or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple criticized for iPod shuffle's new 'authentication chip'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple criticized for iPod shuffle's new 'authentication chip'

post #1 of 239
Thread Starter 
Apple this weekend was hit with a media assault after reports suggested that a mysterious authentication chip in the third-generation iPod shuffle, responsible for supporting the player's new headphone-integrated playback controls, signaled a rogue attempt on the company's part to block third parties from developing their own replacement headphones for the device without paying a licensing fee. Update: Apple has denied that any DRM authentication mechanism is involved.

The matter drew considerable attention after iLounge reported in its review of the petite player that Apple was doing something "sneaky and arguably terrible for consumers" because "the only third-party headphones that will work are ones that havent even entered manufacturing yet, because theyll need to contain yet another new Apple authentication chip, which will add to their price."

For its part, Apple says a variety of manufacturers will soon be releasing control-integrated headphones compatible with the new iPod shuffle, as well as adapters that provide playback controls that will work with any standard headphones. So the alternative argument is that rather than being sneaky, the iPod shuffle's playback controls are actually a new improvement over previous iPod systems, meaning that existing control-integrated headphones simply don't support all of its new features.

The evolution of iPod remote controls

Apple first introduced headphones with integrated playback controls with the 2007 iPhone; previous iPods had shipped with a clunky remote extension dongle that could be used with any standard headphones. The iPhone's new integrated switch allowed users to pause and start playback as well as accept or ignore incoming calls during playback. It uses a fourth conductor on the headphone jack to relay the signals from the switch to the unit, a feature Apple has patented. That extra pin is also used for the iPhone's mic.

Other smartphone manufacturers continue to use an external dongle to support remote controls, similar to the original generation of the iPod, which used an additional four pin port next to the the headphone jack to accept remote control signals.

Last fall, the new crop of iPods additionally gained integrated volume controls as well as a playback control switch. In addition to starting and pausing playback, the switch was also designed to support double-clicks and triple-clicks to step ahead or back one song or chapter in the currently playing track. That feature is also supported (although apparently not publicized) on the iPhone. With the conversion to using a four pin headphone jack to support mic and control signals, Apple also removed headphone jack video-output features on the new iPods, moving all video output to the Dock Connector instead.

The first generation iPod touch does not support the integrated playback controls nor mic recording because it lacks the fourth pin on its headphone jack. The current second generation touch does support both remote playback and audio recording features, just like the revised iPod classic and the new iPod nano. New unibody MacBooks released last fall also began supporting the new playback controls and mic input, thanks to their new iPhone-style four pin headphone jack.

The latest iPod shuffle has added a new wrinkle of remote control features: double-click and hold or triple-click and hold to fast forward or rewind the currently playing track, as well as click and hold controls to manage playlist playback. The new player needed expanded remote controls because the device is designed without any other buttons on the unit itself; it also lacks any display, relying on an audio Voice Over navigation and the integrated controls instead.



The new click and hold controls on the third generation iPod shuffle do not work on previous models, and existing headphones designed to control the iPhone and previous iPod models do not support sending the signal that the new shuffle uses to indicate that the button is being held down. The iPod shuffle also implements full USB signaling over the four pin headphone jack instead of using a separate USB port, allowing the device to do everything (sync, charge, control, and play audio out) using just one external connector. It does not support audio recording, however.

Conspiracy to commit innovation?

In its widely publicized review, iLounge noted that "Apple has not announced replacement earphones for the shuffle, for whatever reason," but added that "it can be controlled by the Apple Earphones with Remote and Mic and In-Ear Headphones with Remote and Mic, but aggravatingly, not by Apples iPhone Stereo Headphones or other one-button headphones that were previously released."

That's because the single button control used on the iPhone's headphones offers no volume controls, and apparently was also not designed to support click and hold signals used on the new shuffle that was still under development at the time. However, the same review saw the limitation in a different light and suggested: "This just appears to be another Apple trick to randomly break compatibility with pre-existing accessories that might have been semi-useful, but didnt contain its chips."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation was among the industry watchers who sided with iLounge on the matter, chastising Apple for "continuing to add more DRM to its own hardware [...] even as it attacks DRM on music."

But DRM, or "digital rights management," can be seen as multi-purpose. It has allowed content creators and hardware makers to decide how their products will be used. This includes efforts to use DRM to limit piracy, as Apple has successfully done within iTunes, but is not the only use of DRM.

Apple is not against DRM

Without initial DRM piracy controls on music, Apple would not have been able to resell the labels' music digitally, nor sell or rent studios' movies, nor stoke the blockbuster success of mobile software sales in the App Store. At the same time however, Apple resisted the studios' demands for continued DRM on music, not because of an ideological rejection of DRM, because the studios were also selling their music without DRM on CD.

Apple found it difficult to maintain its contractual obligations to police its FairPlay DRM system for music, but more importantly such work was completely pointless anyway because all the music Apple was reselling was already available from the studios on easy to rip, DRM-free CDs. In contrast, digital movies have never been sold by the studios in DRM-free formats, making the sale and rental of DRM-protected digital video (and the expectation that Apple maintain its video DRM) justifiable.

It still took Apple over half a decade to convince the music labels to sell their tracks through iTunes without DRM. That shift only happened once Apple could prove that it could create an audience of DRM music buyers. The shift to DRM-free music that Apple called for only ever happened once every other effort to sell DRM-protected music formats had failed, from SACD and DVD-audio discs; to Microsoft's PlaysForSure to Zune DRM; to subscription music DRM from Real Networks and others.

The Demonizing of DRM

Apple has never "attacked DRM" in principle in the sense that many free software advocates do. DRM only acts as a security mechanism for reinforcing a particular business model. When designed only to serve the needs of content providers, DRM has historically failed. Sony's ATRAC DRM on MiniDiscs and its digital WalkMan players and Microsoft's PlaysForSure, WMA, and WMV formats, along with other attempts to create producer-friendly but customer-hostile DRM systems, have all failed in the market after being rejected by consumers.

When developed to serve the needs of both consumers and producers, DRM has proven wildly effective and creating functional markets. Apple's iTunes found success where no other music store could using minimally invasive FairPlay DRM. It replicated the same success in TV and movie content and again in mobile software with iPod games and later the iPhone App Store. Audible's use of DRM for audiobooks, Amazon's use of DRM for digital Kindle ebooks, and the DRM used in video games from every console maker from Nintendo's DS and Wii to Sony's PlayStations to Microsoft's Xbox line are similarly intended to create viable markets in those product categories.

Without the protections of DRM, widespread piracy would have eroded the ability of a real market for audio, video, and mobile software from ever developing. Previous attempts to distribute commercial digital content without any security (such as eMusic, YouTube, and sites selling mobile software) have failed to gain any significant support from the major content producers and developers. Apple's neutral stance as a mediator between producers and consumers has given it the ability to design DRM systems that work for both sides.

Outside of the recent attempt by the music labels to sell their music as MP3s through Amazon, which was entirely an effort to gain some leverage against Apple's successful, established iTunes business, content producers have always worked to protect their assets from widespread piracy in anyway possible. That makes the ideological demand to drop DRM fanciful at best and detrimental to the survival of fair, functional digital download markets like iTunes at worst.

What about Hardware DRM?

With every viable digital download software market taking its success upon DRM, hardware makers have also taken to DRM to protect business models. Fearing that hardware could be used to bypass the DRM protections in HD video formats from BluRay to digital download rentals and purchases, the industry has worked to build end-to-end security models to prevent the full quality export of video signals played from DRM-protected sources.

In the past, physical analogs to DRM have acted to inhibit widespread piracy. Until the late 90s, audio CDs were simply impossible to rip and compress down into digital files in a way that could be widely distributed, making the plastic discs a sort of hardware security dongle themselves. While users could transfer music from CD to tape, the loss in quality left CD sales protected from widespread assault. However, once it became possible for a single user to mass duplicate music from a CD to hundreds of thousands of file sharing "friends" at the same pristine digital quality, the music industry scrambled to find a way to protect its content from effortless mass piracy.

Most of those efforts failed because the Pandora's Box had already been opened. Studios have similarly worked to prevent the same widespread duplication of content from destroying the video business. In order to license HD movies for resale and rental, Apple has had to add industry-standard hardware DRM protection to its devices, from the HDMI digital video output on the Apple TV to the Dock Connector ports on its iPods to the new Mini DisplayPort on its Mac desktops and notebooks. Unless connected to a secured video display, these machines may refuse to output a full quality signal when playing commercial HD video. BluRay devices are similarly required to support hardware DRM security in order to license playback of the format (as did the failed HD-DVD format).

Do new iPod headphones use DRM?

In addition to protecting HD video content, Apple also uses proprietary video signaling on recent iPods to enforce its ability to license "Made for iPod" accessories. The EFF and iLounge may be operating under the assumption Apple is similarly using the new iPod shuffle controls as a way to force manufacturers to pay licensing fees in order to build compatible control-integrated replacement headphones.

iLounge described this as a "nightmare scenario," "a world in which Apple controls and taxes literally every piece of the iPod purchase from headphones to chargers, jacking up their prices, forcing customers to re-purchase things they already own, while making only marginal improvements in their functionality." The EFF similarly charged Apple with "impeding competition and innovation."

The controverisal chip reportedly sits behind these buttons in the shuffle's third-gen earphones | Source: iFixIt

The claim that the new iPod shuffle uses DRM to prevent third party compatibility has not been established as fact by Apple or from reputable sources, however. Update: a Macworld article by Dan Frakes cites an Apple spokesman as saying, "As part of the Made for iPod program, we make sure that third party headphones work properly with the third generation iPod shuffle." The article also states, "however, there is no DRM in this new control chip, according to Monster Cable's Kevin Lee, who added, 'In fact, it's not even authentication. It just gives us a way to control the iPod.'"

If it indeed uses some new proprietary signaling to preclude replacement by unlicensed, knockoff headphone makers, the worst case scenario, as iLounge describes, is that users will have to either buy Apple or Apple-authorized headphones to control the unit, or alternatively buy a remote control adapter, much the same way as nearly every smartphone on the market (apart from the iPhone) requires a nonstandard adapter to use regular headphones.

Again, the alternative argument to Apple stifling competition is that the company has decided in some instances to sacrifice backwards compatibility in order to achieve its success in a highly competitive environment with plenty of iPod shuffle alternatives, few barriers to competition, and very little real innovation outside of the iPod itself. The industry at large and knockoff manufacturers specifically have contributed next to nothing toward innovative design in headphones (from remote controls to mic integration), and few iPod shuffle users will be racing to dump the unit's included headphones for a cheaper pair than the simple earbuds that ship in the box.

That may leave fears of Apple's "DRMed headphones" entirely an issue for users with a favorite set of headphones, but without any interest in buying a remote control dongle for them, and yet an instance upon buying Apple's low end iPod, a corner case that doesn't seem worth much of this weekend's heated outrage.
post #2 of 239
FUD, FUD AND MORE FUD...
post #3 of 239
I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" BS. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30?

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of a-0holes for trying to defend this DRM BS practice.
post #4 of 239
Developers and others who want a free-for-all environment should stay in Microsoft's world. They provide the alternate where anything goes, for better or worse. I, as a consumer, prefer the more controlled and reliable world of Apple.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #5 of 239
I bet it is a simple pulse to serial converter.. Anyone with an oscilloscope will be able to figure out if it is encrypted (changing) or not. I'll wait for a real engineer to determine that before I believe that there is some kind of expensive custom chip to converting clicks into signals.

Moving the controlls off the shuffle is Jobsian in every way. I just wish my iPod 3G supported this.

Oh wait, it does! It has a remote that I never use! And guess what? It uses a proprietary connector on one end! Doesn't anyone remember?

post #6 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

DON'T BUY A SHUFFLE, genius.
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #7 of 239
Quote:
this DRM bullshit practice

its official its a DRM pic !!!!


Since there's no standard on controls for headphones, what should apple do ? nothing and stick with traditional headphones ?


Gee
post #8 of 239
Slow news day? Give me a break!
post #9 of 239
What media assault? The only story the media was interested in my neck of the woods was the exploding battery story.

How about toning down the rhetoric in these phantasmagorical stories until something is verified?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #10 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

To led light on you. You're on a rumor site. Anything apple writes is only on apple.com. This is written by creative people of AppleInsider.

You're welcome.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #11 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

idiot
post #12 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

Conspiracy or not, your opportunity to make a good first impression by introducing yourself with a profanity-laden piece just diminishes any credibility. Way to go cowboy. Good use of a first post.
post #13 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

Oh THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for blessing us with you newbie troll presence.
What EVER would this forum have done without you?
Hint... use of the 'fanboy' ad hominem pretty much assures ignor-ance of your post.
post #14 of 239
It is unfortunate that Apple took this path. Why they didn't offer a free alternative for manufacturers is bizarre. Reminds me of the Apple display adapters from way back.

It's simply not necessary.
post #15 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

You are completely missing the point. The headphones are NOT accessories! They are an integral part of the shuffle. The shuffle will not work without them so it makes sense that Apple wants to make sure that any headphones that are used with the shuffle are up to their standards.

BTW I don't understand why people complain about the controls on the earplugs. I use them on my iphone and it's great not having to dig out my iphone, I just wish the volume control worked with the iphone.
post #16 of 239
I just ordered a new shuffle as a gift. Since it is so very different from the previous version, which some people like because of the built in buttons, and no dongle to use other brand headphones, why can Apple not offer both styles? I hope this is not a dumb question has not already been answered.
post #17 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

Feel better now?
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #18 of 239
could anyone kindly shed some light on headphone licensing fees and the fabulous control chip pricing, please?
post #19 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Moving the controlls off the shuffle is Jobsian in every way. I just wish my iPod 3G supported this.

Oh wait, it does! It has a remote that I never use! And guess what? It uses a proprietary connector on one end! Doesn't anyone remember?

The difference, of course, was that the remote was not a required component in order to use the iPod. It was just an optional accessory. And you could still plug any headphones you wanted into it.

They're not even kind of similar. The old remote was an example of Apple doing everything right, while the new one is them doing everything wrong.
post #20 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What media assault? The only story the media was interested in my neck of the woods was the exploding battery story.

I had no idea your "neck of the woods" was the barometer of the world.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How about toning down the rhetoric in these phantasmagorical stories until something is verified?

You might want to do likewise.
post #21 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Moving the controlls off the shuffle is Jobsian in every way. I just wish my iPod 3G supported this.

Oh wait, it does! It has a remote that I never use! And guess what? It uses a proprietary connector on one end! Doesn't anyone remember?

It really didn't seem to catch on.
post #22 of 239
soon there will be a lot of compatible headphones, just because apple builds a lot of shuffles- and people buy them, so other companies will pay whatever small fee apple is charging and they will make money too...
that's the way things go
companies innovate and if they are successful others will follow and pay fees.
apple has to pay fees for mp3 license to fraunhofer others will pay fees to apple, so what?
post #23 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by koolhaas View Post

could anyone kindly shed some light on headphone licensing fees and the fabulous control chip pricing, please?

Since it's not even confirmed that it actually exists, no one can supply that info.

Every article I looked at refers to the iLounge story or the EFF story (which in turn refers to the iLounge story).
post #24 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

You are completely missing the point. The headphones are NOT accessories! They are an integral part of the shuffle. The shuffle will not work without them so it makes sense that Apple wants to make sure that any headphones that are used with the shuffle are up to their standards.

BTW I don't understand why people complain about the controls on the earplugs. I use them on my iphone and it's great not having to dig out my iphone, I just wish the volume control worked with the iphone.

@macnyc- Finally someone on here with a logical response. @everyone else- All you reactionary dipshits calling this guy(ArcoshKobosh) an idiot deserve fanboy title.
post #25 of 239
It's funny. On the first day, all the spoken menu stuff was lambasted as useless and unnecessary fluff.

But now that people can't access those 'useless' features with their existing headphones, it's the end of the world.

Apple's clearly wrong in this instance. But damn if the life-cycle of hate here isn't amusing.
post #26 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcoshKobosh View Post

I became a new member today just so I can reply to this article.

Was this article written by Apple? Please give me a break with all the "no really, it's an improvement!" bullshit. This is clearly a way for Apple to sell more accessories and force you to buy additional add-ons. I love the iPod Shuffle and own every model so far, but there is no way I am getting this one. I don't use the shit Apple headphones that come with it and the headphones that I love don't have controls on them. So what am I to do? Oh I can buy an additional adapter for $20 or $30? Fuck that.

Your Apple fanboy bias really shines through with this article. I understand that you probably own a bunch of AAPL shares so you want to hype it up and do as much damage control as you can, but please - this is total bullshit by Apple and you look like a bunch of assholes for trying to defend this DRM bullshit practice.

No you can buy a 300 dollar headphone to go with your 79 dollar shuffle.
post #27 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol View Post

It's funny. On the first day, all the spoken menu stuff was lambasted as useless and unnecessary fluff.

But now that people can't access those 'useless' features with their existing headphones, it's the end of the world.

Apple's clearly wrong in this instance. But damn if the life-cycle of hate here isn't amusing.

There are other cases too, as far as I know, you can't adjust the volume without Apple's headphones/earbuds. For play/pause/skip, there are some $10/$20/$40 add-ons that you can attach to any headphones, but I find I need to adjust volume regularly, so I wonder if that would be an issue for shuffle buyers.
post #28 of 239
Although the article tries to dis-entangle it, the problem here is that there is simply no connection as far as we know between DRM and what they are doing with this chip in that it that presumably authenticates the accessory.

These are simply two completely DIFFERENT things.

The reference to EFF says it all:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... signaled a rogue attempt on the company's part to block third parties from developing their own replacement headphones for the device without paying a licensing fee. ...

There is simply NO SUCH THING as a "rogue attempt" to stop people from making accessories without paying the licensing fee. How could there be, when paying the license fee is a simple, tried-and-true LEGAL default option? This is how it goes in the industry and how it has ALWAYS BEEN. If you want to make an accessory for device "X" you pay a license fee. How could any attempt to authenticate a device as having paid the fee, or to detect devices that are not authorised in this manner be called "rogue" in any way shape or form? Absolute nonsense and more hyperbole from the EFF.

The purposeful but INACCURATE association of this action with software DRM by the EFF, which at this point is not proven to even exist in this case, is meant to make something that is not only typical but very common (authenticating accessory devices), seem somehow nefarious when it is clearly not.

This is total "Chicken Little" stuff. They found a chip, they *fear* that it might have something to do with DRM so they publish that it probably does, based on no evidence whatsoever. They should prove it or shut up, it's defamation otherwise.

Edit: even a tiny bit of searching (and listening to a few actual engineers), reveals that this is more likely a simple multi-plexing or encoder chip and has likely nothing to do with even authenticating the headset! So, not only not DRM chip, not even licensing chip. Nothing at all most likely except the minimum needed for he device to actually do what it purports to do.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #29 of 239
The article reads like an Apple PR piece. It needlessly goes into a defense of Apple's DRM policies, though this new chip is not a DRM chip and has nothing to do with DRM.

It's a control signaling chip for the remote. If you buy the new shuffle you should be aware that you need this thing and that regular headphones will not give you playback control. Most third party headphones with volume control will probably work, since they use simple variable resistors.

Since Apple invented the protocol this chip uses, it has the right to licence it, in exchange for a paltry revenue stream, or it can choose to reduce user irritation and publish the spec without licence requirements.

Either way, it's not a DRM. The new Shuffle is simply less flexible, and people who buy it will learn to like it or will reject it. The market will speak. To me, the thing is useless. I usually hook up my old Shuffle to the car stereo's aux jack, or use different headphones with it.

Nor do I want it to talk to me or to use any of my neurons to remember non-obvious click sequences. But my solution is trivially simple: I won't buy this thing.

Tempest in a teapot. But AI's sweetheart journalism makes for some pretty pathetic reading as well.
post #30 of 239
If I am not mistaken, these are similar outcries people had when the original shuffle was released with no screen. It was going to be the end of the iPod, Apple made the biggest mistake in the world, these will never sell, etc. etc. Flash forward a few years and the shuffle is a wildly successful device.

Now they release a shuffle with no controls except on the headphones, and people are starting with the "end of the world" rants yet again. This is an $80 mp3 player. The average consumer buying these things won't get 3rd-party headphones for them, and I'm sure Apple knows this, or else they wouldn't have gone this route. Don't be so quick to dismiss innovation. The interface may seem clunky on the video Apple has on their web site, but hold your opinions until you actually have one in your hand and have tried it.
post #31 of 239
The first thing I have to ask is simply this; how would an engineer go about implementing this sort of functionality without some sort of chip to encode the keypresses and send them over the mic line? It isn't DRM in any sense of the term, but rather a solution to a problem. Even if Apple is charging a licensing fee it still isn't DRM. Frankly in this case the term has been corrupted significantly.

In any event the EFF is going to loose a lot of credibility if they pursue this track as the chip has nothing to do with DRM. That is where DRM means Digital Rights Management. In the worst case all the chip does is implement a custom communications protocol to ride on the mic signal.

Worst yet the EFF, with some extremely twisted logic, say that this limits innovation. That is sad because it is innovation in and of itself. Let's face it Apple has implemented a lot of capability on that four pin connector to bring us a small but high capability device which in my book is innovation itself. So again the EFF is on the wrong side of the fence here.

Now is Apple perfect with respect to this new tech? Frankly I don't know how or if they are licensing the chip. It would be nice if the protocol was open but on the other hand it is innovation that cost Apple some engineering effort. So a few cents per chip shouldn't wrinkle anybodies shorts.

As to Appleinsider thanks for the excessively long article that is well, USELESS. At best this desreved no more than a couple of terse paragraphs until real facts where forth coming. Even then apple needed to implement the functionality some how and that should have been indicated in the report.

In anyevent I'm not sure how one could call the new shuffle anything but innovative.


Dave
post #32 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What media assault? The only story the media was interested in my neck of the woods was the exploding battery story.

How about toning down the rhetoric in these phantasmagorical stories until something is verified?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGui View Post

You might want to do likewise.

I'm puzzled why you'd say that about SpamSandwich's comment.

As it is, standard practice is supposed to be that those that make the original claims should be the ones that back them up. For example, rather than taking the presense of a chip and assuming it's encrypted to get license fees, those that started the story should have taken the simple steps to show that it actually is encrypted rather than whipping up the hysterics by saying it is without having done adequate verification. The presence of a chip means little, it could be a plain serial code or encrypted, without reading the signal, they don't know the difference.
post #33 of 239
delete
post #34 of 239
My thoughts -
Apple doesn't need proprietary accessories in order to make money. Profit is not the motive; rather, I feel the motive is a desire to make sure third-party accessories function properly with their new button-based control system.
Also, the market for these third-party accessories is not too big. Not only is it limited only to the Shuffle, but it's limited further to those who don't like the Apple headphones. MOST people are fine with them - it's the vocal minority who cry and complain on boards like this and iLounge who are the ones complaining. We'll let the sales speak for themselves.
post #35 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca View Post

The difference, of course, was that the remote was not a required component in order to use the iPod. It was just an optional accessory. And you could still plug any headphones you wanted into it.

