clicky




or to put it into the vernacular "By jimminy Cricket, the next update is going to nuke dat ability so na nah.. You have be WARNED!!"

Seems a pre-emptive strike to cover their assses when they do nuke it. But to be fair to Apple they should not have to worry about and paying money to support other devices that are in competition to their own. And another but, would the extra support costs and lost revenue from device sales out weigh the extra money made from iTunes sales? Who knows.

Queue Palm firmware update to allow syncing again.

God forbid Apple support devices that they don't make! It's such a mammoth, impossible task...! Oh wait, both Linux and Windows manage it. Whoops.

I think it's fair enough that Apple stop the Pre from synching up with iTunes.

At the end of the day, iTunes is Apple software. Software costs money to develop, and Apple have obviously invested heavily in iTunes. Why should other companies be able to "piggy back" their hard-work and investment?

I doubt they will. If they took any deliberate action to prevent iTunes working with competitor's equipment it would be seen as an abuse of their near monopoly in that market. They would face massively expensive anti trust lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions and for what? To piss on a tiny competitor that was never a real threat. Only Microsoft are that self destructively vindictive.

I think they would win the law-suit, to be honest.

iTunes is Apple's software, it's not open software and nobody has a right to use it.

When did Microsoft ever get penalised for stopping competitors piggy-backing their software? They've been told to open up their software, but only because it was all that was available.

And therein lies the problem for Apple - when you have a monopoly, the rules change. As far as I'm aware, no competition authority has deemed Apple to be a monopolist, but that's because such authorities prefer to let markets sort themselves out before wading in. A move by Apple to abuse its position as a dominant player could, however, prompt action by anti-trust authorities, especially in the EU, which seems quite litigious these days.

As Microsoft and its fanboys found, it can be frustrating being the biggest kid on the block beacuse you can't can't do all sorts of stuff that other companies get away with every day. It's the price you pay for being at the top of the tree.

Personally, I think the statement Apple put out regarding the Pre (can't get that silly diacritical on this Windows keyboard) was part wind up, part bottom-covering from a legal sense in case some wingnut Pre owner decided to sue Apple because iTunes fried their new shiny.

I still think this is a different situation. Apple aren't forcing their software on anyone - that's what Microsoft have been in trouble for in the past.

try the ALT GR +e to get é

Want to sync your iFail? You must use iTunes.

You know, rubbish like iFail really doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look silly as the product clearly isn't a fail. Having to use iTunes to sync an iPod isn't the issue - no-one really cares about that; well, no-one who matters. The issue is Apple stopping others piggybacking on iTunes and using it to sync their devices.

On one hand I'd agree with Nick and say it's Apple's software and they have every right to tell Palm to go [LIFTED] themselves and write their own bloody software. But I don't think the bad PR from such a move or the possible litigation would do Apple any good.

It's no big issue if Pre owners use iTunes. Who knows, they may decide they like it so much they buy an iPhone next time round.

It's anti-competitive, tell Trading Standards and the OFT that anti-competitive behaviour isn't important and that they can all pack up and go home. And I'll call the iFail whatever I like thank you, people bought it because it was the fashion, not because it was any good.

Glad I don’t have an iFail then. It sounds rubbish.

On the other hand, my iPhone rocks

That's completely different. That's a product which people choose to go and buy, knowing that iTunes is part of the service package. Microsoft have been done in the past because people have bought an operating system, and Microsoft have forced Internet Explorer on people because they didn't want them to use an alternative. It's absolutely different.

How? If you buy Windows you get IE, what's the difference? You accept that fact when you buy Windows, no one is forcing you to buy Windows. It's exactly the same.