I believe the following comments are not biased by the fact that this is the first ipod I have seen which I do not like over its predecessor. That is a different discussion...
I agree that EFF could have shot first and asked questions later -- just because there is a chip does not directly lead to it being either DRM and/or an authentication chip. Quite frankly, I would assume there is some sort of chip in there, it is a little small of a space to have gears and levers ;-)
If for a moment we assume that the paranoia is justified -- even if it was the lesser form of paranoia that Apple will charge a licensing fee -- it bodes poorly for the entire ipod line. It is easy to say "why do you want to use your $300 headphones with a Shuffle?" However, it could not be an inconceivable leap for all future ipods to come with these headphones and it would be a great loss if Apple got greedy and required them to use these chip-enabled phones
And when Apple goes down this route, it does not always reach out to the third party manufacturers. Before Apple locked down the video port on the ipods, there were some great video options out there, but when the video signal required an authentication chip, many of these vendors did not bother to update their product. Likely they either got burned or were scared of chasing a moving target. So my Memorex iFlip video player is consigned to using my old iPod video, versus my newer Classic (frustratingly, the one with enough storage for a lot of video).
To a certain extent I think this shit storm (possibly about nothing) is a good thing as Apple needs to hear that they have to refrain from further locking the systems down.
That's fine but what if, like with many people, Apple's earbuds don't stay in their ears? Some people just have the wrong ear shape and they fall out.
What if they are replacing an older iPod that died and want to use a favorite pair of headphones they already own?
On top of that the control scheme is totally unintuitive and not Apple-like at all. Apple things are supposed to be simple and easy. This is the opposite. It's a pointless gimmick that will sell only because it carries the trendy iPod name. But I don't think it'll sell that well. The next version will have buttons on the iPod itself.
Yeah it won't sell, just like the Macbooks weren't supposed to sell because of no firewire.
@macnyc- Finally someone on here with a logical response. @everyone else- All you reactionary dipshits calling this guy(ArcoshKobosh) an idiot deserve fanboy title.
Actually it's you who is being the idiot fanboy by defending Apple. Do you even know what fanboy means? We're the ones CRITICIZING Apple, which is pretty much ANTI-fanboy.
Back to the article, we're being reactionary because Apple has done this over and over again in the past. It has engineered an OS that can only be installed on its hardware. It engineered a Magsafe charger that nobody else is allowed to manufacture so MacBook owners must pay 2x more for a replacement A/C adapter than the market rates. It has engineered an iPod connector that any car or charger manufacturer must license or they can't interface.
We're reacting because, as above, Apple has a long track record of making accessories that are Apple-specific and not letting 3rd parties in on the game. They squelch competition. That's really not cool.
It's blatantly a chip that handles the remote control actions which are non-trivial (press and hold, etc) and then sends a (inaudible? pulse?) signal to the player to denote what action was performed.
Whaaa that it's new and other headphones don't support it. Boo to Apple for not just making that controller have a 3.5 mm headphone socket on the end out of the box.
They used the term "authentication chip", but there was nothing indicating they had actually done their homework and proved that the chip has anything to do with authentication. The "chip" probably just implements the new and more complicated communication protocol between the controls and the shuffle.
As an engineer, I completely understand why something like they would break backwards compatibility. While it is better to be compatible, you can't always achieve in your designs.
Bottom line... Apple is trying to innovate and not stifle third parties. You can't knock them for having proprietary protocols and connectors if there are not viable standards already available.
iLounge and the EFF appear to be way off base here. They have no right to tell Apple that they cannot make an iPod without controls and they surely cannot mandate Apple supplying a generic dongle connector for controls to be used with non-Apple earphones.
There will be a dongle with controls on the market soon enough. I would personally like to see this stuff just get standardized once a good design emerges. Until that happens, this is the way it is.
I still prefer the original. 6 key selling features the old has over the new.
1. Use any headphone
2. Use as usb storage
3. Nice sound quality
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhere)
So the only reason to get a new Shuffle is that it's smaller yet? I think Apple is going in the wrong direction with the shuffle. Advance the shuffle, and create a new product line called the 'Micro' or something.
Having a USB player is in my mind, important. It's the only reason I bought a few of them (1st gen shuffles). People still use USB storage devices en mass.
I guess it comes down to function over form. Apple has always leaned more on the 'form' side of innovation once a product has taken off. Guess that's why it's 'boutique'.
If your a marathon runner, I guess USB is not a priority.
Therefore, if the Shuffle is now a boutique product with only 1 function, music, then the argument of hardware DRM vs. headphones is somewhat diluted.
Logic would dictate that soon, the shuffle will be the headphones, at which point there will be no 3rd party.
This shuffle is just an awkward intermediary design in it's eventual evolution into a bud.
We cheer Apple for breaking paradigms, and curse them for the same thing.
2. Add no extra wire to the cable to reduce cost/weight/flexibility.
Solution:
Add extra wires so newssites all over the world is happy while the consumers suffer.
Better solution:
Add a tiny chip inside the remote that translate keypresses into signals that is read by the processor on the unit itself, all without adding extra wires.
Well iLounge is not a whiny blog site. They have been around since iPods came about and if anything they are a huge fansite and promoter of anything iPod.
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.
It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.
By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.
And this is coming from me, who owns several Apple products.
It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.
By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.
Yes which is more sales, you didn't have to register to write this crap.
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.
Sigh, here come the drones. As a long, long, long time Apple customer, people who eat up Apple's new MicroSoft approach to sticking us every chance they can and calling it a feature are starting to make me want to pull my hair out. Open your eyes and think a little. This is EXACTLY what MicroSoft does. Microsoft forces it's will upon it's customers via software (that's all they make). Apple is now doing the same more and more with hardware.
Your argument is valid when applied towards buying an Apple computer vs. a "built" PC. You can't trot that argument out for every product under the sun.
We're talking earphones here. Completely different than say, a printer with it's own set of complex PPDs that has to communicate through various hardware components within an architecture (all with their own firmware) to work with all the different software that prints to it.
Earphones, stick jack in port?your done.
What exactly is the free-for-all, and reduced reliability involved with plugging a little stick of metal into a hole. How many moving parts in a Jack? How much software is involved in controlling one? There is no "system" here that has anything to do with managing an environment or trying to get complex interfaces between components to function optimally.
One more time, here's how the components work incase your missed it:
Stick jack in port. There is no software involved. Just a metal prong attached to wires, probably made by a few manufactures who sell the same little jack to all the earphone manufactures, including whatever company is making Apple's for them.
Until now, whatever happened on the other side of the plug had nothing to do with how well the earphones functioned, their quality, their form factor.
I guarantee you, if you are looking for reliability within a wide range of comfort, sound quality, and price compared to Apple's crappy earphones, there is a whole world of 3rd party companies that blow Apple a way. There are companies that do nothing but specializing in earphones and they do it way better than Apple does. The same goes for displays for that matter.
This will sound insulting, I wish it weren't, I just think it's true. Your complacency represents everything that is going wrong with Apple. They count more and more on consumers who don't know any better than to swallow the line of crap in which they tell you:
In order to use one Apple product, you must have their piece of fruit on every other electronic device you might want to connect to it, unless they don't make one. Even if the only reason is an authentication chip that serves no other purpose than to render other products useless, and they are doing you a favor by taking away your choices.
For some reason, as they are dolling that crap out, too many customers bend over and say thank you. Nothing makes me more sad than to see the company I've supported for so long BECAUSE they represented a different way of doing things, start to become more and more like MicroSoft.
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 could just tell Apple you don't want to buy one when they knock on your door to sell it to you.
I hear and agree with what you are saying. In fact, I am a little fearful that this is going to be the direction they take with all of their iPods.
On the other hand, I think most people that are in the market for an iPod Shuffle are not exactly looking for the top notch equipment, so special headphones are not an issue. For example I'm not going to go to the gym with $300 Bose Quiet Comfort 3 headphones attached to my iPod Shuffle.
Like I said, I agree 100% with you, but obviously this is not a concern for Apple. Cheap has never been their strategy. Swapping parts has never been a strategy either. Think about back to when some of the PowerMacs (pre-iMac) had crazy microphone jacks that only used Apple proprietary equipment.
Obviously the strategy is: Apple iPod headphones, like every set of headphones, will eventually fail. Let's make the easiest and least expensive solution to just buy another set of Apple iPod shuffle headphones.
I don't agree, but I'm sure they will sell plenty of units.
It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.
By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.
And this is coming from me, who owns several Apple products.
Explain how to implement a remote control to a device without adding extra wires for each button.
How do we do this?
What do you think happens when you press a button on an IR-based remote for your TV?
Comments
I agree that EFF could have shot first and asked questions later -- just because there is a chip does not directly lead to it being either DRM and/or an authentication chip. Quite frankly, I would assume there is some sort of chip in there, it is a little small of a space to have gears and levers ;-)
If for a moment we assume that the paranoia is justified -- even if it was the lesser form of paranoia that Apple will charge a licensing fee -- it bodes poorly for the entire ipod line. It is easy to say "why do you want to use your $300 headphones with a Shuffle?" However, it could not be an inconceivable leap for all future ipods to come with these headphones and it would be a great loss if Apple got greedy and required them to use these chip-enabled phones
And when Apple goes down this route, it does not always reach out to the third party manufacturers. Before Apple locked down the video port on the ipods, there were some great video options out there, but when the video signal required an authentication chip, many of these vendors did not bother to update their product. Likely they either got burned or were scared of chasing a moving target. So my Memorex iFlip video player is consigned to using my old iPod video, versus my newer Classic (frustratingly, the one with enough storage for a lot of video).
To a certain extent I think this shit storm (possibly about nothing) is a good thing as Apple needs to hear that they have to refrain from further locking the systems down.
That's fine but what if, like with many people, Apple's earbuds don't stay in their ears? Some people just have the wrong ear shape and they fall out.
What if they are replacing an older iPod that died and want to use a favorite pair of headphones they already own?
On top of that the control scheme is totally unintuitive and not Apple-like at all. Apple things are supposed to be simple and easy. This is the opposite. It's a pointless gimmick that will sell only because it carries the trendy iPod name. But I don't think it'll sell that well. The next version will have buttons on the iPod itself.
Yeah it won't sell, just like the Macbooks weren't supposed to sell because of no firewire.
Which is why I see everybody wearing them and not 150 dollar ones.
and how much % listen to flac on those earphones?
@macnyc- Finally someone on here with a logical response. @everyone else- All you reactionary dipshits calling this guy(ArcoshKobosh) an idiot deserve fanboy title.
Actually it's you who is being the idiot fanboy by defending Apple. Do you even know what fanboy means? We're the ones CRITICIZING Apple, which is pretty much ANTI-fanboy.
Back to the article, we're being reactionary because Apple has done this over and over again in the past. It has engineered an OS that can only be installed on its hardware. It engineered a Magsafe charger that nobody else is allowed to manufacture so MacBook owners must pay 2x more for a replacement A/C adapter than the market rates. It has engineered an iPod connector that any car or charger manufacturer must license or they can't interface.
We're reacting because, as above, Apple has a long track record of making accessories that are Apple-specific and not letting 3rd parties in on the game. They squelch competition. That's really not cool.
Whaaa that it's new and other headphones don't support it. Boo to Apple for not just making that controller have a 3.5 mm headphone socket on the end out of the box.
As an engineer, I completely understand why something like they would break backwards compatibility. While it is better to be compatible, you can't always achieve in your designs.
Bottom line... Apple is trying to innovate and not stifle third parties. You can't knock them for having proprietary protocols and connectors if there are not viable standards already available.
iLounge and the EFF appear to be way off base here. They have no right to tell Apple that they cannot make an iPod without controls and they surely cannot mandate Apple supplying a generic dongle connector for controls to be used with non-Apple earphones.
There will be a dongle with controls on the market soon enough. I would personally like to see this stuff just get standardized once a good design emerges. Until that happens, this is the way it is.
1. Use any headphone
2. Use as usb storage
3. Nice sound quality
4. Click wheel
5. Charge indicator
6. USB charging (can find a usb port anywhere)
So the only reason to get a new Shuffle is that it's smaller yet? I think Apple is going in the wrong direction with the shuffle. Advance the shuffle, and create a new product line called the 'Micro' or something.
Having a USB player is in my mind, important. It's the only reason I bought a few of them (1st gen shuffles). People still use USB storage devices en mass.
I guess it comes down to function over form. Apple has always leaned more on the 'form' side of innovation once a product has taken off. Guess that's why it's 'boutique'.
If your a marathon runner, I guess USB is not a priority.
Therefore, if the Shuffle is now a boutique product with only 1 function, music, then the argument of hardware DRM vs. headphones is somewhat diluted.
Logic would dictate that soon, the shuffle will be the headphones, at which point there will be no 3rd party.
This shuffle is just an awkward intermediary design in it's eventual evolution into a bud.
We cheer Apple for breaking paradigms, and curse them for the same thing.
and how much % listen to flac on those earphones?
Yes I'm sure most of them are worried about flac on their shuffle.
1. Multiple buttons on a remote control.
2. Add no extra wire to the cable to reduce cost/weight/flexibility.
Solution:
Add extra wires so newssites all over the world is happy while the consumers suffer.
