Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 201
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adjei View Post
    I suggest you go and look into the meaning of what "legal" and "illegal" means. Palm used someone's else's vendor ids, which goes against the rules set by the USB group which is why they were slapped. Illegal means something is prohibited or not authorized by law or generally rules specific to a particular situation. They went against rules set by the USB group to become hackers, rules they agreed to when they joined the group. I'll leave you to interpret whether its illegal or not.
    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.
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hogu View Post
    Yes, I believe apple, advertising compatibility with MS in terms of dual booting windows and office was a good move - I don't think apple would have the market share they have today if they hadn't done that, less so the windows piece, DEFINITELY the Office piece.

    I DO think it is important for palm to be able to connect with iTunes, but the technically better way, is by reading that XML file, the same way everyone else does it.

    Your original comment was likening apple to script kiddies - apples solution was technically sound, palms is a hack. Violating technical standards is a bad idea, the less standards are followed, the less you can rely on them, and the harder they are to work with.
    I was responding to this in my original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Macwinux View Post
    Palm has turned into a bunch of script kiddies. They can't compete with Apple on their own merits. They have to use Apple's own work to pretend they are contenders. They are still just take over bait.

    Enjoy.
    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.
  3. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #163  
    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.

    I may regret jumping back into this, but I think you have to give some weight to the license agreements each company attaches to their products. Apple's EULA, which customers must accept to use their OS X product, forbids use on non-Apple hardware. Customers/users have the freedom to decline this agreement.

    In the Psystar case, that company is ultimately screwed because of that legal document that Apple attaches to OS X. They may not like it, and you or I may not like it, but if Apple's EULA says no third-party hardware, the legal path is to abide by that, or decline it and not use Apple's OS. Nobody has a gun to Psystar's head.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Microsoft has any issues with people installing Windows on a Mac at boot level. After all, Macs are now more or less the same as generic PCs on the inside, and MS doesn't discriminate by brand. If I recall right, MS does have some jargon about virtualization, which could be a gray area for people that use VMWare, etc...
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    I may regret jumping back into this, but I think you have to give some weight to the license agreements each company attaches to their products. Apple's EULA, which customers must accept to use their OS X product, forbids use on non-Apple hardware. Customers/users have the freedom to decline this agreement.

    In the Psystar case, that company is ultimately screwed because of that legal document that Apple attaches to OS X. They may not like it, and you or I may not like it, but if Apple's EULA says no third-party hardware, the legal path is to abide by that, or decline it and not use Apple's OS. Nobody has a gun to Psystar's head.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Microsoft has any issues with people installing Windows on a Mac at boot level. After all, Macs are now more or less the same as generic PCs on the inside, and MS doesn't discriminate by brand. If I recall right, MS does have some jargon about virtualization, which could be a gray area for people that use VMWare, etc...
    I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that its hypocritical to claim that, on a moral level, Apple's use of somebody else's product to gain marketshare in a space where they can't compete is ok, but when somebody else does the same they're hacks.
  5. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by GMoney749 View Post
    I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that its hypocritical to claim that, on a moral level, Apple's use of somebody else's product to gain marketshare in a space where they can't compete is ok, but when somebody else does the same they're hacks.
    I wouldn't go so far as to call Palm hacks, but I also don't think you can compare the installation of Windows on a Mac to Palm's use of iTunes to sync the Pre. Which probably means it's not a good analogy to discuss or argue about either way.

    Now, if Apple pre-installed Windows on their Macs and then used Win-Amp to sync iPods instead of providing iTunes, then I might scratch my head. Because then they'd be relying on a competitor's software to sync their devices.

    Forget the notion of hacking, I feel it's risky for Palm to have their "marketed" music sync solution hinging on the software of a hostile competitor. To me, that's the genuine concern here. How we feel about the companies, or the ethics, is a whole separate issue.
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    ...
    They may not like it, and you or I may not like it, but if Apple's EULA says no third-party hardware, the legal path is to abide by that, or decline it and not use Apple's OS.
    ...
    Actually, there is a third option. As has been pointed out in another thread, EULA's may not be legally binding. The way one finds out is break it, and then fight it out in court.
  7. DHart's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    274 Global Posts
    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    I may regret jumping back into this, but I think you have to give some weight to the license agreements each company attaches to their products. Apple's EULA, which customers must accept to use their OS X product, forbids use on non-Apple hardware. Customers/users have the freedom to decline this agreement.

    In the Psystar case, that company is ultimately screwed because of that legal document that Apple attaches to OS X. They may not like it, and you or I may not like it, but if Apple's EULA says no third-party hardware, the legal path is to abide by that, or decline it and not use Apple's OS. Nobody has a gun to Psystar's head.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Microsoft has any issues with people installing Windows on a Mac at boot level. After all, Macs are now more or less the same as generic PCs on the inside, and MS doesn't discriminate by brand. If I recall right, MS does have some jargon about virtualization, which could be a gray area for people that use VMWare, etc...
    I am not familiar with the Psystar case, but an EULA agreement that says you can only use our hardware is BS and would fail a legal challenge. Back in the 80's I sold lab equipment and supplies. One of the manufacturer's of the dominant blood cell counters back then told customers that if they did not use their brand of reagents, it would void the warranty, cause damage to the instrument, give them incorrect results, etc. - which was total BS.


