Most of you will know that Apple recently unveiled their new iPod Shuffle, much to everyone's surprise. Well, it appears that there have been some dirty secrets uncovered about the new device: according to iLounge, Apple has put DRM in the hardware to prevent you from using any earphones that you want.You read that correctly. You will either have to use Apple earphones, or a third-party product which incorporates an 'Apple authentification chip', if you want to use the new device. iLounge had these words to offer about the topic: "This is, in short, a nightmare scenario for long-time iPod fans: are we entering 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? It's a shame, and one that consumers should feel empowered to fight." Apparently the device will still work and play music, but you won't be able to change volume or tracks, unless, as mentioned, the headphones have the chip in them.
The EFF also said that, "If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft 'authentication chips' in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."
So far, Apple's new iPod Shuffle has had mixed reviews, and this certainly doesn't help the Cupertino-based company. What do you think about this?
either way i always suggest getting a DAP (Digital Audio Player) that supports Rockbox ( www.rockbox.org , free open-soruce firmware) anyways
Zune ftmfw!
+1
And again, "Antitrust" only applies to Microsoft, It seems.
I wonder if the definition for Monopoly was adjusted to fit a single company alone.
Besides, how is Microsoft a monopoly? Last time I went computer shopping, I had the choice of Windows, OS X, Linux, or my eventual choice, a system without a preloaded OS.
Its not that Apple is a monopoly persay. More like this is an antitrust kind'of action. Imagine if they did this for ALL of their products. They could seriously hurt a lot of the headphone competition that way. (Unless consumers wise up and buy Apple's competitors.)
How is Apple not a monopoly? They utterly dominate the portable music player market.
It looks like they're trying to turn the portable media market into something more like the video game industry. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo charge companies a licensing fee to make accessories compatible with the Xbox, PS3, and Wii. Now Apple is trying to do the same with the iPod products. I have mixed feelings about this prospect... In the video game case we tend to accept this because those companies use the licensing revenue to subsidize the cost of the gaming hardware (that's why Sony sells the PS3 for so much less than it costs to make). But as far as I'm aware Apple is still raking in the profits from the iPod hardware AND the accessories AND the digital media.
Seems you're in the wrong debate buddy... We're not talking about Apple vs Microsoft in the OS business. We all know Apple is not the monopoly desktop operating system... We're talking about the Portable Music player market (MP3 player) where they ARE the monopoly player.
A company can, as apple does, exist in more than one industry at a time and have different statuses in those respective industries...
I thought this article was about an MP3 player? Also, I thought Apple dominated the MP3 payer market?
But seriously, it seems like the market will pretty much ignore it because it's an Apple product. If the Zune had something like that, it would be a huge issue.
A company can, as apple does, exist in more than one industry at a time and have different statuses in those respective industries...
I'm absolutely not trying to defend Apple here as I think this move with the Shuffle is completely, 100% wrong. But. I don't think Apple can be classed as a monopoly in the portable music player space because perfectly viable competition exists. More and more stores are doing DRM free MP3 as alternatives to AAC from the Apple store and there are equally decent MP3 players from people like Creative, Microsoft, etc - even built into your phone from people like Sony, Nokia, etc.
Microsoft was a monopoly in the OS space for a while because there was no viable alternative. MacOS had faded into near obscurity, Linux wasn't ready for the consumer at large.. stuff like OS/2 Warp had died off. If you wanted a new home computer, you got it with Windows. Period.
So I don't see Apple getting sued or something by anti-competition people over this. But to reiterate, I think it's a disgusting tactic!
A company can, as apple does, exist in more than one industry at a time and have different statuses in those respective industries...
I'm absolutely not trying to defend Apple here as I think this move with the Shuffle is completely, 100% wrong. But. I don't think Apple can be classed as a monopoly in the portable music player space because perfectly viable competition exists. More and more stores are doing DRM free MP3 as alternatives to AAC from the Apple store and there are equally decent MP3 players from people like Creative, Microsoft, etc - even built into your phone from people like Sony, Nokia, etc.
Microsoft was a monopoly in the OS space for a while because there was no viable alternative. MacOS had faded into near obscurity, Linux wasn't ready for the consumer at large.. stuff like OS/2 Warp had died off. If you wanted a new home computer, you got it with Windows. Period.
So I don't see Apple getting sued or something by anti-competition people over this. But to reiterate, I think it's a disgusting tactic!
It is monopolistic because Apple commands a dominant market share in the Portable Media Player market (well above 70% I think) and they are using that monopoly status to stiffle competition.
Apple may roll this out on all of their future iPod products and they are essentially levying a tax on all headphones as the makers will need to put an Apple mandated chip on their devices to reach the majority of the market.
It was also the same argument used to declare Microsoft a monopoly. Sure viable competition has always existed for Microsoft. We've had Linux, Unix, Mac OS, BSD, and countless others for as long as anyone can remember. The argument was that Microsoft's market share was so high that they could dictate to OEMs the standards of computing hardware. After all, how could any OEM sell a computer that wasn't useful to the majority of the market? Consumers demand Windows so Microsoft didn't have to listen to OEMs.
