Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTS, iTunes, iPhone
Future iTunes versions could block the Pre, but why?
Yesterday, Megan noted a Fortune story saying that iTunes syncs flawlessly with the new Palm Pre. This, of course, got the water-cooler talk bubbling: "How did Palm pull it off? Will Apple allow this to happen?"
Turns out they already have. A tech note on Apple's website notes the two dozen or so third-party players that iTunes (for Mac OS X, at least) is compatible with, including Rio and Creative Labs Nomad MP3 players. True, many of the models listed predate the iPod, and the tech note itself was last updated a little less than a year ago. But third-party device compatibility with iTunes isn't without precedent.
Daring Fireball's John Gruber pointed to a story by Jon Lech Johansen that says Apple may block iTunes access to the Pre in a future update; Gruber himself said he "wouldn't be surprised if they did." I'm not so sure.
First, let's look at how it works. According to Johansen, a unique USB device ID allows iTunes to recognize MP3 players (including iPods) that it's compatible with. Johansen speculates that Palm is using one of these IDs when communicating with iTunes. If it's an iPod's unique ID, then it will work with iTunes for Windows, too; this is an important litmus test and we don't know the results yet.
I can understand Apple might not cotton to a Palm Pre specifically masquerading as an iPod USB device. Given that, allowing the Pre to freely communicate with iTunes isn't necessarily bad business sense, presuming Palm implements the functionality in a forthright manner (like other third-party MP3 players that iTunes already supports).
Why limit access to the Pre, aside from pure spite? If someone already uses iTunes, chances are they have some quantity of DRM-free iTunes Plus music on their computer. There's no technical reason why the music shouldn't be easily playable on the Pre. One of the upshots of removing DRM in the iTunes store is to facilitate device interoperability. Allow non-Apple devices to play iTunes music, and suddenly Apple has customers it didn't have before.
If Apple chooses to cut off just the Pre, and Palm is following the rules, Apple is unnecessarily cutting a stream of revenue. That's something I don't see Apple doing lightly.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Dave said 3:43PM on 5-30-2009
If the Pre looks like an iPod to iTunes how is Apple going to block access to the Pre and not iPods?
Due to the fact that Rubenstein has insider knowledge of Apple's hardware I think there's a better chance of Jobs & Co. asking for an injunction against Palm.
Reply
Andrew Timson said 6:20PM on 5-30-2009
Apple could force a firmware update for the mocked iPod. Alternately, the Pre may not behave exactly identical to a real iPod model, just "close enough".
Cycomachead said 11:16PM on 5-30-2009
That seems like a very odd solution because if you plugged in a Pre it would show up as some random iPod/iPhone. Apple could easily block this by buying a Pre, and releasing a new version of iTunes.
Also, iPod identifiers are generally public knowledge as long as you own that iPod model. They're stored in preference files on the computer you sync an iPod with.
ben said 11:38PM on 5-30-2009
Dave, Apple would have to release a firmware update for every single iPod they created. They would also break compatibility with all those other devices which would annoy those other companies.
Andrew, Apple can't force a firmware update for the Pre. First of all, the Palm can't take firmware updates through iTunes, just sync the DRM-free songs. Second, Apple would get in huge trouble if they tried that. Modifying someone else's software is completely different from writing a program to talk with it. I believe it is even a violation of the DMCA since they'd have to reverse engineer WebOS.
Jon said 4:12AM on 5-31-2009
Those other devices are not seen as iPods so they won't be affected. The purpose of doing this would not be to put iPhone OS on the Pre but to break it. However, the legal repercussions could be severe if Apple is found to have deliberately done this, so it is unlikely.
Of course, they may just respond to the Pre by making the iPhone better - no-one seems to have considered that possibility yet.
JKT said 4:18AM on 5-31-2009
Ben, I'm pretty sure Andrew meant forcing a firmware update for the Pre *legally*. While impractical, I have little trouble imagining Cupertino considering it if not succeeding.
Quix is right; Apple will want to block this due to iTunes not making them nearly as much $ as seling iPhones.
Andrew Timson said 1:08AM on 6-01-2009
Actually, I meant forcing a firmware update for whatever model the Pre is imitating. Change how that model appears to iTunes, and then block however it used to appear.
Quantumphysics said 11:16PM on 6-03-2009
I believe it makes sense for Apple to allow the PRE to work through itunes, so long as they release a update that recognizes the pre as a pre and not as an ipod.
Apple is dead set on making sure their devices are completely integrated with their software and that they communicate properly.
allowing PRE to work with itunes ensures that people who may buy a pre and already have iPods (which most people do) won't be scared that their music will be lost. The only reason I think apple would cut off pre is if Palm launched its own App store-like market or its own itunes-market.
What may also happen is apple can allow Pre to stay on, but give future ipods and iphones extra features through itunes that the pre won't be able to imitate. Then people will want to have an iphone instead.
paullloydjohnson said 3:58PM on 5-30-2009
The reason Apple would do such a thing is simple. iTunes is the music library of choice for most people these days. For a few people, not being able to sync the Pre with iTunes could be a deal breaker and those same people may decide to buy an iPhone instead.
Reply
dagamer43 said 4:11PM on 5-30-2009
Being a de facto monopoly in the music market, such a move would start the drum roll that Apple is abusing it's control over iTunes, especially in the EU. And considering the fact that there's no more DRM in the iTunes music store, there is no technical reason why the Pre can't/shouldn't sync with iTunes.
macserv said 11:37PM on 5-30-2009
The Pre doesn't need to spoof anything to be able to sync non-DRM music. iTunes already does this with dozens of generic MP3 players out there. If they're trying to sync more than music, and doing so by pretending to be Apple hardware... that's where they're probably violating a license somewhere, and Apple is required have a problem with that.
Just syncing non-DRM music through iTunes, though? That has *never* been a problem, and support for it is definitely not newsworthy.
krizoitz said 11:38PM on 5-30-2009
@dagamer43:
First, Apple isn't a defacto monopoly at all. CD sales are still greater, and alternative online stores such as, oh I don't know, Amazon, are doing quite well. Being popular or the leader does not make one a defacto monopoly by any means.
Second, why should Apple let Palm piggyback on their hard work? If palm wants to write their own app to manage music fine, let them, but iTunes is a music manager designed to work with the iPods. The music itself isn't forbidden, they can get at it just fine. OR if iTunes allows syncing, fine, but don't masquerade as an iPod to get it to work, thats shady.
Adam Schoales said 4:09PM on 5-30-2009
Let's see, Chicken MACnuggets, MAC and cheese, MACINTOSH apples, and Pepsi... MACS err Max.
Hows that for punny?
Reply
Adam Schoales said 4:10PM on 5-30-2009
whoops ignore that... 1Password apparently cached my old post...
André said 4:22PM on 5-30-2009
iTunes supported the Rio back in 2000. Before they launched the iPod.
Apple doesn't care of cutting a stream of revenue. If they did they would've licensed FairPlay DRM to other companies. I'm sure they are gonna block the Pre soon.
Reply
Dan Woods said 7:29PM on 5-30-2009
The reason they didn't license FairPlay is because the record companies who's music they distributed insisted on a completely closed shop.
Other DRM schemes of the time were also closed shop. Microsoft had complete control of PlaysForSure DRM; and had to maintain different libraries for different devices. Their Zune DRM only works on the Zune.
FairPlay was all about appeasing the Record Industry and was not about protecting a stream of revenue, otherwise, we would not have iTunes Plus.
Eduardo said 10:07PM on 5-30-2009
IDK about that...DRM was required by stipulation of Apple's contracts with the Labels. Jobs wrote his open letter calling for non-DRM tracks so that consumers can use their music as they choose. The only reason for them not to license FairPlay was to from reverse engineering FairPlay content to hinder piracy. (Remember when DVD john reverse engineered FairPlay? Didn't last long.)
iTunes plus will indeed help Apple reach a larger customer base. More consumers using iTunes, regardless of whether or not it's an iPod, in many cases will lead to more future purchases from Apple. iTunes lead me to my first 4th gen iPod, then 5th gen iPod, then iPod nano, then Mac mini, then MacBook Pro, then iPhone, and iPod classic; that's the case for many people I know...maybe not that extreme, but at least in some form.
So, I don't know that they'll specifically block the Pre's access to iTunes. More than likely they'll make some behind the scenes changes, and possibly license it to Palm so that it shows up in iTunes as "Pre" instead of an old iPod. But in the end, iTunes will still work best with iPod + iPhone. They'll market the benefits of using their hardware to get more switchers.
André said 10:02PM on 5-31-2009
Apple could've done the same thing that Microsoft did with PlaysForSure.
But the point is, Apple isn't going to support the Pre natively. I'm sure Apple is going to block the Pre in the next update. We all know how closed Apple is. :)
Quix said 4:33PM on 5-30-2009
"Why limit access to the Pre, aside from pure spite?"
Um, how about pure business? iTunes is not the money maker for Apple - the hardware is. Giving iTunes access to any and all devices adds low-profit business (selling songs and videos), but at the expense of high-profit (hardware) business.
I see blocking the Pre in iTunes as a bad move, but there are logical reasons for Apple to do so.
Reply
Bill G said 4:43PM on 5-30-2009
I'm with Quix. And how after all these years people writing about Apple still don't recognize that the iTunes store as a breakeven/loss leader service to sell hardware instead of a profit center mystifies me.