    Numerous manufacturers brought out generic brands of reagents which proved to be reliable and safe. In fact we sold a generic brand that came with a guarantee that we would pay for repairs caused by our brand. No claims ever.

    Manufacturers try to use fear to get customers to pay more for or just stick with OEM versions of their product. If Apple had a legal case here, it would have surfaced already. They know they don't.
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    ...
    Forget the notion of hacking, I feel it's risky for Palm to have their "marketed" music sync solution hinging on the software of a hostile competitor. To me, that's the genuine concern here. How we feel about the companies, or the ethics, is a whole separate issue.
    I think there's one small issue here that's important. It's not "their 'marketed' music sync solution"; it's one of "their 'marketed' music sync solutions".

    I think it's important because I don't believe that Palm is saying "Hey, buy a Pre, download iTunes, and you're set". I believe what they're saying is "Hey, if you've already got iTunes, you don't have to give it up, or run duplicate programs, just because you buy a Pre".

    That's an important distinction, especially for a new player in the arena.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    Forget the notion of hacking, I feel it's risky for Palm to have their "marketed" music sync solution hinging on the software of a hostile competitor. To me, that's the genuine concern here.
    We've already debated this ad nuseum. What Palm is doing is no riskier than relying on the iTunes library file.

    But the notion of building a new sync solution is questionable in itself. It doesn't matter if Palm manages to create the best sync experience ever, people don't want to learn new apps. They want something that fits in with what they already use. There are other syncing apps that are arguably better than iTunes, WinAmp is one example. It doesn't matter, Palm would be fighting inertia regardless of how good their homegrown syncing solution is.

    So does that mean it's over for other device makers just because of iTunes? Why should anyone go along with this notion?

    Apple could've chosen a proprietary hardware connection but they chose USB so they can sell iPods to anyone. With this they also created an opening whether they like it or not. It's the same story with Psystar. Apple moved to generic hardware and created an opening. They can't rip the benefits of open standards without giving up some control.
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    I wouldn't go so far as to call Palm hacks, but I also don't think you can compare the installation of Windows on a Mac to Palm's use of iTunes to sync the Pre. Which probably means it's not a good analogy to discuss or argue about either way.

    Now, if Apple pre-installed Windows on their Macs and then used Win-Amp to sync iPods instead of providing iTunes, then I might scratch my head. Because then they'd be relying on a competitor's software to sync their devices.

    Forget the notion of hacking, I feel it's risky for Palm to have their "marketed" music sync solution hinging on the software of a hostile competitor. To me, that's the genuine concern here. How we feel about the companies, or the ethics, is a whole separate issue.
    Maybe YOU wouldn't call them hacks, but the poster that I was responding to did.

    And I didn't present any analogy here, just commented on the hypocricy. Which you can't seem to see through those Apple-colored shades you're sporting.
  11. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart View Post
    I am not familiar with the Psystar case, but an EULA agreement that says you can only use our hardware is BS and would fail a legal challenge. Back in the 80's I sold lab equipment and supplies. One of the manufacturer's of the dominant blood cell counters back then told customers that if they did not use their brand of reagents, it would void the warranty, cause damage to the instrument, give them incorrect results, etc. - which was total BS.


    Numerous manufacturers brought out generic brands of reagents which proved to be reliable and safe. In fact we sold a generic brand that came with a guarantee that we would pay for repairs caused by our brand. No claims ever.

    Manufacturers try to use fear to get customers to pay more for or just stick with OEM versions of their product. If Apple had a legal case here, it would have surfaced already. They know they don't.

    Read up on the Psystar case. Apple already won a previous round.

    A contract or EULA can be total BS -- I could put a condition to say that customers have to call me "The Maestro" or "Jerry the great" (bonus points for the origin). If a customer accepts the EULA but then later violates the terms, I can sue them. Whether it holds up is for the courts to decide (as hparsons alludes to). Bottom line, you're accepting a contract, and with that comes the troops of lawyers.

    In most cases, a EULA is put in place to limit the damages or support burden of the software developer, and courts generally hold up that angle of it. How it ties to other, grayer areas, is up for grabs. But I think a developer can almost always defend their EULA conditions as a way to limit their commitment/obligation/liability to the end user. Apple could forbid use of Mac OS X for medical machinery, air traffic control, weapons, etc for reasons like this (don't laugh at the examples -- these are commonly spelled out in software EULAs). If Apple's lawyers somehow demonstrated that Psystar doesn't uphold that, there's a legal point for Apple.

    I am sorry this gets off the topic, but having been raked over by lawyers over what needs to go in my own EULAs, I fully sympathize with that side of it.
  12. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by GMoney749 View Post
    Maybe YOU wouldn't call them hacks, but the poster that I was responding to did.

