This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
It's more than just a USB connector. I really don't know if anything in the dock connector is legitimately patentable, but maybe there's a special wiper design for the contacts, a special process required to make the contacts or something like that.
So why does the fact that a lot of big companies do it mean that it is not insane. I agree that if you create something that is significantly different to a normal connector, like magsafe, that makes sense to issue a patent. However, I am afraid I do not agree with patenting a normal connector.
You lack understanding, young padawan. There are only widely adopted standards... but who do you think created these standards? Do you think they sprang up out of thin air? Those who create and patent inventions need to be able to get paid for their work, or there is no innovation, only illicit copying.
Let me play devil's advocate here and ask you if you think that should cover all dock-like accessories? What if I come up with a radical new idea for an iPod dock that is significantly different in design and functionality from Apple's dock?
If it was different in design and functionality then it would not infringe on the Apple patent. But also it would not be compatible with an iPod, which would make it quite useless.
If it uses the iPod dock design then it infringes on the Apple patent. At least that is the way the US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution for the past 300 years.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
As mentioned its not just the shape. I know someone who bought a cheap alarm clock with an iPod dock. The bloody iPod stopped working the first night it was plugged in. The logical answer is that charging unit in the slarm clock fried the iPod, but she now swears that iPods are crap because understand why the alarm clock would still work. It was under warranty and so Apple replaced it... then she sold it on eBay and bought a SanDisk player. She also returned the alarm clock, so someone else will probably get a fried iPod, too. Apple has every right to protect its brand, its patent, and, most importantly, its bottom line. Wouldn't you want your intellecual property protected too?
Been able to patent a connector is insane. Connectors have been around for decades. Just because you create a connector that has a different size or number of pins etc you can hardly call that an invention. The US patent system needs a complete revamp. Patents are been abused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
Patenting a complex "connector" is like patenting any other invention. Just because there are thousands in use doesn't mean someone didn't create them. Just as someone invented USB, Firewire, PCI express, HDMI, DVI, SCSI, 3.5mm mini, processor socket, etc, Apple's dock connector is a proprietary invention, it is NOT a USB connection. It has a specific engineered physical form and a specific electrical circuit layout and signaling protocol. Apple doesn't have to invent the entire abstract concept of a "connector" in order to patent it and license it's use. I'm sure Apple also has a patent for the breakout adapter for mini-DVI.
That being said, the US patent system does need to be revamped, but that's a whole different issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
Part of me agrees that if Apple's patented ideas are being misappropriated, then they are in the right. But if this move is just to squash competition (and I have to say, it sure looks like it to me) then I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them in court.
It's not squashing competition, it is just enforcing their made-for-Ipod program. If they cared about squashing competition, they would lock up the whole accessory market by not licensing their technology, which do license. They most likely just want to maintain quality control for people using their products with 3rd party accessories, along with wanting to collect royalties on them. I think they are totally justified in doing this. It's their technology that the company is using. The dock connector form, electrical layout, and protocol is probably patented, and if a company wants to use it to connect the iPod to their products, they have to agree to the licensing terms. In addition, they were not licensing the use of Apple's iPod trademarks they had displayed on their product casing. That's another reason why they probably went after them.
As far as all the other companies, I'm sure that they are unable to reach many Chinese rip-off manufacturers, so I would assume they prioritize who they go after depending on how large the company is and if they are actively marketing these products in the United States or Europe.
Wouldn't you want your intellecual property protected too?
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
But they are counterfeiting Apple's property since they don't have rights to it. Should Apple not pay royalties to use USB, FireWire. The connectors have specifiations tjat must be followed too; should Apple allowed to ignore these just because they are commonplace? I even think they have to pay for the ability to have iTunes encode in MP3, but I'd have to read up on that to get the full details.
Should Apple not pay royalties to use USB, FireWire. The connectors have specifiations tjat must be followed too; should Apple allowed to ignore these just because they are commonplace?
