Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61
  1. mike5's Avatar
    Posts
    762 Posts
    Global Posts
    782 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    +1
    That is where the problem is. Folks on the forum doesn't understand that majority of Pre owners are not willing to spend time on doubletwists and songbirds. They love their iPod and their iTunes. All they want is to move the songs to Pre, just like they do with iPod.

    PALM needs to work on educating folks on how to do it without iTunes. Perhaps a video consisting of the steps needed to do will help.

    Or go back to iTunes 8.2, there are plenty available.
    The best SPRINT can do is to staff their tech support with the 8.2 version for helping in-store customers.
    If I can figure out doubleTwist, I'd venture to say anyone else on this Forum can as well. It was done in a manner of minutes. I had one question, wrote the doubleTwist people who responded w/in hours to tell me, very nicely, what I was doing wrong (had to do w/video).

    I think your idea of a tutorial is a good one, but it should be done by doubleTwist, Zune, etc., not Palm, IMO.

    Cheers
  2. #22  
    It's not that a majority of Pre owners are ipod/itunes users either. It's just that palm says you SHOULD use itunes. So even if said new buyer wasn't using itunes before then he most likely will be steered in that direction by Palm. And then of course left in the dark.

    If they have stopped worrying about itunes, then Palm needs to do a website makeover, change its literature, provide an update to media sync and make an announcement on whatever replacement they have in mind. It's all about damage control at this point.

    This is pretty obvious stuff though and hopefully Palm has something planned.
  3. fid
    fid is offline
    fid's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    43 Global Posts
    #23  
    Or Palm should simply support it the way other vendors do - through a plugin or the XML interface. Regardless of what some say, Palm not doing it the right way only smells of lazy (or cost cutting) effort.

    Personally, Palm's decision (and the NYT author) made me glad I didn't purchase a couple of Pre's. Two years being tied to a product with features like this would make anyone apprehensive.

    Palm's public comments on the effort may backfire as well. Honestly, Apple spends millions of dollars (a year) on THEIR software but Palm brags about spending 'a few minutes' trying to piggy-back their way in. Only a ****** would defend this action.

    This has never been about 'the consumer' as Palm has stated. We still have access to our music, regardless of the method used. In fact, Palm has demonstrated that they could care less about their customers by providing a solution they knew would be short lived. Only tools that have bought into this 'Bizarro' world could think Palm is championing your right to access music.
  4. KJ78's Avatar
    Posts
    838 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,113 Global Posts
    #24  
    wouldn't it be great if other companies blocked their hardware/software from working w/ CrApple
  5. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    Many folks have iTune accounts , and would love to buy it form the store. Its a knows software than going to a new site.

    PALM should talk to Apple for enabling Pre on the DRM free media.
    If Apple refuses to work with other companies, well they are no better than Sony i.e. they will be irrelevant.
    I think this is the root of the problem -- Apple is not stopping you from buying media or using it on your Pre. There is a distinction between buying/owning the media (which you can still do) and "syncing" the media to your device.

    All Apple is doing is preventing use of their sync software for third party devices.

    As noted, any company can write sync software for their device that taps into the iTunes library. This is done via an open, public API, with Apple's blessing. This is exactly what RIM does for Blackberry devices. This is what Palm should do.

    I agree with fid that Palm has tried to make this about customer ownership of their media, when in fact that has never been a problem at all.

    Would it be fair to RIM if Palm hacked their way into the Blackberry sync software and used it for the Pre? No! So why would you think it's fair for Palm to hack into Apple's sync software??
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by sivan View Post
    The only arbiter on what should be connected to what is the user. There is no morality in the interaction between pieces of technology.

    You can run Windows in VMWare on a Mac pretending to be a PC. Apple's OS X uses SMB to access Windows shared drives without licensing anything from Microsoft. Apple iWork opens Word documents. To this day, Safari pretends to be Mozilla when visiting websites.

    We can take this further: you can replace any part in your car with an aftermarket one. You can service it in any independent shop that you trust to know what it's doing.

    Why are you defending Apple?
    I kind of agree with you here, up to a point. I don't see anything in what Palm's been doing that infringes on any intellectual property that Apple owns, or that hacks into the Apple software itself. So, while I don't agree with the statement "There is no morality in the interaction between pieces of technology," I don't see any issues in this particular interaction.

    At the same time, that does mean that Apple has every right to block Palm syncing, if they can. It's their software. And while the user has a choice of whether or not to punish either/both Apple and Palm for this silliness, the user does _not_ have a right to sync the Pre with iTunes (or not, but that's not terribly meaningful).

    Your example about aftermarket car parts isn't really on point. First, it's not really the same thing--neither Palm nor Apple are telling the user what he can do with his own Pre (as in, installing applications or not). Second, there are real issues with installing aftermarket parts, involving warranty coverage of damage from said parts, that the automaker has a right to be concerned about. If you install an aftermarket part, then you should be on your own. There's no analogy to the Apple-Palm situation.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    Would it be fair to RIM if Palm hacked their way into the Blackberry sync software and used it for the Pre? No! So why would you think it's fair for Palm to hack into Apple's sync software??
    Exactly. I thank both you and Cardfan for trying to inject some sense here.

    This board gets so ridiculous sometimes. Apple has plenty of faults, but they are NOT the bad guy here. Palm is.

    Apple CLEARLY allows third parties that want to put the work into it to use a widely available sync API to make a plugin available for their device. It's not incumbent on Apple to provide this. They should only be responsible for their hardware or software. So this notion that Apple is blocking Palm or any other third party from syncing with iTunes is laughable.

    Instead of putting the work in, Palm is going with a shifty shortcut that spoofs iPod hardware signatures. This leaves users out in the cold if they keep iTunes updated, and it doesn't make Apple look like "the bad guy" to anyone but Palm *******. This issue has already been ruled upon by an objective third party. Palm is in the wrong here.

    They need to get off their *** and give some love to Songbird or another pre-existing software sync package. Enough with the iTunes nonsense.
  8. #28  
    I think the bottom line is it would be nice to be able to sync the phone with itunes direct. Everyone, including myself have an opinion on this issue and we all think we have the correct opinion. Fact of the matter is those of us with itunes on this forum are probably smart enough and techie enough to know that this would not be long term. Is it inconvenient, yes! However, if we want a sure thing then we should sign up with an iphone and then it's a sure sync with itunes...I personally hope they do counter again & again. If they do not I will be moving on to drag and drop or whatever I see fit to use. That is my opinion on the matter & my opinion is correct.
  9. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    Would it be fair to RIM if Palm hacked their way into the Blackberry sync software and used it for the Pre? No! So why would you think it's fair for Palm to hack into Apple's sync software??
    I am not for PALM hacking iTunes ( space age software this thing is !!!).
    The issue is , we guys talk a lot about other sync options while majority of the Pre owners (to be specific the 600K minus this forum members) are fine with iTunes sync. Because folks have the iPods, or organized their music using iTunes software.
    Also many of these folks buy songs from iTunes so it make even convenient.

    It is easier ( please do not define "EASY" ) for "THEM" to sync using iTunes. So PALM tried to help them out.
    Do you think the management team is not smart to look into the issues it would cause ?
    They might have looked , and probably concluded that it would help more folks. So they took a chance.
    But they shouldn't have claimed it as a feature.


    iTunes is a standalone product to buy songs.
    iPod is "A PRODUCT" that plays the songs among other things it does.
    PALM's issue is , APPLE tied the both iTunes and iPod.
    The cliam has some merit.

    Now if you compare this issue with RIMMs software, then I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
    RIMM's software only works with their phones and you cannot use it in anything but their phones.Where as the songs are the property of the owner once purchased.

    I am waiting for this doubletwist thing.
  10. gbp
    gbp is offline
    gbp's Avatar
    Posts
    2,506 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,543 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by wynand32 View Post
    I kind of agree with you here, up to a point. I don't see anything in what Palm's been doing that infringes on any intellectual property that Apple owns, or that hacks into the Apple software itself. So, while I don't agree with the statement "There is no morality in the interaction between pieces of technology," I don't see any issues in this particular interaction.
    I guess PALM did drop the ball here, while they didn't hack the iTunes code, they presented the Pre as iPod.
    That is not good.
  11. ToddK's Avatar
    Posts
    666 Posts
    Global Posts
    905 Global Posts
    #31  
    I'd be surprised if we ever see the Pre sync w/ iTunes again. Palm will just stop talking about it and hope everyone will forget all about it.

    Huh?! what iTunes sync w/ Pre? Don't know nothin' 'bout syncin' to iTunes.
    never heard anything about that! ...you must be confused.

    ...nothing to see here, move along.
  12. #32  
    The Pre is never going to replace either of my iPods. I just want an easy way to sync a couple of playlists without ever more software to install. If Palm had a decent music app that allowed for playlist creation on the device itself, that would be all I need.
    Palm Pilot --> Palm M130 --> Kyocera 7135 --> Treo 650 --> Palm Centro --> PALM PRE!
  13. nullity's Avatar
    Posts
    175 Posts
    Global Posts
    193 Global Posts
    #33  
    This isn't a perfect analogy, but I seem to remember an antitrust suit against Microsoft for stifling web browser competition by way of including IE in Windows and linking the two with a proprietary interface. Microsoft settled with the DOJ under the terms that they had to open their API to competitors to allow them a chance to compete in the browser market.

    To me, the current situation with Apple and their lockdown on iTunes (which is to MP3s what IE is/was to the internet) is more severe in that they are blatantly, actively, and directly seeking to stifle competition in both MP3 sales and MP3 players with their ubiquitous iTunes/iPod products. If this is not the case, why do they obfuscate the file names and directories used by iTunes? (honest question, is there a programmatic reason they can't organize files/directories with plain english names? I've never used iTunes but I've read that this is their practice.)
    "Maturity is a bitter disappointment for which no remedy exists, unless laughter can be said to remedy anything."
    ~ Kurt Vonnegut
  14. #34  
    To the responses above:

    Apple is wrong to disable Pre access, not out of an obligation to Palm, but by applying an update on user's machines which is hostile to the user.

    The consent a user provides when agreeing to a software update is made under the assumption that the update is beneficial to them. If there was some problem with the vendor ID that required providing the user with a fix, then Apple would be acting legitimately.

    But it is Apple who is hacking here against the user interests by purposefully removing the user's ability to use iTunes as they wish. Apple is the dishonest and hostile actor in this story.
  15. fid
    fid is offline
    fid's Avatar
    Posts
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    43 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by wynand32 View Post
    I kind of agree with you here, up to a point. I don't see anything in what Palm's been doing that infringes on any intellectual property that Apple owns, or that hacks into the Apple software itself. So, while I don't agree with the statement "There is no morality in the interaction between pieces of technology," I don't see any issues in this particular interaction.
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Instead of putting the work in, Palm is going with a shifty shortcut that spoofs iPod hardware signatures. This leaves users out in the cold if they keep iTunes updated, and it doesn't make Apple look like "the bad guy" to anyone but Palm *******. This issue has already been ruled upon by an objective third party. Palm is in the wrong here.
    Both valid points but they contradict.

    Apple was right to fight this immediately. If allowed to continue, and a future update broke all unsupported devices, what should Apple's response be - 'gee let us fix that for you' ?

    Those mad at Apple weren't so mad at Palm's reasoning when they pulled the 'cease and desist' on the 'Pre-like' theme for older Treo's.

    Apple supports their 'ecosystem' and iTunes (player/manager/purchaser/maintainer) is as much a product of theirs as the ipod. Just because it is free doesn't change that status.

    Before people use it to manage hundreds of Gig's (or a terrabytes) of media content, they know what they are getting into. I speak of this from experience as I've continued to move / organize and maintain data from one manager to another. Compared to many others, I'm thankful to have iTunes. This is especially true with home sharing now standard.

    Will another manager eventually knock iTunes off it's perch - probably. Until that day, I'm glad Apple documented API's, XML interfaces and allows plugins*. They didn't even have to go that far but it accounts for some of the success of iTunes.

    * (One of my favorite apps that benefits from this arrangement is 'TuneUp' which cleans up most old content. When I first started ripping tracks years ago, most managers didn't perform auto lookup from Gracenote and others. This left me with the tedious work of typing. TuneUp has cleaned thousands of tracks of our family library.)
  16. Xyg
    Xyg is offline
    Xyg's Avatar
    Posts
    1,104 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,113 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by fid View Post
    Or Palm should simply support it the way other vendors do - through a plugin or the XML interface. Regardless of what some say, Palm not doing it the right way only smells of lazy (or cost cutting) effort.
    But Palm is using a third party program to access the XML interface: iTunes!

    What better program than the one designed around those databases to write and manage them? It's a no brainer.
  17. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by nullity View Post
    To me, the current situation with Apple and their lockdown on iTunes (which is to MP3s what IE is/was to the internet) is more severe in that they are blatantly, actively, and directly seeking to stifle competition in both MP3 sales and MP3 players with their ubiquitous iTunes/iPod products. If this is not the case, why do they obfuscate the file names and directories used by iTunes? (honest question, is there a programmatic reason they can't organize files/directories with plain english names? I've never used iTunes but I've read that this is their practice.)


    There is absolutely no truth to that -- the music is organized into folders and files with plain-English names:

    Home > Music > iTunes > Artist > Album > Song_name.mp3 (or m4a, or whatever)

    There is no obfuscation at all. I really have no idea where that myth comes from.

    You need to explain to me how iTunes locks down the mp3 files. If they are DRM-free, then you can grab the files and do anything you want with it.

    I guess it bears repeating. You own the music/media files. They are on your computer's hard drive. All the iTunes app does is help you browse the files, view them, play them, sync them, purchase them, etc. You could totally remove the iTunes app from your hard drive and the music/media would be there for you to browse, play, sync on your own if you wanted. Nobody is forcing you to use iTunes for this. A large number of customers choose to use it because it's a good solution for them, but there is no technical reason why you *have* to use it. There is no lockdown of DRM-free music.
  18. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    iTunes is a standalone product to buy songs.
    iPod is "A PRODUCT" that plays the songs among other things it does.
    PALM's issue is , APPLE tied the both iTunes and iPod.
    The cliam has some merit.
    Why does Palm have an issue with Apple tying iTunes to iPods and iPhones? How is this even Palm's concern? It would be like me complaining that Palm Desktop was tied to their PDA products!


    Now if you compare this issue with RIMMs software, then I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
    RIMM's software only works with their phones and you cannot use it in anything but their phones.Where as the songs are the property of the owner once purchased.

    I am waiting for this doubletwist thing.


    Yes, the songs are the property of the owner. iTunes does not change this at all. You don't need iTunes to use the songs.

    Just like you mention that RIMM's software only works with their phones and you can't use it on anything but their phones --- well, Apple *intends* their iTunes app to only work with their iPods and iPhones, and they don't want it working on anything but their devices. It's a direct parallel to what you said. Everything you cited about RIMM is true of Apple too.

    You're missing the point that the music you purchase from iTunes is independent of the iTunes app. You own the music and can do whatever you want with it within legal bounds. That ownership has nothing to do with syncing the music.

    Either I'm speaking an alien language, or you guys are simply choosing to ignore truth/logic.

    How about this. Delete iTunes from your computer, pretend it never existed. Now you're left with all your music files (doesn't matter where you got them from -- Apple, Amazon, WalMart, etc). Now you want to get the music on your Pre. You should be turning to Palm or a third party developer for the solution. Leave Apple, Amazon, WalMart, etc out of it. They sold you the music but are under no obligation to help you sync it to any arbitrary device you buy now or in the future. That's also why they don't prevent you from doing this.

    If you think Apple is responsible to help you sync music to your non-Apple device, what's next? Thinking Pepsi needs to give you a cup with ice so you can drink their beverage? Thinking Best Buy needs to give you a DVD player so you can watch the movie you bought? Thinking Exxon needs to give you a car so you can burn their gas? Thinking Home Depot needs to give you a saw to cut the wood you bought from them?



    But wait you say! I used iTunes to buy some of that music! Dang it, I used FireFox to order a some coffee beans online. Now I want to brew it. Who do I contact at Mozilla/FireFox so that they can help me make a cup of coffee that I brew from the beans I purchased using FireFox? Dammit, I purchased the coffee using FireFox, so they must be responsible to help me use it!
    Last edited by s219; 09/30/2009 at 02:02 PM.
  19. Rhody's Avatar
    Posts
    703 Posts
    Global Posts
    720 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by gbp View Post
    Now if you compare this issue with RIMMs software, then I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
    RIMM's software only works with their phones and you cannot use it in anything but their phones.Where as the songs are the property of the owner once purchased.
    I don't think you understand what it is you purchased when you downloaded a song from iTunes. You did not buy a song. After all, what is a song?

    A song is a creative work comprising rhythms, chords, melodies, etc. And a particular instance of a song is a recorded performance of the song. Back before they even had phonographic records or magnetic tapes, song composers sold their creative works as sheet music (they still do) that people would purchase so they can play it on their pianos at home and sing along. A song is intellectual property, not a file.

    A record, tape, CD, MP3 file, guitar tab, sheet music, MIDI file, or the like is merely the embodiment of the creative work. When you purchase a CD, for example, you are purchasing the medium itself and a license to play the content from that medium. When you purchase an MP3, you are only buying a license to perform certain actions with that instance of that creative work in that format. You do not OWN the song. I'm sure when you sign up for iTunes, you agree to certain terms that define each purchase. I bet those terms restrict you from doing whatever you want with "your media."

    I see this all the time in forums like this. People say, "I have the right to do whatever I want with my music." Well, no, you don't. You don't own music; you own a license to perform certain actions with respect to a specific instance of a given creative work.
  20. Eyedea28's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    18 Global Posts
    #40  
    This whole story is pretty interesting and opened my eyes on how Apple and other companies run.

    For all the people who want iTunes syncing, just don't update your itunes, it's that simple. I'm still using iTunes 7.4.0.28 and it works great with my Pre, lol.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions