>My issue is that Apple is intentionally making it more difficult to use iTunes with a non-iPod music player. Perhaps you don't find it inconvenient to use two pieces of software to manage one music collection but you aren't the average demographic either. Every other week slashdotters are complaining that most people think Internet Explorer is the Internet. That's the demographic being taken advantage of.
But you do realize that they DO allow other vendors to integrate directly into iTunes? All they have to do is license a plugin and it will sync directly in iTunes interface just like an iPod. Apple is a business. Not a charity. Vendors have the option of buying direct integration, or simply writing their own solution. I doubt the price of this plugin is prohibitive. Obviously the vendors that have taken advantage of it don't think it is prohibitive either.
These barriers as you call them are insignificant since there are other avenues into iTunes. Apple didn't do anything wrong here. Palm broke the standard and their device didn't work. This should be no surprise. You might not like it. I would suggest your time is better spent yelling at Palm for being too cheap or too lazy (or both).
This is the reason no anti-competitive lawsuit has been brought against Apple for this issue. Because it would have no legal leg to stand on. An inconvenience of having two windows open is simply to minor to be a barrier to entry when Apple themselves provide sanctioned means to get the same end result that do not violate the USB standard.
With the IE fiasco, there was no alternative. MS said it's our way or the highway. Apple provides alternate methods willingly. It's up to the vendors to opt in, or write their own.