USB-IF Sides With Apple, Spanks Palm in iTunes Synch Spat
by John Paczkowski
Posted on September 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM PT
The USB Implementers Forum, the industry group that oversees the universal serial bus standard, has finally responded to Palm’s claim that Apple is “hampering competition” by repeatedly disabling the Palm Pre’s ability to synch with iTunes–and it’s not looking good for Palm.
In a letter submitted to Apple and Palm today, the group dismissed Palm’s claim that Apple has violated its USB-IF Membership Agreement. Worse, the Forum took issue with Palm’s alleged use of Apple’s vendor identification number, which it says violates USB-IF policy.
Palm (PALM) had argued that Apple (AAPL), by issuing an update to iTunes that used the USB vendor ID number to prevent the software from automatically transferring content to any non-Apple USB device, had violated “the letter and spirit of the USB-IF Membership Agreement,” which is “intended to facilitate interoperability between USB devices, not to regulate the content that flows between them.”
But the USB-IF didn’t quite see things that way. “In the view of the USB-IF, Palm’s allegation (if true) does not establish that Apple is using its Vendor ID (VID) contrary to the USB-IF’s policies,” the group said. “Therefore, under present USB-IF policies, the USB-IF does not consider the alleged use, without more, to be ‘improper.’”
Ugly news for Palm, and it only gets worse–because the USB-IF goes on to suggest that Palm itself is violating its Membership Agreement by using Apple’s vendor ID number to disguise the Pre as an Apple device. From the USB-IF letter:
… Your letter also states that:
“Palm will shortly issue an update of its WebOS operating system that uses Apple’s Vendor ID number for the sole purpose of restoring the Palm media sync functionality.”
I attach for your information the USB-IF’s adopted and published policy regarding Vendor Identification Numbers (VIDs). Under the Policy, Palm may only use the single Vendor ID issued to Palm for Palm’s usage. Usage of any other company’s Vendor ID is specifically precluded. Palm’s expressed intent to use Apple’s VID appears to violate the attached policy.
Please clarify Palm’s intent and respond to this potential violation within seven days.
Uh oh.
Clearly, this isn’t the outcome Palm imagined when it first decided to up the ante in its quaint little cat-and-mouse game with Apple. Reached for comment, Palm had only this to say: “We engaged with the USB-IF because we believe consumers should have freedom and choice in how and where they use the non-rights managed media they already own. We are reviewing the letter from the USB-IF and will respond as appropriate.”
Comments
“We engaged with the USB-IF because we believe consumers should have freedom and choice in how and where they use the non-rights managed media they already own.”
Palm seems to be intentionally pushing an adversarial position with Apple. I think Elevation Partners is the driving force behind this activity. Positioning Palm to be bought by an Apple competitor?
Posted by Lenny Pudinskaya at September 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 pmAfter all, this is all about nothing but software.
Therefore, it would be quite easy for Palm to deliver a USB-IF-compliant software (with Palm’s Vendor ID) and to leave it to some smart developer to release some “registry patch” that would replace the Vendor ID by Apple’s one.
Then everyone would see that indeed consumers want freedom and choice, which is not what Apple is delivering.
Posted by Alan B. Livio at September 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 amActually, I think consumers have repeatedly demonstrated through their actions that what they really want is freedom from choice, i.e., simplicity and elegance, not the bewildering assault of “features” that is nirvana to us geeks. Apple is delivering this and Palm, a competitor, is asking for a free ride on Apple’s IP.
Posted by dmitri smyslov at September 23rd, 2009 at 5:44 amIf it were only possible for BOTH sides to lose.
Taking “mindshare” into account that is probably just what is happening.
There seem to be no adults in this game.
Posted by Mac Beach at September 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 am> smart developer to release some
> “registry patch” that would
> replace the Vendor ID by Apple’s
> one.
> Then everyone would see that
> indeed consumers want freedom
> and choice, which is not what
> Apple is delivering.
That is just so much BS. You are free to choose an iPhone or a Pre, that is the choice. You’re not free to choose a Pre with the iPhone media sync software. You also can’t choose to play PlayStation games on your XBox.
The tech industry has this weird thing where they pretend software and hardware are different things, when they are actually the same thing, just in 2 states, like water and ice.
When you buy an iPod, you’re not just buying the physical device you hold in your hand, there is also software at both ends of the iPod sync cable. That is why the iPod as a total package works for so many users, even non-technical users. When you buy a Pre, you don’t get this. That is because Palm did not provide it. If consumers want it, then Palm should provide it. It is up to Palm to meet the demands of their users, not Apple.
> If it were only possible for BOTH sides
> to lose.
You found the one way to make this whole thing even more pointless than it is.
> Taking “mindshare” into account that
> is probably just what is happening.
The amount of mindshare that Apple gets from Palm is so ridiculously small it cannot be measured. On the other hand, Palm executives have said the word “iPhone” more times publicly than they’ve said “Pre.”
> There seem to be no adults in this game.
I truly despise when someone mediates a disagreement between 2 parties by throwing up their hands and saying they’re both wrong. I know it’s easier than actually looking into what happened and making an informed judgement, but you’re just making noise.
Palm exposed a legitimate bug in iTunes (it assumed any device calling itself an “iPod” was an Apple device instead of checking) and Apple fixed it (iTunes now checks the vendor ID also so it sees both “Apple” and “iPod”). I would love for you to use some of your infinite wisdom to explain how Apple should have handled this differently. Please don’t forget to treat us to the business case that Steve Jobs should make to the Apple board about this, so that Apple investors know exactly why Apple is spending time and money making media sync software for Palm.
Posted by Fred Hamranhansenhansen at September 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 amI love Palm’s innovation. The Pre is a good (though not great) product. But there’s a difference between innovating and cheating.
Posted by Michael Critz at September 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm