Palm Pre "iTunes Hack" Detailed By DVD Jon 338
CNETNate writes "As the reviews of the Palm Pre start to roll in, DVD Jon expands on previous coverage of the Pre showing up in iTunes as some sort of an iPod, by publishing the offending code Palm has used to enabled the feature. As suspected, in regular USB mode, the phone addresses itself as a standard peripheral. But in 'Media Sync' mode, it claims to be an iPod ... from a vendor known as Apple."
Poor Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like a risky move by Palm, their entire future most likely rests on this device. Without it succeeding the risk of Palm going under are pretty high. Might as well shoot for the fences I guess.
Time for an open standard (Score:2, Insightful)
These types of hacks used to be common. Everybody had their own proprietary protocols and did everything they could to lock customers into their own high-priced peripherals. Companies constantly hacked other companies' protocols and interfaces so they could offer alternatives.
These days this is rare because now the industry knows the value of standards, open when possible. In hindsight I think Palm has the right idea in trying to interface with iTunes for media syncing.
Is it time for an open standard for media syncing?
Why is either silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly Apple, if it only identifies its devices via a USB identifier, but interacts with them in standard, easily emulated ways, all the while going for the exclusivity angle.
If it's only identifying devices in a standard, easily enumerated way - then they obviously are not going for the exclusivity angle. That part is your assertion but actual technical details seem to prove your assertion wrong.
Silly Palm, for thinking Apple will take this lying down.
I honestly don't think Apple will care much. It leads to more people buying things from iTunes after all and cements the dominance of iTunes for managing media. Perhaps they even did this in conjuction with Palm... if you think about it they would have been smart to do so.
But kudos for the balls to do it anyway.
Can't argue with that. Palm is an amazing company to come back the way they have, makes me think of the Palm of old...
Aha, one mode (Score:5, Insightful)
But Palm wont be able to certify their device as USB unless the hack is an aftermarket hack.
Why not? When you hit "Mount as Storage", the device acts as a bog standard USB mass storage device.
When you hit media sync, it acts totally differently. But why should a special mode of using USB stop certification when it does offer a standard mode...
Offering different options when plugging into USB is sheer genius.
Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
There was an earlier case involving game carts and embedded trademarked identifiers where it was ruled that another company was allowed to use a particular trademark embedded in ROM because it was required to enable the full functionality of the game machine. So using your trademarked name as a "magic number" will not prevent others from connecting to your device or software legally. Once you use the trademark for a purpose other than identifying your business or product, it may become fair game in that other context.
If they were misrepresenting themselves to USERS as an Apple device in order to make sales (like the famous "Rollex Watch"), then they'd be in big trouble, but if all they're doing is misrepresenting themselves to the machine in order to get around some technical limitations of the software, then they should be fine.
Apple is not a Police Officer (Score:4, Insightful)
They are pretending to be an Apple device. I don't think that's legal.
What's the charge? "Impersonating an Apple Device"? What law is that exactly...
As I noted, the only hook is that the USB id has the word Apple which could be a trademark violation... but all the car adaptors looking for iPods have the word "Apple" embedded in order to look for said iPods. There's a strong case to be made that the string is there for the purpose of interoperability.
I don't even think it's grey enough an area to be worth a lawsuit. Did you hear of a suit filed today? Apple has known exactly how this mimicing would work for a few weeks now, you would have heard something either before or around launch.
Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software? Gimmie a break dude. If you can get my goddamn Nano 3G to work with Linux, you can have it.
(That's right, a free iPod Nano!)
Re:Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you say that? A quick google search shows most sites estimate iTunes market share as between 50% and 70% of the legal downloads market. That's comfortably enough for most regulators to consider it a monopoly.
Of course being a monopoly isn't illegal. It only becomes a problem when you try to use your monopoly in one area to create or expand a monopoly in another. Say like taking a monopoly in digital music sales and using it to help a monopoly in digital music players? Maybe or maybe not. Still, I'd be hesitant to describe Apple's digital music business as something other than a monopoly.
Re:Aha, one mode (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no code here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumping the USB registers: cool.
Commentator confusing USB registers with code: not cool.
Mod DVD Jon +1
Mod Slashdot -1
I was wondering about that too... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like the USB certification is required to sell anything. It's just a way to put a logo on a box, a logo Palm does not really need. Everyone knows it connects via USB and the cable is standard...
Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal (Score:1, Insightful)
iTunes isn't done until Pre won't run?
The only thing more sickening than Apple's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on.
Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
They are pretending to be an Apple device. I don't think that's legal.
This computer is claiming to be an IBM PC. IBM sued. IBM lost.
The DMCA didn't exist then, and syncing a Pre with iTunes can be seen as breaking a functional copyright enforcement device.
Re:Why is either silly (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember, though - Apple's goal with iTunes is less to sell music and more to move iPods and iPhones. To that end, anything that syncs with iTunes is not helping them with their iPod domination goal.
Re:Umm... why the fuss? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good or Bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
You really think that there isn't a SINGLE Apple employee who couldn't get hold of a Pre if they wanted to, or that they don't already have one? Even in their hardware, PR, developer etc. departments? And that "revelation" was basically revealed by plugging the device in and looking at the usbid... lsusb would have done it in a single command and there are even prettier interfaces for Windows for free.
Obscurity is a waste of time when you're hoping the *designers* of a system don't realise how you've worked around it - it's like "telling" the DVD forum about the CSS hack - they already know *how* you circumvent it, but they may not know the exact method by which you discovered it (that's the bit that *doesn't* matter). The designers of any such system already know, or it would take seconds to make 10 guesses at how, and it would take minutes to actually discover how even without basic knowledge - you just run it through a debug version of iTunes and see what happens.
Don't be silly. It's like saying Microsoft don't know how people are installing pirate copies of Windows, or upping the TCP connection limit, or Nintendo not knowing how the Wii hacks work. It takes *seconds* for them to work it out once it's been revealed, even if they would never have thought of it. They DESIGNED the system, after all.
Re:Poor Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Don't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on.
2) Don't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game. Especially with the likes of Apple, who are really good at that particular game.
3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup. Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.
Re:Why is either silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of iTunes as a driving force between iPod sales rather than the iPod as a driving force behind iTunes sales and you'll understand why Apple may be against this.
Thanks, then even clearer (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, I have to set something straight. It doesn't look for the string "Apple." It looks for a 2 byte code which MEANS apple.
Thanks, I had not looked up that detail of what form the ID took...
Then it's even more clearly something Apple cannot sue over.
Re:Umm... why the fuss? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to know just one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither looks like anything complicated nor like anything illegal.
Force Neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of iTunes as a driving force between iPod sales rather than the iPod as a driving force behind iTunes sales and you'll understand why Apple may be against this.
Yes, I totally agree the intent is for iTunes to sell iPods.
The Pre supporting iTunes does not change this equation. More people using iTunes is more people that might have a reason to get an iPhone, even if at first they get a Pre.
Also, there are a lot of people that have phones but also iPods. Having a smaller iPod for running is common...
Further, iTunes Video still cannot be played so there's still some push to getting an iPod video device of some kind.
Re:Aha, one mode (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hardly novel -- my Nokia phone has done this for the last 2 or more years and I have no reason to believe other phones haven't been doing it for far longer. The only difference is that my phone doesn't have an "iPod mode".
Re:DMCA ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
All Apple has to do is ROT-13 their handshakes.
What, and break all the old iPods' ability to sync? Yeah, that'll go over real well.
Handshaking doesn't exist in hardware, it exists in software.
There isn't an iPod made that Apple could simply release an update for with new handshaking routines (such as ROT-13).
Re:Umm... why the fuss? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quoth DVD Jon... (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S. If Palm had just gone to Apple and said "we want to make the Palm Pre sync with iTunes", would Apple have been reasonable about it? I saw a comment on Slashdot mentioning that there are non-Apple devices that sync with iTunes, implying that Apple can be reasonable.
That ability is left-over from the SoundJam days, which is why the list is so antiquated. I'm also pretty sure that whatever sync code there is for 3rd party devices was written by Apple, not the device manufacturer.
Personally, I think this is one of those, "Easier to ask forgiveness than permission" things. Assuming that Apple will sue Palm, this is just another thing that Apple can add to the list and will be worked out in whatever settlement Apple and Palm come to.
Re:DMCA ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is much the same. Unless the Pre had features built in to make copyright infringement easy, reverse engineering the iTunes-iPod interface for interoperability likely wouldn't be affected by the DMCA.
Given Apple's got a dominant market position in both MP3 players and online media distribution, although I'm hesitant to say a monopoly position, firing back at Palm for this could place them in the antitrust hot seat.
Re:DMCA ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
They are circumventing the (very poorly conceived and implemented) technology that enforces the rule that only iPods can connect to iTunes
Which is not a copyright protection technology.
You can't put DRM'd files on the Palm Pre. the Pre does not crack or remove the iTunes DRM. Everything you can do wtih a Pre and iTunes you can do with an iPhone and iTunes. Ergo, Apple hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Neither will Palm if Apple just switches it -- aside from a possible monopoly claim. Really, though, "a rising tide lifts all boats." The more devices look to iTunes, the more iTunes gets used. The more iTunes gets used, the more direct revenue for Apple. and they'll sell more iPods, too.
Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple v. Franklin (1983) [wikipedia.org]
Palm didn't copy Apple's code in this instance. You're comparing oranges and fish.
Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the sounds of it, this hack isn't based off any information that can't be had with trivial USB sniffing. As others have put it, this is no more complex than changing the useragent string for your web browser.