

Apple Blocks Pre's Itunes Access - theklub
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8155795.stm

======
philwelch
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.

~~~
designtofly
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...](http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/26/apple-
vs-palm-geeks-with-grudges/)

~~~
jemmons
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.

------
electromagnetic
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.

~~~
jemmons
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.

------
oomkiller
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).

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
designtofly
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>

~~~
tptacek
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.

------
onreact-com
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?

