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?
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.
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
There is a button on the side of it- why do you need to take it out of your pockets? Put your hand in your pockets.
Comments
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
These are simply two completely DIFFERENT things.
The reference to EFF says it all:
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/rev...rd-generation/
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
There is a button on the side of it- why do you need to take it out of your pockets? Put your hand in your pockets.