"I'm not one for Palm piggy-backing on Apple's success"
See, that's the thing. It isn't. As other commenters after you pointed out, the problem is that Apple is abusing an effective monopoly here, in exactly the same way it has loudly (and correctly) decried Microsoft for doing in the past.
iTunes has become the dominant desktop music player - certainly the dominant app for transferring-music-from-PC-to-portable-player - not because it's inherently really good at either of those functions, but because its use is heavily encouraged by the iPod, which is the dominant music player. And Apple - as this story clearly demonstrates - actively works to make it as difficult as possible for anyone else to interoperate with iTunes. That's not at all different from Microsoft actively working to make it as difficult as possible for others to interoperate with Windows.
If you look at very iTunes-like applications in a less distorted context, every one of them works as hard as possible to work with as _many_ types of player as possible. Look at the Linux audio players - Rhythmbox, Banshee, AmaroK et al. They all try as hard as they can to work with iPods, Zunes, Sony players, and every yum-cha no-name mass transfer player that comes out of China. Yet Apple, keep to keep its little exclusive ecosystem safe as long as it can, pushes in exactly the opposite direction, working hard to bar compatibility with any non-Apple player. That just ain't cricket. Palm isn't doing this to take advantage of Apple's success, only to try and circumvent Apple's little monopoly play.