Palm's confused if they think a compatibility check is a violation as opposed to, say, faking a hardware vendor ID. USB hardware IDs and network MAC addresses clearly have to respect the vendors' address spaces or the hardware standard falls apart.
Seems more likely this is a play to, yes, have the Palm device get press, but also ensure their site gets Page Rank from all the unique news articles' and blog entries' inbound links.
Hiding the codes/keeping them secret, like most vendors do, is okay -- the USB spec does not require disclosure.
BUT changing the codes to prevent interoperability is prohibited by the USB spec b/c it defeats the whole point of the USB spec.
I don't really get Palm's reluctance to write good sync software. They've been avoiding it since the 90s.
What's missing is a quality experience with iTunes, particularly on OSX. Emulating an iPod seems like a quick and easy way to provide an optimal user experience. Plus, they get publicity when Apple pulls the dickhole move that makes them seem like a big, abusive corporation.
This episode is reminiscent of what I went through working as the 'integration guy' at an educational web startup in the early 2000s. We were in Palm's position, trying to pull data out of systems created by companies that were either indifferent or hostile to our product, so the integration tended to break frequently and without warning. It's not a good way to satisfy your customers. They don't care that you're striking a blow against the establishment - all your customers care about is that your product broke without warning.
But all things considered, all this will simply lead to Apple ditching USB or layering a custom encrypted protocol on top of it. So Palm's current hack is a temporary solution.
Now, here's the other thought: Apple has a lot of reasons to block imitation devices from accessing iTunes, the least of which includes perhaps security issues for its users, but also for the fact that being able to access iTunes, iTunes Store, and iTunes content might have very specific clauses drafted in its agreements with Apple's content partners. By not protecting that, Apple in itself might be in legal trouble.
So, this isn't just pettiness that Apple is taking in full delight of. Just a bit.
Only if the Pre was accessing DRM protected media would that be a valid point. I think there is more than a dash of pettiness involved here.