    And I didn't present any analogy here, just commented on the hypocricy. Which you can't seem to see through those Apple-colored shades you're sporting.
    Listen, I'm not trying to argue against you or defend the other guy, I was just commenting on one of your posts. I am more in agreement with your position, give or take a detail or two.
  13. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by sivan View Post
    We've already debated this ad nuseum. What Palm is doing is no riskier than relying on the iTunes library file.

    But the notion of building a new sync solution is questionable in itself. It doesn't matter if Palm manages to create the best sync experience ever, people don't want to learn new apps. They want something that fits in with what they already use. There are other syncing apps that are arguably better than iTunes, WinAmp is one example. It doesn't matter, Palm would be fighting inertia regardless of how good their homegrown syncing solution is.

    So does that mean it's over for other device makers just because of iTunes? Why should anyone go along with this notion?

    Apple could've chosen a proprietary hardware connection but they chose USB so they can sell iPods to anyone. With this they also created an opening whether they like it or not. It's the same story with Psystar. Apple moved to generic hardware and created an opening. They can't rip the benefits of open standards without giving up some control.

    You see, I knew I would regret jumping back in.

    My comment about Palm depending on Apple iTunes for the music sync capability Palm touts on their product site applies equally to the XML method or the iPod-masquerading method. I do believe the XML approach is less risky, but ultimately both are out of Palm's control (as you pointed out when discussing the XML approach). I just don't think it's smart for Palm's semi-official sync software solution to be a product of a competitor.

    I know there are other ways to get files on the Pre, and I have been advocating the use of a scripted drag and drop as a means to get around the whole issue. But Palm continues to push iTunes as the music sync solution.

    We all have opinions, and Palm has their motivations for using iTunes. But at some point I would think that common sense applies. And my common sense tells me that I wouldn't want one of my products to depend on a sync solution that belongs to a competitor, and furthermore, that causes my hostile competitor to start marking turf and pawing the ground. Doesn't matter if I think I deserve to use it, or that my customer's might have rights to use it.
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Actually, there is a third option. As has been pointed out in another thread, EULA's may not be legally binding. The way one finds out is break it, and then fight it out in court.
    Exactly. Right now, Apple is still (for whatever reason) considered that cute little guy that we all love, so it doesn't have to worry about the prejudices that another big company we all know faces in court (trust me, I know) - right now. But if they keep making and stockpiling cash like they are I guarantee you that perception will eventually change and all the monopolistic practices will come crashing down. A EULA is just another piece of paper to a jury that doesn't like you.
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    We all have opinions, and Palm has their motivations for using iTunes. But at some point I would think that common sense applies. And my common sense tells me that I wouldn't want one of my products to depend on a sync solution that belongs to a competitor, and furthermore, that causes my hostile competitor to start marking turf and pawing the ground. Doesn't matter if I think I deserve to use it, or that my customer's might have rights to use it.
    I think what you're missing is that if everybody just keeps using the less-elegant solution, the point is never raised that separate-but-not-quite-equal segragation might actually be "unconstitutional", as it were.
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    ...
    We all have opinions, and Palm has their motivations for using iTunes. But at some point I would think that common sense applies. And my common sense tells me that I wouldn't want one of my products to depend on a sync solution that belongs to a competitor, and furthermore, that causes my hostile competitor to start marking turf and pawing the ground. Doesn't matter if I think I deserve to use it, or that my customer's might have rights to use it.
    I have a sneaky suspicion that, among whatever other motivations there are, Rubenstein has an affinity for iTunes...
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by s219 View Post
    Now, if Apple pre-installed Windows on their Macs and then used Win-Amp to sync iPods instead of providing iTunes, then I might scratch my head. Because then they'd be relying on a competitor's software to sync their devices.
    I thought it should be noted that when Apple initially started selling iPods that were compatible with Windows, it did in fact sync with another companies software, Musicmatch as iTunes wasn't available for Windows at that time.
  18. s219's Avatar
    Posts
    498 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,008 Global Posts
    #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by cbulock View Post
    I thought it should be noted that when Apple initially started selling iPods that were compatible with Windows, it did in fact sync with another companies software, Musicmatch as iTunes wasn't available for Windows at that time.
    That is correct -- I think it was bundled with the iPods.
  19. jorgem817's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    19 Global Posts
    #179  
    I don't think it's about laziness, it's about choice. Would you rather be tied to a single media sync program on your computer, or have the option to choose whichever one works better for you? Palm is not forcing anyone to use iTunes sync, they are simply making sure that it is an option. I use doubletwist (woot!), but there are lots of options available. Some people just love their iTunes and can't live without it, even with their Pre. If Palm gets to pester Apple and get some underdog cred in the process, more power to them.
  20. Adjei's Avatar
    Posts
    277 Posts
    Global Posts
    708 Global Posts
    #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I think you meant "weren't legal", not "weren't illegal". However, the USB group doesn't create laws, thus violating their rules, which they still haven't confirmed in this case, isn't doing something illegal.

    I might also mention, that calling folks "fan boys" on this forum is also "against the rules", and also not violating any laws. But hey, if it's the best you got, I understand...
    Keep deludin yourself, they broke the rules of the USB group, suggest what they did was illegal pertaining to the USB group which is why they got slapped. I suggest you look up the definition of illegal.
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions