View Poll Results: iTunes 8.2.1 Breaks Palm Pre Sync -- Who's at Fault?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • BOTH! Palm shouldn't have done it, Apple shouldn't have broken it

    2 4.35%
  • NEITHER! In the tech game, everything changes

    5 10.87%
  • PALM! They shouldn't have hacked the system

    32 69.57%
  • APPLE! Way to alienate iTunes users who own Pre

    7 15.22%
  1. Jeffdc5#IM's Avatar
    Its no big deal the pre does not need itunes to function.
    07-16-2009 07:09 AM
  2. scaliasphone's Avatar
    That was kind of rude, but ok. You analogy doesn't really fit here. It would be more along the lines of you having an alarm and $500 locks on all the doors and then a ninja comes down the chimney.
    Guess you should have secured the chimney. All I am saying is that Apple opened itself up to an exploit....and got exploited. Isn't that really the bottom line here? If "fault" plays a role, it's with the company that designed the alarm and $500 locks on all the doors....and then forgot to secure the Chimney.
    07-16-2009 08:06 AM
  3. scaliasphone's Avatar
    Oh, and I apologize for my rudeness. It was an attempt (and a rather poor one) to add a verbal exclamation point. Fell flat.
    07-16-2009 08:10 AM
  4. jglowe74's Avatar
    I think apple has the right to do what they want with their software. They became aware of the palm sync and they blocked it. I think apple is fully within their rights to block the palm sync.
    i completely agree. Apple made iTunes, everyone uses it, Palm wants access to iTunes for ease of use for their Pre users. but not knowing all the in's and out's of how Palm was able to create a 'hack' to allow Pre users to sync with iTunes, i can't say Palm did anything 'illegal'. but if i were Apple, i'd give'em the boot too!

    more than likely Palm will just create another loop-hole that lets Pre users sync with iTunes again. and that cycle of Apple update - Pre update will just continue. the best solution for Palm is to go make their own massive software program that will compete with iTunes. and good luck with that. lol
    07-16-2009 08:24 AM
  5. JustinHorn's Avatar
    Guess you should have secured the chimney. All I am saying is that Apple opened itself up to an exploit....and got exploited. Isn't that really the bottom line here? If "fault" plays a role, it's with the company that designed the alarm and $500 locks on all the doors....and then forgot to secure the Chimney.
    My point was when creating anything whether it be a NAS (ninja anti-theft system) or an OS, you can only test so much with internal testing / beta testers. Once it's in the wild then you can have millions of people trying to "break in"...trying to find the smallest of flaws. The only thing you can do is find out about it, patch it, and release an update.

    Yes, obviously some companies have left bigger holes than others (MS), but no company is perfect.


    Oh, and I apologize for my rudeness. It was an attempt (and a rather poor one) to add a verbal exclamation point. Fell flat.
    Apology accepted
    It's understandable when you are trying to prove you side of an argument you get a little 'amped up', but when you say stuff like "Snack on that" it comes off a little rude.
    07-16-2009 10:15 AM
  6. shutter's Avatar
    Guess you should have secured the chimney. All I am saying is that Apple opened itself up to an exploit....and got exploited. Isn't that really the bottom line here? If "fault" plays a role, it's with the company that designed the alarm and $500 locks on all the doors....and then forgot to secure the Chimney.
    See that is the attitude that has our society so screwed up. Never blame the wrong doer, blame someone else.

    There is no law on the books that says breaking and entering (trespassing) is a crime provided the doors are locked, if the doors aren't locked...it's OK to go in. Same with any of the examples you gave, it's not OK. Blame resides on the wrong doer, it's that simple, it's black and white, there are no shades of gray in this (or any of your examples) instance.
    07-16-2009 11:54 AM
  7. scaliasphone's Avatar
    See that is the attitude that has our society so screwed up. Never blame the wrong doer, blame someone else.

    There is no law on the books that says breaking and entering (trespassing) is a crime provided the doors are locked, if the doors aren't locked...it's OK to go in. Same with any of the examples you gave, it's not OK. Blame resides on the wrong doer, it's that simple, it's black and white, there are no shades of gray in this (or any of your examples) instance.
    Jeremy, forgive me for going off topic, but I think this post deserves a response. Below is the law of breaking and entering in the state of Ohio. I cannot speak for other jurisdictions.


    O.R.C. Section 2911.13 Breaking and entering:

    (A) No person by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an unoccupied structure, with purpose to commit therein any theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or any felony.

    (B) No person shall trespass on the land or premises of another, with purpose to commit a felony.

    (C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of breaking and entering, a felony of the fifth degree.

    "Stealth" has been construed to mean sneaking into a structure, whether the structure is locked or unlocked; door open or shut. There actually is a law..."on the books."
    07-16-2009 01:05 PM
  8. shutter's Avatar
    Your reading comprehension needs some work, or perhaps my writing does, either way, you just proved my point.

    There is no law on the books that says "breaking and entering (trespassing) is a crime provided the doors are locked, if the doors aren't locked...it's OK to go in".

    Doors being locked would have to be an element of the crime in my example.
    07-16-2009 01:22 PM
  9. scaliasphone's Avatar
    Your reading comprehension needs some work, or perhaps my writing does, either way, you just proved my point.

    There is no law on the books that says "breaking and entering (trespassing) is a crime provided the doors are locked, if the doors aren't locked...it's OK to go in".

    Doors being locked would have to be an element of the crime in my example.
    No, no, no....

    In this hypothetical, Apple left the door open and Palm went in. What Palm did would be considered a crime (in the breaking & entering sense). You can't just walk into someone's house because the door is open with the intent to commit a felony. If you do that, you're guilty. Doesn't matter if the door is open or shut. I think you could consider Palm a thief here. If that's what you meant, I agree. My earlier hypotheticals were a play on someone ele's response to my first post.

    Rene's question is: iTunes breaks Palm Pre Sync-who's at fault? The question isn't whether Palm is a thief. I don't think the term "fault" really applies here. Apple left the door open. Palm exploited it. I think there is a consensus in the forum that people don't blame Palm for doing it. Apple put a stop to it. Palm will find a work around. And around we go. Cat and mouse, just like the jailbreakers.

    Perhaps Rene's question should have been framed: Was Palm wrong to leech iTunes, and do you blame Apple for blocking them? It seems to me from reading the comments that is the question people are really kind of answering. Then again, my reading comprehension (and a few other things) need work
    07-16-2009 01:41 PM
  10. shutter's Avatar
    Perhaps Rene's question should have been framed: Was Palm wrong to leech iTunes, and do you blame Apple for blocking them? It seems to me from reading the comments that is the question people are really kind of answering. Then again, my reading comprehension (and a few other things) need work
    This I can agree on.

    I do blame them for their laziness though, I think it would be easy enough (I say this even though I have no programming knowledge whatsoever) to create a desktop client that copies your iTunes library and does the same things as iTunes.
    07-16-2009 01:52 PM
  11. scaliasphone's Avatar
    Actually, how's this: Was Palm wrong to leech iTunes, and SHOULD Apple have blocked them?

    Apple can do whatever they want with their software (and app approval process, and everything else) and that's all well and good; however, by locking Palm out do they run the risk of losing ground to more open source minded companies like Google?
    07-16-2009 02:13 PM
  12. ddooley's Avatar
    In my opinion, Apple made a decision that could potentially hurt them in the long run. Apple is essentially pushing current and future pre user's away from iTunes. Those pre users will, with out a doubt, look at other options for purchasing their media on the future.
    07-16-2009 10:13 PM
  13. Jeremy's Avatar
    In my opinion, Apple made a decision that could potentially hurt them in the long run. Apple is essentially pushing current and future pre user's away from iTunes. Those pre users will, with out a doubt, look at other options for purchasing their media on the future.
    With the amount of iPhones and iPods out there compared to the amount of Palm devices... Apple did not hurt anything. And from the looks of it over at Precentral - they (users on the forums) claim they something other than iTunes. So in my opinion, no big loss.
    07-17-2009 11:16 AM
  14. mycrownvic02's Avatar
    With the amount of iPhones and iPods out there compared to the amount of Palm devices... Apple did not hurt anything. And from the looks of it over at Precentral - they (users on the forums) claim they something other than iTunes. So in my opinion, no big loss.
    It may not be a tremendous loss, but I still see it as a loss. Although I dont think anyone will loose sleep over this.
    07-19-2009 03:44 PM
  15. JustinHorn's Avatar
    I think it's good. Those Pre users got a taste of the iTunes system that "just works" and they will think twice about sticking with Palm when their contract with Sprint expires
    07-19-2009 03:59 PM
40 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD