Question 1 is plainly obvious. Can you use iTunes without an iPod? The answer is clearly and cleanly YES. Does it offer benefits and uses as a stand alone application? Again clearly yes. I don’t think anyone is denying that Apple has created a fantastic application with iTunes. Nor is anyone trying to diminish the quality or compatibility of it. But lets be honest if iTunes was meant to only work with iPod’s or any other apple hardware, why doesn’t ship with the iPod? I mean do you need an internet connection to sync? NO!!! You need an internet connection to BUY. The whole premise of what iTunes is, is a market place for buying music, video and what ever type of media that Apple decides to throw your way. Do they charge to download iTunes if you don’t have one of their iPod’s? Of course not. They still want your money for music purchases even if you don’t have one of their audio devices.

Now onto question 2. Come on Apple is it hardware or software you are peddling. Apple doesn’t give iTunes away with iPod’s nor is there a barrier to entry for getting iTunes. They are not going to stop someone for buying music on iTunes if they don’t have an iPod. Heck anyone can download iTunes with an internet connection. They aren’t even worried about it being a marketing tool. You don’t even have to register to download it. When I say play both sides of the fence I mean if iTunes can and is used as a stand alone application why are they insisting that it is only meant for use with Apple approved devices? Their devices are great and all, but there is a reason that other devices exist on the market. I have a 6 year old that can barely keep track of her shoes. Why on earth would I go and give her an almost $100 item to lose or better yet put through the wash? I have already taken the time and effort to put all of my music in iTunes. Dare I say hours making sure all of the albums have graphics and all of my cd’s are ripped and nicely organized into folders. Purchased music for my kids to listen to on the computer before they were old enough to be trusted with an iPod.

The idea of allowing other devices to work with iTunes is not one of compatibility it is market power. They are trying to keep iPod’s on top. iTunes is responsible for 69% of digital music sales. So by forcing consumers to only use iPod’s with iTunes they are locking the average consumer into their hardware, but it in a fairly deceptive way.

It isn’t that I think Apple is wrong for wanting to keep their hardware on top, but they got into the software market of pushing digital music long before they got into issues of who can work with iTunes. I realize Palm Pre is the first one to push it to extreme, but they won’t be the last.

Stac…

1. There are 100,000+ plus Pre users which have chosen a smartphone that is not the iPhone (for many reasons that include carrier, customer needs etc, as with any product choice) – nothing can change this. So Apple is left with either the option of either making revenue from this customer base buying non-DRM content on the iTunes Store, or not. If they shut out this customer base, they will increase sales to their competitor Amazon – so considering this, is it logical for Apple to take measures to forego this revenue in exchange for none?

2. Third party solutions that sync devices with iTunes are commonplace (such as Blackberry’s) whereby people can get their content managed on iTunes onto their device – so in a way, does it really matter whether a device like the Pre syncs within iTunes vs a device like the Storm which syncs with a minor third party element? No fuss was created when RIM introduced its third-party iTunes sync (and rightly so as an independent piece of software) but at the end of the day, the Pre (and RIM devices and others) are and will continue to access iTunes. If Apple block the Pre, they can release a RIM-style third party solution and Pres will STILL sync with iTunes. Locking the Pre out of iTunes wont change that…. so ultimately would that measure achieve anything? Ultimately, companies will seek ways to connect iTunes’ content management to their devices anyway.

I’m curious about third-party devices showing up in the sidebar and being writable — do you have any examples? I only know of things like the Slingbox and Simplify Media, which use DAAP to be playable through iTunes; they show up as shared libraries. But just like real shared libraries, you can’t copy music into or out of them through iTunes.

However, it is possible to manipulate the iTunes library through the COM API on Windows and through AppleScript on the Mac, so it _is_ possible for a third party to write a complete iTunes syncing tool, which reads from the XML file and writes through COM/AppleScript.

iTunes is not the closed system people think. Many devices can plug in and show up in the sidebar for manual drag and drop of media. Also, the iTunes library is stored as a simple XML file, which any vendor can write against.

As I’ve said before, the issue is not with a third party device using iTunes (Apple has no issue with that), it’s about using iTunes SYNC. Apple specifically limits this to iPods as a differentiating feature, and Palm has proven this since they had to hack the system to imitate an iPod in order to get it to work.

Apple currently has only one main competitor for online digital music distribution: Amazon.

Consumers should be able to buy their music and copy their music and sync their music wherever they like. Whether it’s an iPhone or iPod or BlackBerry or Palm Pre.

Reverse engineering for compatibility isn’t the same thing as stealing source code — or former employees revealing trade secrets (as the author here impugns the integrity of former Apple employees at Palm in this article).

I’m against vertical integration — and if you buy something from iTunes and have to use it with Apple hardware, it starts sounding to me like vertical integration, which the monopoly laws were conceived of to protect consumers from.

(I do see a business argument for ignoring/tolerating the hacky sync: it’s a known quantity. If they block it, and this pushes Palm into developing a full-on iPod/iTunes ecosystem competitor, Palm will _probably_ fail to make inroads. But what if they actually managed to develop and deliver as well as they have with the Pre device itself? It might be a smaller gamble for Apple to just tolerate the piggybacking… and of course, that means they keep a small part of Palm’s business under their thumb.)

And actually… I think we do agree. My point has always been that Apple should cut off this access, close the loophole. And it sounds like you pretty much agree with that. And I agree that Palm is not doing anything specifically wrong by exploiting this loophole, except that they are misleading customers who think this is part of the phone but may cease to function at any moment.

So… agree to agree! Good talk.

Palm doesn’t automatically get the whole shebang; they have a hack that makes them a second-class citizen; and it’s fragile — even if Apple doesn’t deliberately break it, it may break anyway, and while some customers may blame Apple for this, it’s certain that many more will place the blame right on Palm, which isn’t good for them. It’s definitely in their best interests in the long term to improve that, by whatever method they can work out: build their own infrastructure, do one-way sync with iTunes through supported methods (the XML library file), convince Apple to license iTunes sync to them, coöperate with Songbird…

It is wrong for them to describe it in such a way that it appears to be legitimate and supported. But I have no problem whatsoever with them taking a shortcut and hooking into a competitor’s product for part of their functionality, in order to get a good product to market quickly. More importantly, I don’t think “Apple has invested in this so everyone else should have to invest just as much” is an argument that is good for consumers; take _that_ to its end game — like egregious software patents — and no small company will ever be able to compete against a larger company in the same market area.

Apple has zero duty to keep Pre’s iTunes sync functional, and every right to actively stop it; and Palm should not be feigning innocence and making this look like a fully supported feature. I think we’re in agreement on these points, but differ significantly in how we get there and on some of the surrounding points.

However, I don’t think we’ll convince each other today. Agree to disagree?

Even if I agreed with the premise that Apple may want this (and I see both sides to that argument), it’s nearly impossible to believe they would do it this way.

I mean, did Palm hack iTunes and then Apple said “Hey, wait a minute, we should have allowed this anyway, let’s let it pass”? I don’t think so.

“There is simply no information, no rumours, and no evidence that Apple “doesn’t want other devices using iTunes.””

First of all, we’re talking iTunes SYNC, not just iTunes. A big difference. And there is most certainly evidence that Apple doesn’t want SYNC used: They’ve published no way for it to be done! And the released Tech Bulletin certainly emphasizes that point.

If Apple wants to open iTunes syncing, they’ll do it far, far better than this. If they’re “actively working on plug-in modules and licensing agreements right now”, then they’d STILL stop the method Palm is using now.

Ultimately, I believe the Palm hack is separate from any discussion of whether Apple will (or should) open up syncing to third parties.

The DRM-ed files you bought from Apple with the understanding that the product you were buying was compatible with a certain set of products. You were free to buy the DVD instead of the iTunes version of the movie, or to buy the cd or MP3 from Amazon or a thousand other brick and mortar stores instead of the iTunes music file. But you chose the convenience and speed of the iTunes Music Store.

As for video, can you use video you buy anywhere else in the way you describe? On Demand? XBox Live? PS3? No, video is currently locked to pretty much the device you buy it for. Even DVDs are still locked to regions.

DRM sucked, and not being able to use that music on other devices is bull, I’m with you there. But that’s in the past.

Let’s do this another way, let’s say when you launch iTunes, the software is launched from your iPod’s hard drive and not from your computer’s hard drive. Your music would be in Windows Explorer, but you would only be able to manage it using iTunes when your iPod was physically connected. Would that software be somehow unfairly limiting other devices? I don’t think so, and I really don’t see what the difference is.

I guess the question is, why would Apple continue to develop iTunes if it made every other mp3 player as valuable as theirs? Why not just close down the shop, shut down the software and stop innovating? And then who does that help? Do we all remember a time before iTunes where music management was hell and nobody could solve it?

A “functional monopoly on the computer music industry” is a pretty specific thing. I have a functional monopoly on the desk drawers in my office, but that doesn’t mean I have an actual monopoly from a business perspective. And they don’t have a monopoly on music management, Microsoft has a strong competitor that has so far been unable to catch up but may eventually. Their Zune store has seen significant improvement as it tries (and so far fails) to out-maneuver iTunes.

I mean, what’s the end game here? Zune works with iTunes, Pre works with iTunes, iPod works with iTunes? When iTunes stops providing any incentive to buy an iPod, Apple stops making iTunes, stops driving the market forward in innovation, and we as consumers lose something valuable. The alternate is that a competitor, like Palm or Apple, creates something amazing that kicks Apple’s ass just like Apple kicked the ass of the wimpy music management software that existed before it. If you want innovation, let’s innovate. This isn’t innovation, it’s a piggy back ride.

Alex, as I understand your argument, the entire thing hinges on the fact that Apple is the market leader. You’re not complaining that the Zune software doesn’t support the iPod or the Pre, or that you can’t put Palm web OS on an iPhone. The thing is, they’re a market leader largely because of the software they’ve made, and I disagree with the idea that because they’re successful, they have to share the wealth with everybody. This isn’t kids’ tee ball, where everybody gets a participation trophy and there’s a mercy rule to stop the competition when things get tough. What you’re talking about isn’t competition, Alex, because software is a part of the competition. You’re talking about suspending the competition to give an underdog a leg up, which is completely different.

Apple has a functional monopoly on the computer music industry. If you want to get all technical about it, Microsoft shouldn’t have been slapped with anti-trust because they weren’t a monopoly; aside from the fact that other browsers were freely available for their system, you could always choose a different platform. That isn’t the standard, though.

You hit the nail on the head when you say “If you want to bring your music with you, however, and you want to use iTunes to manage that process… you need to buy an iTunes-compatible product.” That’s the problem, isn’t it? If you buy something through iTunes, and you “own” it, why should you be limited in any way as to what device to copy it to? Shouldn’t I be able to copy it wherever I like? Sure, you can say that they now sell songs DRM-free, but I’ve bought a bunch that are definitely DRMed, and their video content is still DRMed; it’s a walled-garden, but I ought to be able to get it from my computer to any device I own.

A whole different set of rules apply to you when you go from being an option to *the* option.