4 ms·
Certainly it's tactical, though I wouldn't say it's all publicity. I think they're trying to hardball Apple into opening up (or negotiating an agreement for us
by jpwagner 17y ago
Certainly it's tactical, though I wouldn't say it's all publicity.
I think they're trying to hardball Apple into opening up (or negotiating an agreement for use of) their distribution channel.
- tptacek 17y agoI'm not sure I see how this is "hardball" for Apple. The risk for Apple is that someone else's product will work as advertised. The risk for Palm is that at any given time, Apple can choose to turn off their product. Palm isn't playing from a position of strength here. Every time this cat and mouse game cycles, more people hear that Palm's sync is unreliable. Palm never impacts Apple's product.
- jpwagner 17y agoThere's a development impact...Apple has to find a way to close them off. Then Palm writes a new workaround, and Apple has to expend more effort again. The underlying statement to Apple is: if you don't want Palm to do this, you have to open up the dialogue...
- protomyth 17y agoThe dialogue so far is USB-IF telling Palm they are in the wrong and their customers not having a feature they paid for. Palm doesn't have the sales to keep this up, and, given the lawsuit happy lawyers, is in danger of a class action suit by Palm pre owners. There is obvious bad blood between the companies, but Palm needs to start doing what's best for its customers. The realization that Apple can keep this up far longer than Palm would be a good starting point.
- protomyth 17y agoI can't see anything but publicity. They want to matter, and didn't really sell as many as they wanted. The funny thing is that quite a few people on this board could write the proper sync. No one really needs an agreement with Apple, all the information is out their.