Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 201
  1. Adjei's Avatar
    Posts
    277 Posts
    Global Posts
    708 Global Posts
    #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    There's nothing to interpret -- Palm isn't breaking any laws, therefore they are doing nothing illegal, and Apple can't do anything about it. I can see it now -- Apple takes Palm to court for breaking the USB Forum's rules. That'll turn out well.

    Face it -- Apple knows they have no recourse in this matter but to complain about it. Palm wins, iTunes will soon be open to every device. As a Pre owner, I'm happy that Palm is setting the trend here.
    What don't you get, they broke the rules of USB group hence what they did was illegal pertaining to the USB group. I mean go look up the definition of what illegal means and stop trying to spin this to put Palm in a good light.

    You can keep living in la la land and pretend that Palm is going to help force Apple to sync every device with Apple. I wonder why Palm weren't all for the consumers in helping to sync with itunes before Ruby and his team came on with their grudges against Apple. I guess all of a sudden they are helping the consumer.
  2. Adjei's Avatar
    Posts
    277 Posts
    Global Posts
    708 Global Posts
    #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by GMoney749 View Post
    I was responding to this in my original post:



    Somehow Apple using somebody else's software to sell their hardware is just fine and even a "good move", yet when Palm does the same they're pretenders.

    It's not just the ability run Windows, it's the ability to do it seamlessly because Microsoft doesn't have a bunch of proprietary roadblocks and release updates solely to make it difficult for everybody else's hardware, while Apple is actually suing manufacturers to keep their software off of anybody else's hardware.

    "Hack" and "technically unsound" are total BS. It's connecting to iTunes exactly like their own hardware does; so is the connection from an iPod to iTunes "technically unsound"? If Apple wasn't actively breaking it, there wouldn't be a problem.

    Nonsense, last time I checked Microsoft had no problem with what Apple is doing because Apple went about through the proper channels and didn't resort to hacks like some leeching companies.
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    What don't you get, they broke the rules of USB group hence what they did was illegal pertaining to the USB group. I mean go look up the definition of what illegal means and stop trying to spin this to put Palm in a good light.
    Haha keep spinning -- you know you meant that it was illegal by US law, as if Palm was violating something they could be sued over. Now you're saying, "No, I meant they violated the USB Forum's rules, so it's illegal in that respect." Arguing with you is like trying to escape quicksand, I'm not even entirely sure why I keep coming back, other than the fact that a non-Pre owner trolling a Pre forum about such a trivial issue is mildly intriguing to me.
  4. Adjei's Avatar
    Posts
    277 Posts
    Global Posts
    708 Global Posts
    #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by jrstinkfish View Post
    Haha keep spinning -- you know you meant that it was illegal by US law, as if Palm was violating something they could be sued over. Now you're saying, "No, I meant they violated the USB Forum's rules, so it's illegal in that respect." Arguing with you is like trying to escape quicksand, I'm not even entirely sure why I keep coming back, other than the fact that a non-Pre owner trolling a Pre forum about such a trivial issue is mildly intriguing to me.
    Oh so now doing something illegal means it's only if its against US law, dude you are reaching.
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    Nonsense, last time I checked Microsoft had no problem with what Apple is doing because Apple went about through the proper channels and didn't resort to hacks like some leeching companies.
    Once again, you miss the point. Who is going to do your thinking for you when Lord Jobs is no longer around?
  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    Was it Ruby who fed you that line down there in Sunnyvale?

    There is nothing wrong with advertising that your products work with your competitor's products. Companies do that all time. RIM advertises that they sync with itunes, Apple advertises that they use Activesync, Microsoft Exchange, you can install Windows on their computers. Just go through the goddamn proper channels. But then again I'm talking to a dude with his head stuck in the stand.
    If they're doing something illegal (your favorite word), Apple will sue them. Until then, you're just another Clone Bot whining in a forum for a device you don't like or own.

    I'd much rather have my head in the sand than up Stevie Boy's tooter.
  7. Adjei's Avatar
    Posts
    277 Posts
    Global Posts
    708 Global Posts
    #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by GMoney749 View Post
    If they're doing something illegal (your favorite word), Apple will sue them. Until then, you're just another Clone Bot whining in a forum for a device you don't like or own.

    I'd much rather have my head in the sand than up Stevie Boy's tooter.
    They are doing something illegal, contrary to the rules of the USB group which they agreed to which is why they got smacked by the USB group. But keep shoving your head further in the sand.
  8. Rhody's Avatar
    Posts
    703 Posts
    Global Posts
    720 Global Posts
    #188  
    Check out this article from today:
    Justice Dept probing IBM's computer market conduct - USATODAY.com

    The Justice Department is all over IBM for making it so their software only works with their hardware. It seems they are getting slammed for alleged antitrust violations.
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    They are doing something illegal, contrary to the rules of the USB group which they agreed to which is why they got smacked by the USB group. But keep shoving your head further in the sand.
    Sorry, the USB group doesn't make law. What they're doing is not illegal. As a matter of fact, Apple trying to stop them very well MAY be, which I suspect is why Apple is not suing.
  10. #190  
    Again, the USB-IF does not make law. They create standards. Palm may be violating those standards, but that does not make what Palm is doing illegal. Furthermore, the USB-IF even states in their Anti-trust standards, the compliance is voluntary by the members:

    7. To the extent that the USB-IF develops, administers or approves standards, specifications or test procedcures, or a certification program, a Participant's decision to adhere to or participate therein shall be voluntary on the part of Participants, and shall in no way be compelled or coercedby USB-IF.
    Further, the USB-IF asked Palm to respond to their initial findng that Palm may be in violation within 7 days (according to "leaked" information). That was around the 22nd of last month. Palm released 1.2.1 on the 4th, several days after that deadline.

    I suspect that there's more to the confidential information from the USB-IF than we mere mortals are aware, but it's pretty clear that the nonsense about what Palm did being "illegal" is just that - nonsense.
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Again, the USB-IF does not make law. They create standards. Palm may be violating those standards, but that does not make what Palm is doing illegal. Furthermore, the USB-IF even states in their Anti-trust standards, the compliance is voluntary by the members:



    Further, the USB-IF asked Palm to respond to their initial findng that Palm may be in violation within 7 days (according to "leaked" information). That was around the 22nd of last month. Palm released 1.2.1 on the 4th, several days after that deadline.

    I suspect that there's more to the confidential information from the USB-IF than we mere mortals are aware, but it's pretty clear that the nonsense about what Palm did being "illegal" is just that - nonsense.
    A lot of semantics on all sides. So let's be clear - are you saying it's ok for Palm to ignore the USB-IF findings? That is, if the USB finds them to be in violation, would you suggest that Palm stop or continue?
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by Really mobile View Post
    A lot of semantics on all sides. So let's be clear - are you saying it's ok for Palm to ignore the USB-IF findings? That is, if the USB finds them to be in violation, would you suggest that Palm stop or continue?
    The worst that could happen to Palm is they would be forced to remove the "Certified USB" logo from the Pre box and documentation. As stated, compliance is voluntary. Vendor IDs, once bought, are owned by the purchasing company. The USB-IF has no other recourse besides strongly-worded letters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brain_ReCall
    I'm an Embedded Software Engineer. My idea of a Good User Interface is printf().
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by Really mobile View Post
    A lot of semantics on all sides. So let's be clear - are you saying it's ok for Palm to ignore the USB-IF findings? That is, if the USB finds them to be in violation, would you suggest that Palm stop or continue?
    Absolutely, as long as Palm is willing to suffer the consequences, whatever they are.

    They signed an agreement that specifically said that the organization will not force them to comply. At the very worst, the USB-IF can take away Palm's right to use the trademark (but can't, and won't, stop them from producing their product). Palm apparently believes strongly enough that they are in the right on this that they are willing to keep pushing at this point.

    Another point to all of this, none of us on here knows what the communications were between Apple, Palm, and the USB-IF. It was confidential. All we "know" are the rumors we continue to hear.

    However, here's what I think in all of this.
    • Apple should be free to block anyone they choose to within their software, until the courts where they are practicing their business tells them they must stop.
    • Palm should be free to overcome that by any means which are legal (according to the laws which apply).
    • The USB-IF should be free to pull Palm's, or Apple's, right to carry the trademark, if they find against them within the applicable laws.
    • I don't think anyone is going to decide to buy a Pre based on iTunes capability, unless they're already using iTunes because of a product they've already purchased.
    • If Palm wins, the consumer wins, they have more freedom.
    • If Apple wins, the consumer looses. Those that want to buy iTunes music for the iPod, and play on their Pre as well (which is their legal right) then would have to have two programs on their PCs, maintain multiple playlists, and have multiple copies of the files on their PCs. Stupid, and does notihing positive for anyone, including Apple.
    • None of it really matters to me, other than watching a funny catfight, since I don't use iTunes.

    I'll also say that I suspect Palm is probably in violation of the rules. I suspect as strongly that Apple is in violation of anti-trust laws, which is why Palm is freely pushing the issue.

    Now, which do you think is egreious, violating an agreement that has little teeth in a private non-profit consortium, or violating the law at the consumer's expense?
  14. Adjei's Avatar
    Posts
    277 Posts
    Global Posts
    708 Global Posts
    #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhody View Post
    Check out this article from today:
    Justice Dept probing IBM's computer market conduct - USATODAY.com

    The Justice Department is all over IBM for making it so their software only works with their hardware. It seems they are getting slammed for alleged antitrust violations.
    And this is relevant to this discussion in what manner?
  15. #195  
    The phone is great but you not going to be there look for the app you want why not build a program that can run on the pc and it fast than touch the screen for 100 times. I think they have to do a program so they can sell more app, and add some good stuff to the phone if they want.
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    Please show us any group or court that has found Apple to be in the wrong pertaining to this case. I can name at least one group who have Palm in the wrong. Just because you Palm ******* believe Apple is in the wrong doesn't make it true. Already Palm has been found to be in the wrong by the USB group. Who has found Apple to be doing anything besides Palm and their *******?
    Actually, no - you can't name at least one group. You don't even know the name of the "group" you keep attempting to cite in support of your whiney babbling. You have no idea what jurisdiction or power they have, or what specific ruling they made. The only thing you know for certain is that Jobs is Lord.

    What's most curious in all of this is how exactly you got off my ignore list. Fixing that now.
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    Nonsense, they broke the rules set by the USB group which they agreed to when they joined the bloody group. They broke the rules of that group. Thus what they did was illegal pertaining to the USB group. Get that through your thick head. Goddamn are some of you ******* that daft?
    I think you just broke some rules. Is that illegal?
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    The group is USB-IF you bloody idiooot. If you didn't want to read my post, how the heck did I magically come of your ignore list! Now go back whiping Ruby from your lips.
    Actually, the communications from the governing board of the USB-IF were confidential. If you've got a source (not reports of "leaked information", but something actually from the USB-IF), please feel free to enlighten us.

    I do notice you've backed off some one the "illegal" nonsense.
  19. #199  
    I think it's time to close this thread. The reality is that there will never be universal agreement on whether Palm or Apple is right or wrong on this iTunes matter. I've yet to see one person change their mind and it's extremely unlikely that will happen in this forum. I guess that why we have a two party system; Apple and Palm.

    It's crazy how heated these conversations get over a phone - Hparsons does not use itunes and Adjei might not even have a Pre.

    But hey, I'm also guilty of getting heated...but my view will have little impact on what Palm or Apple decides to do about this issue. Unfortunately!
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by GMoney749 View Post
    "Better" and whether or not it was a "good move" are not germane to the point being made.

    Apple is implementing and advertising compatability with software developed by Microsoft in order to sell their hardware. Substitute names in that sentence and see if you still think it's a "good move".
    Quote Originally Posted by GMoney749 View Post
    I was responding to this in my original post:



    Somehow Apple using somebody else's software to sell their hardware is just fine and even a "good move", yet when Palm does the same they're pretenders.

    It's not just the ability run Windows, it's the ability to do it seamlessly because Microsoft doesn't have a bunch of proprietary roadblocks and release updates solely to make it difficult for everybody else's hardware, while Apple is actually suing manufacturers to keep their software off of anybody else's hardware.

    "Hack" and "technically unsound" are total BS. It's connecting to iTunes exactly like their own hardware does; so is the connection from an iPod to iTunes "technically unsound"? If Apple wasn't actively breaking it, there wouldn't be a problem.
    It's a hack to me - It's a hack when you use technology in ways that it wasn't designed to be used. We hack **** together all the time at work. It's not a moral question, not to me anyways, you get certain things out of hacking things together, and you loose certain things.

    you usually get short term benefits, but open yourself up to long term risks and costs. In this situation, palm got a sync solution that works in the short term, with a popular music client.

    palm risks apple breaking sync intentionally, or unintentionally (aside from the intentional breakage that's been going on) it's not inconceivable that at some later date apple might want to change the way their ipods sync with iTunes in the future.

    with an api those risks are different, if an api is published by apple, then that would suggest that apple wants other people to be using it for some reason or another, and wouldn't want to mess them up. APIs DO change, but companies generally have an interest in not changing them very quickly or in ways that break your software. Why? because it encourages and enables people to write software for your product and you would hope makes your customers happy and makes you more $$

    Lastly - being locked in to ipods internal data format is just dumb. One of the best things about the pre is being able to drag mp3s onto it in usb mode. If it could handle m3u files that were also dragged there, that would be awesome! that would probably make it easier to sync the pre with non-iTunes applications which use m3u files. They coulda wrote something quick that could parse the itunes xml file, put the music on your device and convert playlists to m3u and called it a day. quick, easy, and flexible.

    it is a less integrated solution, but I think it is a more flexible, useful, and reliable solution, and that's what I would have preferred.

    I am not an apple fan boy. I liked osx because it is unix but then i got tired of apple cause they kept making me buy stuff, now that I can use ubuntu without hacking a bajillion text files to get a ****ing usb drive to work properly like i had to 4 yrs ago, I am back on ubuntu. I never use m$ **** unless i have to. that is truly garbage.
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions