takes away my respect for Apple.

Apple did well with its iPods because it out-competed their opponents. Obviously Apple is threatened by the Pre, the whole iPhone 3GS is the most pitiful update to an Apple product yet and they obviously must know that. Their only defence against Palm right now is to block their products from using iTunes and threaten lawsuits. It's utterly pathetic and wholly shameful on Apple.

Your argument contradicts itself. It seems as if you are calling for a level playing field so that Apple and Palm products can compete against each other on their own merits.

But remember, Apple out-competed their iPod opponents by making not just a hardware MP3 player, but also a best-of-class jukebox and wholly innovative online music marketplace and integrating them all together. This integration has been shown time and time again to be the force that gives iPod an edge over competitors. In short, iPod "just works".

Enter the Palm Pre which is just a device. No jukebox. No music store. At this point, if Palm wants to compete, it could invest in building its own media jukebox and online store. Instead, it decides to use 2/3s of the technology of the product it's supposedly competing against by masquerading as the competitor itself.

It's as if you take a Boxter, replace the steering wheel, and then call yourself a competitor to Porsche. At best you are partners with Porsche, and at worst you're ripping them off. In either case, it hardly looks like the level competitive playing field you call for.

I would be more pissed with Palm than Apple on this one. This is nothing more than a hack that Palm used to make the Pre look like an iPod, and a hack that they advertised, knowing fully well that it could be broken at any time, and they have no control over it. I'd even go so far as to say that it's better that Apple does this now while there's only one device that's affected by this, before other companies follow suit. It would have happened sooner or later--perhaps when Apple changes the way that iPods/iPhones sync and it would have broken unsupported devices anyway.

I think Palm knew good and well this would happen. It might be a trap for an antitrust lawsuit/investigation against apple for uncompetitive practices (which this seems to be a clear-cut case of).

Accusing Apple of fostering a monopoly in iPods is, to steal an analogy from Megan McArdle, like accusing P&G of fostering a monopoly in Charmin. There are other media players. There are other smart phones. There are other viable music stores.

By any objective measure, iTunes has a monopoly with 87% market share in 2008. [1] Therefore, it can claimed that any actions against competitors can be construed as abusing monopoly power. Yes, there are other media players and other phones and other ways to buy media. However, the precedent is clear that Apple has "enough" of a monopoly to take these claims seriously. These claims are at least as serious as those launched against Microsoft in the 90's and in the EU-led accusations currently.

[1]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10213149-93.html

It's only a monopoly if there's a scarcity. There's no scarcity of music tracks; even if iTMS sells 99% of all tracks, unless they lock up the channel and prevent labels from selling to Amazon, there's nothing wrong with their dominant share.

I find the comparison between iTunes and Windows says more about the complainant than it does about Apple. Microsoft's monopoly prevented the development of competing technologies and enabled Microsoft to shut down entire sectors of the industry. Having the market's favorite music player doesn't prevent Amazon from selling music or Last.fm from streaming music or Microsoft from distributing Zunes.

"which this seems to be a clear-cut case of (of course, I am not a lawyer and have no idea what those terms actually mean)"

Fixed that for you.

No wonder. Apple is the equivalent of a "gated community". They guard everything that is proprietary 8nadmost things Apple are) like no other company and they can get away with it because everybody loves them. I hope this will give the competing services a boost and people will quit Itunes.

Remember when they banned Opera from publishing an iPhone compatible version of their mobile browser?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com