Apple just changed the paradigm again. The usuals are whining now, but I bet someday all mobile devices requiring headphones will use such controls. (They whined about the mouse, but ...)

btw, you should know by now that the next iPhone and iPod touch will use these remote controls (with microphone added) and VoiceOver. If you remember, people complained that they had to take their iPhone and iPod touch out of their pockets in order to control the volume/song selection. Well, this is Apple's solution, debuting first on the shuffle.

And one can expect Apple to be investigating methods to "see" & control other iPhone functions without taking it out of your pocket (i.e., looking at it), such as listening to VoiceOver for your received/missed voice calls, and received emails & SMS.

Edit: I don't think the chip has anything to do with authentication or DRM. I bet it's simply changing the clicks into signals.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #36 of 239
Only a Koolaid guzzlin Fanboy would buy this piece of garage anyway so the point is moot. They would buy a new pair of headphones every other week if told to do so.

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/rev...rd-generation/
post #37 of 239
I took my iPod Touch v2 to Indiana and plugged it into my Bose iPod player at my home. Prior generations would play and charge. The v2 Touch would NOT charge and told me so.
post #38 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

No you can buy a 300 dollar headphone to go with your 79 dollar shuffle.

Seconded. I doubt most of the complainers were actually interested in buying shuffle in the first place. Most of the actual buyers are either activity-oriented (e.g., gym, running) or looking for throwaway music device, only replacing earbuds when the included one is damaged or lost.
post #39 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

You are completely missing the point. The headphones are NOT accessories! They are an integral part of the shuffle. The shuffle will not work without them so it makes sense that Apple wants to make sure that any headphones that are used with the shuffle are up to their standards.

BTW I don't understand why people complain about the controls on the earplugs. I use them on my iphone and it's great not having to dig out my iphone, I just wish the volume control worked with the iphone.

Yeah, I have to agree with macnyc here.

It's not like Apple's new shuffle has a monopoly on music players and you are forced to buy some special headphones if you ever want to listen to your music collection again. Apple is doing something new, in which the earbuds are responsible for some of the functionality normally left to the player. It makes a lot of sense, in terms of usability. It also makes sense that they have done this with their cheapest player, so the serious audiophiles who want to spend more for more features and flexibility can still do so. They probably don't want to cannibalize the sales of their Nano, they want to have a different product with different advantages and disadvantages. Not everyone has to buy it, but the people whose needs are met will. It might be a drag that you can't replace the screen on your 20" iMac with a 30" LED display too, but that's why they sell different products for different needs.

I haven't seen any actual proof that "DRM" has been employed between the earbuds and the player, and I think there probably is none, as others have noted. The chip probably just enables communication between the buttons and the player, since everything has to be translated to a signal that can be passed over the single controller lead on the headphone jack.

But while we're on this subject, I'll mention that the patented magnetic power connectors on Apple's laptops present a similar situation--it's a cool innovation, but thanks to the patent only Apple (or licensees) can make AC adatpters for their laptops.
post #40 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

You are completely missing the point. The headphones are NOT accessories! They are an integral part of the shuffle. The shuffle will not work without them so it makes sense that Apple wants to make sure that any headphones that are used with the shuffle are up to their standards.

and the problem is their headphone, earphone standard is down in the toilet. they sound crap compared to even the average earbuds around.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple criticized for iPod shuffle's new 'authentication chip'