For over a month all was well and Palm Pre owners who used iTunes could sync their music with the Palm Pre seamlessly. Then, on July 15th, 2009, Apple did what many had feared. Version 8.2.1 of iTunes included an update that appeared to specifically block the Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes. Although many people were outraged and saddened by this, the response I saw was surprisingly small. It appears as though most Palm Pre owners who weren’t already using iTunes used other media managers to sync with their Pre. I myself use Winamp, RhythmBox, and manual syncing.

Today Palm released version 1.1.0 of their WebOS software to Palm Pre owners. Along with many new features this update included a return volley in the battle over iTunes compatibility by restoring the Palm Pre’s ability to sync with Apple’s iTunes. To accomplish this it appears Palm took more steps to disguise the Palm Pre as an iPod. This time not only does the device identify itself as an iPod, it also identifies itself as being manufactured by Apple.

A shallow examination of the methods used by Apple to block the Palm Pre from syncing and the methods used by Palm to re-enable it seem to indicate there are still a few more ways Apple could easily block the Palm Pre. However, it also appears that Palm’s ability to disguise the Pre as an iPod is virtually limitless. If Apple chooses to fight this battle further they may find themselves stuck with the decision of forcing firmware updates on iPod users in order to prevent the Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes, a move that will surely upset many long-term iPod users who have never even heard of the Pre. Even in that scenario it’s possible Palm could yet again re-enable iTunes syncing, meaning Apple could alienate its own faithful customers and still fail to block the Pre from iTunes.

This fight by Apple is not surprising when put in the perspective of Apple’s history with third party hardware and software. Apple has actively fought its own customers on the ability to use third party media managers for iPods/iPhones by constantly breaking compatibility through firmware updates and even threatening those who share information on how to load/unload media from their devices. In the past Apple may have had a valid argument for preventing third party media managers from managing content on iPods due to the DRM present on many tracks purchased through iTunes. Apple no longer sells music with DRM and has not done so for a while, so the argument that they must fight third party software to prevent piracy is outlandish. This stance of Apple makes it extremely difficult for legitimate iPod and iPhone users from using anything else but iTunes to load content onto their devices. For some using iTunes isn’t even an option as iTunes is not available (and does not have any plans to be made available) on Linux, meaning those of us who use Linux cannot use an iPod or iPhone at all.

Palm Pre’s Media Sync capability is different story though. In this case Apple isn’t forcing their hardware users to use their software, they are forcing software users to use their hardware. At first this seemed to me to be slightly less anti-consumer than the previous scenario until I thought about who actually uses iTunes to sync with their Palm Pre. Most people who use iTunes own an iPod or iPhone. iTunes is a decent media player but there is very little incentive for those who don’t own an iPod to use it. Both iPod owners and non-owners are encouraged by Apple to use iTunes for all their music needs and it is the only way to purchase music from Apple’s music store. Many users have invested large sums of money to build a collection of music through the iTunes Music Store, and those users believe they “own” that music. Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you have purcahse ~$500 worth of DRM-free music over the past couple years and you have stored that music on your trusty iPod. Now, imagine you are shopping for a new phone and for whatever reason you decide to purchase a Palm Pre (maybe AT&T isn’t an option, or maybe Sprint is your current carrier, or maybe even though you are an iPod user you just don’t like or want the iPhone). In the process of purchasing your Pre you discover it actually makes a great media player that allows you to lower the number of devices in your pocket. Sure, you still use your iPod for certain things like jogging, but on a daily basis you don’t want both devices in your pocket so you want to use the Pre for music as well. Now, how do you go about getting your music onto your device? Well, without an iTunes syncing capability there are ways to get your MP3s out of iTunes and onto your device, but doing this manually or migrating to another media manager may be difficult and cumbersome. Plus, you still have to use iTunes for your iPod. Wouldn’t it be great if the Pre “just worked” with iTunes? Yeah, Palm thought so too so they made it happen. Apple’s response to this is to punish their own customers by putting up road blocks to this kind of interoperability.

Apple can try to spin this however it wants, but its hard to deny that they are punishing their own customers. If they continue this fight it may also be tough for organizations like the Department of Justice to ignore these actions in the context of the current digital music market, where roughly 70% of all music sold online occurs through iTunes. Even in the greater music market Apple is now the number one seller of music in the USA. Apple’s position in the market gives them a lot of power, and they appear to be using that power to dictate significantly the terms with which customers shall have access to content. This matches accepted definitions of “monopoly” almost verbatim. Apple can avoid that label by not strong-arming their customers, but if this battle continues that is exactly what they will be doing.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with critics who claim Palm is wrong for trying to be interoperable with iTunes. The Palm Pre’s ability to sync with iTunes is just one of the many ways Palm allows users to load media onto the Pre. Palm is not attempting to “rely” on iTunes or any single sync method, and is instead taking the approach of giving users as many options as possible. I think this is the right approach and in most cases this allows users, who have already amassed huge media collections, to sync that media with the Pre using their current setup, whatever that may be. I believe Apple is wrong here for trying to punish their own customers who have added a non-Apple device to their collection of devices. Apple’s actions are anti-competitive and, possibly more importantly, anti-customer. They aren’t hurting Palm much by playing cat and mouse, they are hurting their own paying customers.

Just before heading off to bed last night I came across an interesting leak of information via LifeHacker,  Gizmodo, and Ars. However, the breadth of coverage wasn’t necessary to catch my attention. I knew this was big news the moment I read the headline… Google is releasing a browser, and its called Chrome. The beta is set to be released later today. Read on.

Update: Google Chrome beta has now been released. I’ll write up my first impressions soon.

There are many things about this announcement that surprised me.

First, I was suprised to learn that Google was working on a browser at all. They have a history of partnership with the Mozilla Foundation and it was always my assumption they were pretty happy with the direction of the Firefox project. Google does have a history of employing certain Mozilla Foundation members and former Netscape employees, including the former project lead for the Firefox project, Ben Goodger. Even though Ben and others have directly worked on crafting web browsers in the past, it was my honest belief that Google chose to employ them to work on things like browser compatibilty and optimization for Google’s web apps, browser plug-ins and extensions, Google Desktop tools (like Google Desktop Search), and web applications and tools for Google’s Android mobile phone platform. I also assumed these browser buffs would help build things like Google Gears and Google Web Toolkit. Who would have thought that Google’s real motivation for employing people with experience building desktop web browsers was to build a desktop web browser of their own? Okay, so maybe it should have been plainly obvious, but for whatever reason I just didn’t see this coming.

However, this is not where the surprises end…

If I had predicted Google was going to build a web browser and I had taken the time to pontificate about what that browser would look like, I don’t think my imaginary browser would have been any closer to what Google has built than, say, Firefox is to what Google has built.

For one, I would have assumed Google would start with the Gecko layout engine. Wrong. They chose Webkit, which was originally the engine for KHTML and later improved upon by Apple. Looking at this decision closer, I can’t say I would have settled on Gecko either. It appears that Webkit is much easier to program for. What I find comical is that Google named the browser Chrome, which is the name Mozilla uses to refer to user interface configurations for their various projects (Firefox, Thunderbird, Camino, Seamonkey, etc.). I am not sure if this name is a tip of Google’s hat to the Mozilla Foundation, an acknowledgement of the multiple Mozilla developers Google employs, or possibly a reference to something Google may have taken from the Firefox project: the XUL user interface language. We may find out which one, if any of these, are the reason for the name Chrome when the beta and source code are released later today

A couple assumptions I would have made about a Google browser appear to be true: the interface is simple, and they have attempted to improve javascript performance and robustness. Given the company’s much lauded approach to very simple user interfaces, and their reliance on using javascript as an application framework, I am not surprised by either of these features. Their V8 javascript rendering engine is claimed to be very fast and robust. I will have to wait for the beta to see just how true this is.

The next big difference between Google Chrome and other browsers is the way it handles resources. Every single tab or window is a seperate operating system process, with isolated memory and rendering resources. Leaked screenshots even show that the browser will include its own internal task manager, should you need to swat a tab out of existence. What is the significance of this? Well, the idea is that should some plugin or website crash your browser, it won’t crash your browser… it will only cause that website’s tab or window to close, leaving the remaining tabs/windows unaffected. This also means that when you close a tab you are killing a process, so every last byte of memory used by that tab is reclaimed, helping thwart nasty memory leaks. I feel that this is Chrome’s “killer feature”. Google wants web applications to replace desktop applications, and for that to happen a browser must be more than just a browser. It must be a platform. It must be an operating system for web applications. This means it must have the robust process isolation and resource management you expect from an operating system. This idea is so simple yet so powerful, I am shocked it has not been done [right] before. I’ll still have to wait for the beta to decide just how well Google Chrome does this.

This is a significant day for web developers, application developers, and the internet at large. I am much more excited than I thought I would be about the concept of a Google Browser. Welcome, Google Chrome!