Since Apple created Firewire they don't need to pay any loyalties and they dropped any loyalties that others have to pay them.
Since Apple created Firewire they don't need to pay any loyalties and they dropped any loyalties that others have to pay them.
I was under the impression that Apple had to pay the royalty, but that it received most of it back as the main propriator of the IEEE standard. Wikipedia says I am wron, so I'll surrendor that example from my previous response.
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
Business is business. Apple cannot allow fraudulent products to be sold as if they approved of them.
So why does the fact that a lot of big companies do it mean that it is not insane. I agree that if you create something that is significantly different to a normal connector, like magsafe, that makes sense to issue a patent. However, I am afraid I do not agree with patenting a normal connector.
Because whole industries ride around specialzed connectors that do what are required for their purposes. When these companies pour research dollars into designing a new connector, they don't just come up with it in an afternoon.
There are physical layer problems to contend with, such as structural integrity. There are electrical issues to deal with such as voltages, currents, phase and capacitance. Plug=in lifetimes have to be worked out, and all of this must be tested to destruction, and evaluated, according to actual expected usage patterns.
Even the placement of the pins is critical in numerous ways, as are any locking mechanisms.
The shape of the pins must be determined, as must the tips, the lengths, and methodology of fastening them to the body.
The thickness of the plating must be decided, as the plate itself must be. What alloys go into it and the pins themselves, or what plastics or metals go into the shell?
There are serious engineering problems that must be solved.
All international mechanical, and electrical standards must be met, if they will be in those markets, as happens in these days of international materials and parts sourcing.
You think a connector is a simple device to fashion only because you've never had to do it, or to look into how it's done, or had to spec them for your own products.
The connector business is as difficult as any other technical area is.
The mag-safe adapter, by the way, is on my chocolate fountain. I'm not sure what Apple has done to it that would merit a patent, but I've not seen it.
Micheal Crichton did such. Maybe the patent process isn't easy, but the fact that a lot of things do get patented that should not is really the problem.
I know Michael, and he would do that.
I gave the reasons in my post.
The estimate is that is will cost almost a billion extra a year to fix the patent office. If we can persuade our elected officials to spend this money, it could be done.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
Read my earlier post on this.
It isn't that simple. If Apple has a patent on the connector, that's that. Apple's entire iPod empire could come tumbling down because of this, if this is about what some of us think it is, which would be why Apple is reacting this way.
Plus, there are the copyright and trademark issues.
It's more than just a USB connector. I really don't know if anything in the dock connector is legitimately patentable, but maybe there's a special wiper design for the contacts, a special process required to make the contacts or something like that.
As I mentioned, it's the shape of the connector, the pin layout, the electricial interface for the pinout, and buffering, etc.
You lack understanding, young padawan. There are only widely adopted standards... but who do you think created these standards? Do you think they sprang up out of thin air? Those who create and patent inventions need to be able to get paid for their work, or there is no innovation, only illicit copying.
Besides, Almost all connectors over the past century, or so, were patented, and owned by their inventors.
Once the patents ran out, after twenty years, if they were very good, they became "standards".
Today, things are much more complex, and sometimes standards are arrived at by committee, with representatives from many different companies.
What then happens is that we get Firewire, and HDMI connectors that don't lock. Flimsy eSATA connectors, etc.
Proprietary designs tend to be more robust.
And yes, I know that USB doesn't lock either, but those were never intended, at first, to be used for critical applications, like FW and eSATA was.
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
So you're saying that Apple's complex connector, with all of its physical and electrical characteristics, are not an Apple product?
Are you saying that it's fine to copy a PART of a product, but not all of it?
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
If the Devices made damage the iPod the consumer will go after Apple for not defending their patents on quality of third party products which is part of the Made for iPod.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
No, its not JUST a USB connection.