Better solution:
Add a tiny chip inside the remote that translate keypresses into signals that is read by the processor on the unit itself, all without adding extra wires.
Actually he has, Mobileme.
Well iLounge is not a whiny blog site. They have been around since iPods came about and if anything they are a huge fansite and promoter of anything iPod.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/rev...rd-generation/
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/
I think Bill Gates spiked your kool-aid there buddy. You speak much but say little.
Aren't the old ones still being sold?
Yeah- so??
And so is Classic Coke.
I think Bill Gates spiked your kool-aid there buddy. You speak much but say little.
I've said a lot more than you buddy.
And what are you sayin? NOTHING.
Yeah- so??
And so is Classic Coke.
So go buy one if you want to use your 300 dollar headphones with your 79 dollar shuffle.
It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.
By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.
And this is coming from me, who owns several Apple products.
This isn't even an article.
It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.
By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.
Yes which is more sales, you didn't have to register to write this crap.
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.
Sigh, here come the drones. As a long, long, long time Apple customer, people who eat up Apple's new MicroSoft approach to sticking us every chance they can and calling it a feature are starting to make me want to pull my hair out. Open your eyes and think a little. This is EXACTLY what MicroSoft does. Microsoft forces it's will upon it's customers via software (that's all they make). Apple is now doing the same more and more with hardware.
Your argument is valid when applied towards buying an Apple computer vs. a "built" PC. You can't trot that argument out for every product under the sun.
We're talking earphones here. Completely different than say, a printer with it's own set of complex PPDs that has to communicate through various hardware components within an architecture (all with their own firmware) to work with all the different software that prints to it.
Earphones, stick jack in port?your done.
What exactly is the free-for-all, and reduced reliability involved with plugging a little stick of metal into a hole. How many moving parts in a Jack? How much software is involved in controlling one? There is no "system" here that has anything to do with managing an environment or trying to get complex interfaces between components to function optimally.
One more time, here's how the components work incase your missed it:
Stick jack in port. There is no software involved. Just a metal prong attached to wires, probably made by a few manufactures who sell the same little jack to all the earphone manufactures, including whatever company is making Apple's for them.
Until now, whatever happened on the other side of the plug had nothing to do with how well the earphones functioned, their quality, their form factor.
I guarantee you, if you are looking for reliability within a wide range of comfort, sound quality, and price compared to Apple's crappy earphones, there is a whole world of 3rd party companies that blow Apple a way. There are companies that do nothing but specializing in earphones and they do it way better than Apple does. The same goes for displays for that matter.
This will sound insulting, I wish it weren't, I just think it's true. Your complacency represents everything that is going wrong with Apple. They count more and more on consumers who don't know any better than to swallow the line of crap in which they tell you:
In order to use one Apple product, you must have their piece of fruit on every other electronic device you might want to connect to it, unless they don't make one. Even if the only reason is an authentication chip that serves no other purpose than to render other products useless, and they are doing you a favor by taking away your choices.
For some reason, as they are dolling that crap out, too many customers bend over and say thank you. Nothing makes me more sad than to see the company I've supported for so long BECAUSE they represented a different way of doing things, start to become more and more like MicroSoft.
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 could just tell Apple you don't want to buy one when they knock on your door to sell it to you.
I hear and agree with what you are saying. In fact, I am a little fearful that this is going to be the direction they take with all of their iPods.
On the other hand, I think most people that are in the market for an iPod Shuffle are not exactly looking for the top notch equipment, so special headphones are not an issue. For example I'm not going to go to the gym with $300 Bose Quiet Comfort 3 headphones attached to my iPod Shuffle.
Like I said, I agree 100% with you, but obviously this is not a concern for Apple. Cheap has never been their strategy. Swapping parts has never been a strategy either. Think about back to when some of the PowerMacs (pre-iMac) had crazy microphone jacks that only used Apple proprietary equipment.
Obviously the strategy is: Apple iPod headphones, like every set of headphones, will eventually fail. Let's make the easiest and least expensive solution to just buy another set of Apple iPod shuffle headphones.
I don't agree, but I'm sure they will sell plenty of units.
This isn't even an article.
It's a pathetic, defensive PR-piece for Apple defending their use of this greedy, monopolative excuse for wanting to suck more money out of whomever they can via licensing fees.
By far, this is the stupidest thing Apple has done lately. I hope they get what's coming to them for this.
And this is coming from me, who owns several Apple products.
Explain how to implement a remote control to a device without adding extra wires for each button.
How do we do this?
What do you think happens when you press a button on an IR-based remote for your TV?