There using the same B.S. as Psystar. The iTunes store, iTunes application is the intellectual property of Apple, created by Apple, for Apple products ONLY.

At Testudo. Come on, 8 months before before the iPod? Sure iTunes was released first. But do you really think Apple created the iPod im 8 months or less? Sure they did? Lol. No!! Something like the iPod just like the iPhone takes year or years to develope. Trust me apple knew what they were doing when they bought Soundjam and put there own flavor into it to create iTunes. They were preparing for there BIG announcement, the iPod.
Plus I don't understand why people can't see how apple is different from many companies. They are one of the few if not only consumer electronics maker that makes both hardware and software as a whole. That is there business philosphy and customers respond to it.

USB has nothing to do with it Palm. It's all about using Apple's intellectual property which is iTunes application and the iTunes store to promote your own product which competes with the iphone. Apple doesn't give a hoot how you use USB, just don't use Apple's applications as a means to make a profit on your own crappy hardware.

Honestly I can understand why Apple would want to block it. How intuitive would iTunes appear to a customer if they connect their Palm device which ends up not syncing perfectly or something, and they're left seeing a picture of an iPod on the screen? As an uninformed customer I might think that something is wrong with iTunes and that Apple makes crappy software that isn't doing what I want it to do with my Palm.

What Palm should do, is what RIM is doing, make a 3rd party utility, maybe even have it auto run from a small ROM on the device when it connects to a PC or Mac, which then prompts the user to download the newest version of Super Awesome Palm Syncing Software version x69!

Really, wouldn't be that hard to do, and it would be much better for consumers.

I believe this is also a ego, childish prank on palm's ex apple engineers who think that just because they helped in the iTunes/iPod platform that they own it!! Get over it pals! You left a company making waves for the future of handhelds to a dying breed. Look I really wanted to see palm do well and all being they are an American company and all but forcing apple to play this game of who's d*** is bigger than the other shows a side of Palm I think is stupid on there part. Makes me think the engineers over there are still bitter of getting fired or something.

...stupid to think that Apple randomly bought Soundjam with no forward thinking to the iPod. It was blatantly done to support the upcoming iPod. Putting words into caps, does not make you right, Testudo.

As for Palm, not writing their own sync software is pretty pathetic as is whining when a competitor blocks them from their sync software. It reminds me of a Cuckoo laying its eggs in another birds nest.

Apple has to support Palm sync? Are they bound legally to support other devices that are not their own or is this just about being a nice guy?

I always wonder about why ATI didn't write graphics drivers for Mac OSX and always charged more for Mac cards. I thought since they were building the cards, they could do anything they wanted. They never liked the idea of Mac users trying to hack PC cards to work on Macs. I guess there wasn't much money in it for PC ATI cards to work with Macs.

I'm not sure if this Palm sync is exactly the same type of problem, but it really seems odd for iTunes to be forced to support other devices if there's no gain to be made from it. Apple is made into the bad guy when a company such as Palm can easily write their own software for music transfer.

All the years I had to go through problems trying to use Safari on sites that were only made for Internet Explorer. I didn't see Microsoft bending over backwards to help Mac users as far as compatibility was concerned.

Then, 8 months later, Apple thought "Hey, how about making this music app we bought for no reason at all", work with this music player we built? Maybe that works?" Again, there was no intrinsic plan.

And yet it still could still sync with other music players.

Oh, right. We ignore that issue when it cuts against the argument that it was designed solely for the iPod.

Your words Testudo, were "it was neither designed to sync with the iPod nor with the iPod only", which is wrong.

iTunes was first released as an app to showcase CD writers appearing in Macs. Doesn't anyone remember the slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn?"

Yes, the iPod was likely in development at that time.

Regardless, Palm doesn't have a leg to stand on. Palm is just taking the lazy way out and trying to turn their customers against Apple.

iTunes was first released as an app to showcase CD writers appearing in Macs. Doesn't anyone remember the slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn?"

Yes, the iPod was likely in development at that time.

Regardless, Palm doesn't have a leg to stand on. Palm is just taking the lazy way out and trying to turn their customers against Apple.

He's just like Enderle, always wrong. Spouting FUD. Palm is asking for some serious spanking from Apple legal.

To be accurate, Palm employees don't need to be ex-Apple employees to find out vendor ID info about a USB device. Aside from high-end logic analyzers, one can download the dev tools from Apple and use a handy program called "USB Prober" to find out device and vendor IDs.
But this time, I sort of agree with Testudo. Why should another device not be able to sync using iTunes? Maybe only Nintendo should be able to make games for the Wii, or Ford should modify their engines (or better, gas caps) to only allow approved vendors of gasoline to interface with the gas tank.
iPod and iTunes work great together, but if Palm is willing to play ball in their ballpark, the consumer should be given a choice. Only the users suffer when there are fewer choices and dogmatic copy protection/device lockout.
If tying store/device/capabilities is really that great, I want you all to admit that you love Protected AACs better than Purchased AACs. If you don't, you can see that this hardware protectionism is an extension of that thinking.

To be accurate, Palm employees don't need to be ex-Apple employees to find out vendor ID info about a USB device. Aside from high-end logic analyzers, one can download the dev tools from Apple and use a handy program called "USB Prober" to find out device and vendor IDs.
But this time, I sort of agree with Testudo. Why should another device not be able to sync using iTunes? Maybe only Nintendo should be able to make games for the Wii, or Ford should modify their engines (or better, gas caps) to only allow approved vendors of gasoline to interface with the gas tank.
iPod and iTunes work great together, but if Palm is willing to play ball in their ballpark, the consumer should be given a choice. Only the users suffer when there are fewer choices and dogmatic copy protection/device lockout.
If tying store/device/capabilities is really that great, I want you all to admit that you love Protected AACs better than Purchased AACs. If you don't, you can see that this hardware protectionism is an extension of that thinking.

To be accurate, Palm employees don't need to be ex-Apple employees to find out vendor ID info about a USB device. Aside from high-end logic analyzers, one can download the dev tools from Apple and use a handy program called "USB Prober" to find out device and vendor IDs.
But this time, I sort of agree with Testudo. Why should another device not be able to sync using iTunes? Maybe only Nintendo should be able to make games for the Wii, or Ford should modify their engines (or better, gas caps) to only allow approved vendors of gasoline to interface with the gas tank.
iPod and iTunes work great together, but if Palm is willing to play ball in their ballpark, the consumer should be given a choice. Only the users suffer when there are fewer choices and dogmatic copy protection/device lockout.
If tying store/device/capabilities is really that great, I want you all to admit that you love Protected AACs better than Purchased AACs. If you don't, you can see that this hardware protectionism is an extension of that thinking.

Your words Testudo, were "it was neither designed to sync with the iPod nor with the iPod only", which is wrong.

Actually, it was designed by the folks who made SoundJam. It was bought by Apple (like many of their programs, and their OS, actually - oh, right, we're not supposed to mention that). It was released by Apple. But if it was 'designed for the iPod', why was it released first? And why doesn't Apple only allow users of the iPod to use iTunes? Oh, wait, its used by more than iPod owners? Oh, but I thought it was designed to allow one to sync with the iPod."

But, hey, if I was wrong, I was only half wrong. It was NOT designed to only sync with the iPod. But heaven forbid someone admit that.

Sorry to have to keep coming back like this Testudo as I'm not looking to join in a fight, after reading a few more articles here I can see you love to troll just about everything posted here, but (as noted) iTunes was a re-designed SoundJam, noticed because of a number of resources the two pieces of software shared. SoundJam stopped being SoundJam and became iTunes after being re-engineered. Someone would have to be very stupid to think that when, 7/8 months later, the iPod was released iTunes wasn't the corner stone and Apple and pulled the iPod out of a hat, created and produced it in 6 months. I'm almost a little confused as to why you need to ask "why was it released first?", you seriously don't get why?

If Apple released an update for the iPod to work with Windows Media Player, and them Microsoft released an update that blocked it, most of you would be howling. Obviously Apple doesn't need to let them do anything, but it does go against the "it just works" mantra when they deliberately break functionality.