Pin\tSignal\tDescription
1\tGND\tGround (-), internaly connected with Pin 2 on iPod motherboard
2\tGND\tAudio & Video ground (-), internaly connected with Pin 2 on iPod motherboard
3\tRight\tLine Out - R (+) (Audio output, right channel)
4\tLeft\tLine Out - L(+) (Audio output, left channel)
5\tRight In\tLine In - R (+)
6\tLeft In\tLine In - L (+)
8\tVideo Out\tComposite video output (only when slideshow active on iPod Photo)
9\tS-Video Chrominance output\tfor iPod Color, Photo only
10\tS-Video Luminance output\tfor iPod Color, Photo only
11\tGND\tSerial GND
12\tTx\tipod sending line, Serial TxD
13\tRx\tipod receiving line, Serial RxD
15\tGND\tGround (-), internaly connected with pin 16 on iPod motherboard
16\tGND\tUSB GND (-), internaly connected with pin 15 on iPod motherboard
18\t3.3V\t3.3V Power (+)
(Stepped up to provide +5 VDC to USB on iPod Camera Connector. If iPod is put to sleep while Camera Connector is present, +5 VDC at this pin slowly drains back to 0 VDC.)
19,20\t+12V\tFirewire Power 12 VDC (+)
21\tAccessory Indicator/Serial enable\t Different resistances indicate accessory type:
1kOhm - iPod docking station, beeps when connected
10kOhm - Takes some iPods into photo import mode
500kOhm - related to serial communication / used to enable serial communications Used in Dension Ice Link Plus car interface
1MOhm - Belkin auto adaptor, iPod shuts down automatically when power disconnected Connecting pin 21 to ground with a 1MOhm resistor does stop the ipod when power (i.e. Firewire-12V) is cut. Looks to be that when this pin is grounded it closes a switch so that on loss of power the Ipod shuts off. Dock has the same Resister.
22\tTPA (-)\tFireWire Data TPA (-)
23\t5 VDC (+)\tUSB Power 5 VDC (+)
24\tTPA (+)\tFireWire Data TPA (+)
25\tData (-)\tUSB Data (-)
26\tTPB (-)\tFireWire Data TPB (-)
27\tData (+)\tUSB Data (+)
Pins 25 and 27 may be used in different manner. To force the iPod 5G to charge in any case, when 'USB Power 5 VDC' (pin 23) is fed, 25 must be connected to 5V through a 10kOhm resistor, and 27 must be connected to the Ground (for example: pin 1) with a 10kOhm resistor.
28\tTPB (+)\tFireWire Data TPB (+)
29,30\tGND\tFireWire Ground (-)
Back side of dock connector;
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Pins 1,2 connected on motherboard.
Pins 15,16 connected on motherboard.
Pins 19,20 connected on motherboard.
Pins 29,30 connected on motherboard.
If you disassemble the original apple-ipod-dock-connector-cable and look at the connector itself, on the back side, where it is soldered, you can see the number 1 and 30 (e.g. pin 1 and 30). In this description NUMBERING is INVERSED: pin 1 is pin 30 and pin 30 is pin 2, so, don't look at numbers on connector.
The remote control, iTalk and other serial devices use Apple Accessory Protocol for communication with iPOD. This protocol was introduced with the 3rd generation iPods, and is also compatible with the 4th generation iPods and mini iPods. The connections uses a standard 8N1 (one startbit 8 data bits 1 Stopbit) serial protocol, 19200 baud (higher rates up to 57600 also possible, but speed faster than 38400 may cause problems with large amounts of data), delay of 12 microseconds inserted between end of the stopbit and the beginning of the next startbit (also working without this delay).
Electrical: high +3,3V low 0V
default line state: high. Codes used for communication with peripherals are here
This device may be connected to the firewire computer port by straight cable (TPB+/-, TPA +/- shoulde be twisted pairs in cable)
Comments
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
It's more than just a USB connector. I really don't know if anything in the dock connector is legitimately patentable, but maybe there's a special wiper design for the contacts, a special process required to make the contacts or something like that.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
No, it has 30 pins. A USB connector with a different shape would still have 4 pins.
So why does the fact that a lot of big companies do it mean that it is not insane. I agree that if you create something that is significantly different to a normal connector, like magsafe, that makes sense to issue a patent. However, I am afraid I do not agree with patenting a normal connector.
You lack understanding, young padawan.
Let me play devil's advocate here and ask you if you think that should cover all dock-like accessories? What if I come up with a radical new idea for an iPod dock that is significantly different in design and functionality from Apple's dock?
If it was different in design and functionality then it would not infringe on the Apple patent. But also it would not be compatible with an iPod, which would make it quite useless.
If it uses the iPod dock design then it infringes on the Apple patent. At least that is the way the US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution for the past 300 years.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
As mentioned its not just the shape. I know someone who bought a cheap alarm clock with an iPod dock. The bloody iPod stopped working the first night it was plugged in. The logical answer is that charging unit in the slarm clock fried the iPod, but she now swears that iPods are crap because understand why the alarm clock would still work. It was under warranty and so Apple replaced it... then she sold it on eBay and bought a SanDisk player. She also returned the alarm clock, so someone else will probably get a fried iPod, too. Apple has every right to protect its brand, its patent, and, most importantly, its bottom line. Wouldn't you want your intellecual property protected too?
Been able to patent a connector is insane. Connectors have been around for decades. Just because you create a connector that has a different size or number of pins etc you can hardly call that an invention. The US patent system needs a complete revamp. Patents are been abused.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
Patenting a complex "connector" is like patenting any other invention. Just because there are thousands in use doesn't mean someone didn't create them. Just as someone invented USB, Firewire, PCI express, HDMI, DVI, SCSI, 3.5mm mini, processor socket, etc, Apple's dock connector is a proprietary invention, it is NOT a USB connection. It has a specific engineered physical form and a specific electrical circuit layout and signaling protocol. Apple doesn't have to invent the entire abstract concept of a "connector" in order to patent it and license it's use. I'm sure Apple also has a patent for the breakout adapter for mini-DVI.
That being said, the US patent system does need to be revamped, but that's a whole different issue.
Part of me agrees that if Apple's patented ideas are being misappropriated, then they are in the right. But if this move is just to squash competition (and I have to say, it sure looks like it to me) then I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them in court.
It's not squashing competition, it is just enforcing their made-for-Ipod program. If they cared about squashing competition, they would lock up the whole accessory market by not licensing their technology, which do license. They most likely just want to maintain quality control for people using their products with 3rd party accessories, along with wanting to collect royalties on them. I think they are totally justified in doing this. It's their technology that the company is using. The dock connector form, electrical layout, and protocol is probably patented, and if a company wants to use it to connect the iPod to their products, they have to agree to the licensing terms. In addition, they were not licensing the use of Apple's iPod trademarks they had displayed on their product casing. That's another reason why they probably went after them.
As far as all the other companies, I'm sure that they are unable to reach many Chinese rip-off manufacturers, so I would assume they prioritize who they go after depending on how large the company is and if they are actively marketing these products in the United States or Europe.
Wouldn't you want your intellecual property protected too?
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
But they are counterfeiting Apple's property since they don't have rights to it. Should Apple not pay royalties to use USB, FireWire. The connectors have specifiations tjat must be followed too; should Apple allowed to ignore these just because they are commonplace? I even think they have to pay for the ability to have iTunes encode in MP3, but I'd have to read up on that to get the full details.
Should Apple not pay royalties to use USB, FireWire. The connectors have specifiations tjat must be followed too; should Apple allowed to ignore these just because they are commonplace?
Since Apple created Firewire they don't need to pay any loyalties and they dropped any loyalties that others have to pay them.
Since Apple created Firewire they don't need to pay any loyalties and they dropped any loyalties that others have to pay them.
I was under the impression that Apple had to pay the royalty, but that it received most of it back as the main propriator of the IEEE standard. Wikipedia says I am wron, so I'll surrendor that example from my previous response.
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
Business is business. Apple cannot allow fraudulent products to be sold as if they approved of them.
So why does the fact that a lot of big companies do it mean that it is not insane. I agree that if you create something that is significantly different to a normal connector, like magsafe, that makes sense to issue a patent. However, I am afraid I do not agree with patenting a normal connector.
Because whole industries ride around specialzed connectors that do what are required for their purposes. When these companies pour research dollars into designing a new connector, they don't just come up with it in an afternoon.
There are physical layer problems to contend with, such as structural integrity. There are electrical issues to deal with such as voltages, currents, phase and capacitance. Plug=in lifetimes have to be worked out, and all of this must be tested to destruction, and evaluated, according to actual expected usage patterns.
Even the placement of the pins is critical in numerous ways, as are any locking mechanisms.
The shape of the pins must be determined, as must the tips, the lengths, and methodology of fastening them to the body.
The thickness of the plating must be decided, as the plate itself must be. What alloys go into it and the pins themselves, or what plastics or metals go into the shell?
There are serious engineering problems that must be solved.
All international mechanical, and electrical standards must be met, if they will be in those markets, as happens in these days of international materials and parts sourcing.
You think a connector is a simple device to fashion only because you've never had to do it, or to look into how it's done, or had to spec them for your own products.
The connector business is as difficult as any other technical area is.
The mag-safe adapter, by the way, is on my chocolate fountain. I'm not sure what Apple has done to it that would merit a patent, but I've not seen it.
Micheal Crichton did such. Maybe the patent process isn't easy, but the fact that a lot of things do get patented that should not is really the problem.
I know Michael, and he would do that.
I gave the reasons in my post.
The estimate is that is will cost almost a billion extra a year to fix the patent office. If we can persuade our elected officials to spend this money, it could be done.
But how will that happen?
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
Read my earlier post on this.
It isn't that simple. If Apple has a patent on the connector, that's that. Apple's entire iPod empire could come tumbling down because of this, if this is about what some of us think it is, which would be why Apple is reacting this way.
Plus, there are the copyright and trademark issues.
It's more than just a USB connector. I really don't know if anything in the dock connector is legitimately patentable, but maybe there's a special wiper design for the contacts, a special process required to make the contacts or something like that.
As I mentioned, it's the shape of the connector, the pin layout, the electricial interface for the pinout, and buffering, etc.
This is all very complex.
You lack understanding, young padawan.
Besides, Almost all connectors over the past century, or so, were patented, and owned by their inventors.
Once the patents ran out, after twenty years, if they were very good, they became "standards".
Today, things are much more complex, and sometimes standards are arrived at by committee, with representatives from many different companies.
What then happens is that we get Firewire, and HDMI connectors that don't lock. Flimsy eSATA connectors, etc.
Proprietary designs tend to be more robust.
And yes, I know that USB doesn't lock either, but those were never intended, at first, to be used for critical applications, like FW and eSATA was.
If people were counterfeiting my actual product, sure. If they were contributing to a market place of accessories that actually complimented the sales of my own product, no way.
It's just a cable. If Apple is going to sue over something that stupid, then they deserve ever single small-time lawsuit that gets brought against them.
So you're saying that Apple's complex connector, with all of its physical and electrical characteristics, are not an Apple product?
Are you saying that it's fine to copy a PART of a product, but not all of it?
That would go against law in about all countries.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
If the Devices made damage the iPod the consumer will go after Apple for not defending their patents on quality of third party products which is part of the Made for iPod.
This is bad juju. These guys are making an ACCESSORY for the iPod, not copying the iPod itself. They aren't even claiming to be part of the "made for iPod" program, just compatible with it. That accessory market is good for Apple, not competition.
Its very suspicious that Apple was even able to get a patent on the shape of the connector. Isn't it just a USB connector with a different shape?
No, its not JUST a USB connection.
Pin\tSignal\tDescription
1\tGND\tGround (-), internaly connected with Pin 2 on iPod motherboard
2\tGND\tAudio & Video ground (-), internaly connected with Pin 2 on iPod motherboard
3\tRight\tLine Out - R (+) (Audio output, right channel)
4\tLeft\tLine Out - L(+) (Audio output, left channel)
5\tRight In\tLine In - R (+)
6\tLeft In\tLine In - L (+)
8\tVideo Out\tComposite video output (only when slideshow active on iPod Photo)
9\tS-Video Chrominance output\tfor iPod Color, Photo only
10\tS-Video Luminance output\tfor iPod Color, Photo only
11\tGND\tSerial GND
12\tTx\tipod sending line, Serial TxD
13\tRx\tipod receiving line, Serial RxD
15\tGND\tGround (-), internaly connected with pin 16 on iPod motherboard
16\tGND\tUSB GND (-), internaly connected with pin 15 on iPod motherboard
18\t3.3V\t3.3V Power (+)
(Stepped up to provide +5 VDC to USB on iPod Camera Connector. If iPod is put to sleep while Camera Connector is present, +5 VDC at this pin slowly drains back to 0 VDC.)
19,20\t+12V\tFirewire Power 12 VDC (+)
21\tAccessory Indicator/Serial enable\t Different resistances indicate accessory type:
1kOhm - iPod docking station, beeps when connected
10kOhm - Takes some iPods into photo import mode
500kOhm - related to serial communication / used to enable serial communications Used in Dension Ice Link Plus car interface
1MOhm - Belkin auto adaptor, iPod shuts down automatically when power disconnected Connecting pin 21 to ground with a 1MOhm resistor does stop the ipod when power (i.e. Firewire-12V) is cut. Looks to be that when this pin is grounded it closes a switch so that on loss of power the Ipod shuts off. Dock has the same Resister.
22\tTPA (-)\tFireWire Data TPA (-)
23\t5 VDC (+)\tUSB Power 5 VDC (+)
24\tTPA (+)\tFireWire Data TPA (+)
25\tData (-)\tUSB Data (-)
26\tTPB (-)\tFireWire Data TPB (-)
27\tData (+)\tUSB Data (+)
Pins 25 and 27 may be used in different manner. To force the iPod 5G to charge in any case, when 'USB Power 5 VDC' (pin 23) is fed, 25 must be connected to 5V through a 10kOhm resistor, and 27 must be connected to the Ground (for example: pin 1) with a 10kOhm resistor.
28\tTPB (+)\tFireWire Data TPB (+)
29,30\tGND\tFireWire Ground (-)
Back side of dock connector;
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Pins 1,2 connected on motherboard.
Pins 15,16 connected on motherboard.
Pins 19,20 connected on motherboard.
Pins 29,30 connected on motherboard.
If you disassemble the original apple-ipod-dock-connector-cable and look at the connector itself, on the back side, where it is soldered, you can see the number 1 and 30 (e.g. pin 1 and 30). In this description NUMBERING is INVERSED: pin 1 is pin 30 and pin 30 is pin 2, so, don't look at numbers on connector.
The remote control, iTalk and other serial devices use Apple Accessory Protocol for communication with iPOD. This protocol was introduced with the 3rd generation iPods, and is also compatible with the 4th generation iPods and mini iPods. The connections uses a standard 8N1 (one startbit 8 data bits 1 Stopbit) serial protocol, 19200 baud (higher rates up to 57600 also possible, but speed faster than 38400 may cause problems with large amounts of data), delay of 12 microseconds inserted between end of the stopbit and the beginning of the next startbit (also working without this delay).
Electrical: high +3,3V low 0V
default line state: high. Codes used for communication with peripherals are here
This device may be connected to the firewire computer port by straight cable (TPB+/-, TPA +/- shoulde be twisted pairs in cable)