Let's hope people don't buy it. If I was naive enough to get stuck with something like that, I'd be so peeved at the dirty tactic I would probably never buy from that company again, even if their other products were great. I wonder if others would feel the same?
makes it so much better then and in recent updates it now supports USB and Battery Charging. so in other words you can directly transfer files to it's external memory card slot to LARGE memory cards (i.e. MicroSDHC) now
p.s. im using the new bootloader for my e200 series and it works great... no need to boot original firmware for file transfers or battery charging anymore.... so with the new bootloader instead of it booting the original sansa firmware when the device is off and plugged into the USB port... it will now boot into Rockbox.
makes it so much better then and in recent updates it now supports USB and Battery Charging. so in other words you can directly transfer files to it's external memory card slot to LARGE memory cards (i.e. MicroSDHC) now
p.s. im using the new bootloader for my e200 series and it works great... no need to boot original firmware for file transfers or battery charging anymore.... so with the new bootloader instead of it booting the original sansa firmware when the device is off and plugged into the USB port... it will now boot into Rockbox.
Looks like I should get the new firmware, then! I'm still booting into the original to update files. Thanks!
makes it so much better then and in recent updates it now supports USB and Battery Charging. so in other words you can directly transfer files to it's external memory card slot to LARGE memory cards (i.e. MicroSDHC) now
p.s. im using the new bootloader for my e200 series and it works great... no need to boot original firmware for file transfers or battery charging anymore.... so with the new bootloader instead of it booting the original sansa firmware when the device is off and plugged into the USB port... it will now boot into Rockbox.
Looks like I should get the new firmware, then! I'm still booting into the original to update files. Thanks!
well you will need to update to the new bootloader in order to not have the Sansa boot the original firmware when it's in a off state and you connect the USB cable... which is nice because of the MicroSDHC support and it dont keep creating those annoying folders everytime it loads the sansa firmware since you never need to load the original firmware again for the most part as long as your Rockbox install dont get corrupted.
but once you get the new bootloader installed the device will always load Rockbox when powering up the e200 device.
you dont have to use the new bootloader to reap the benefits of the USB support and Battery charging though as you can just install a recent version of Rockbox over your current build and it will work... but i would use the new bootloader if i where you since there's no real need for the original firmware to boot at all now unless you have a specific need to like if the ".Rockbox" folder gets corrupted etc.
NOTE: once the v3.2 stable Rockbox is released which is due on March 23rd 2009 then im sure the bootloader etc etc will be easier to find on there website
p.s. here is a link to the new bootloader... http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/9955?string=bootloader
to install it once you get the file do a ... 'sansapatcher.exe -a PP5022.mi4' (without the ') (i assume you already got the sansapatcher.exe file which you would have had to use in the past to install rockbox in the first place)
p.s. you can still boot the original firmware if you have to even after updating to the new bootloader by pressing (and holding) the LEFT button on it's d-pad when powering on the device.
Last edited by ThaCrip on 15 Mar 2009 - 17:25
makes it so much better then and in recent updates it now supports USB and Battery Charging. so in other words you can directly transfer files to it's external memory card slot to LARGE memory cards (i.e. MicroSDHC) now
p.s. im using the new bootloader for my e200 series and it works great... no need to boot original firmware for file transfers or battery charging anymore.... so with the new bootloader instead of it booting the original sansa firmware when the device is off and plugged into the USB port... it will now boot into Rockbox.
Finally someone that makes sense.
But his shuffle has no buttons on it. Therefore you need headphones with a remote.....
No, they just did it to make people spend more money, which is completely different.
Apple have absolutely broken the rules. I use exclusively a certain model of Sony headphones because I wear headphones a lot, and they best suit my needs. But now Apple tells me that if I want a Shuffle (which I don't anyway) that I would have to use headphones of THEIR choice? No-one else is that insensitive to the consumer!
... What is the distortion field called now that SJ isn't in the front seat at the moment?
Maybe it will prevent people from buying other headphones, then saying "but I can't control the iPod now" or something stupid like that.
What? The authentication chip will do exactly that! People will buy other headphones, then say "but I can't control the iPod now".
I guess my thought sounded better in my head, I wasn't quite sure how to explain it.
Digital Media Rights =/= Control Interface Chip
From my understanding the Shuffle will start playing as soon as you turn it on via the switch to either Shuffle or Continious play mode, but changing the volume won't be possible.
There is no buttons on the device at all.
Yes there is, look again.
Besides, it turns on when you plug earphones in.
Then they ask several questions.
'Is it easier to use than the previous shuffle?' - No.
'Is it bigger than any other shuffle in terms of capacity?' - No.
'Does it come in as many colours as the old shuffle?' - No.
'Is it cheaper than the old shuffle?' - No.
'Can I use the earphones I've got already?' - No.
And then theres the last question.
'Do you have any of the old shuffles in?' - YES!
Transaction complete!
I have to say this seems a catastrophic mistake on apple's part. I know they never saw the shuffle as some money making thing and only as a way to get people hooked and upgrade, but this really is a farse!
That's a lie.
Whoops. I could've sworn the older shuffle was in a 4GB flavour as well. Guess I was wrong there! Everything else was correct though.
It was 1GB and 2GB, and they seem to have stopped selling the 2GB directly..
I also disagree with saying it's not as easy to use. That's a personal preference, I'd say.
ugly brown YUCK
Brown? There are no brown Zunes in production. The Zune 4 and Zune 8 both come in Black, Red, Pink, and Olive, and the 8 also comes in a nice shade of blue. The Zune 80 and Zune 120 come in Black and Red. There is no brown.
If you don't have something contructive to add to a news (either positive of negative) you know what to do ...
Last edited by LaP on 16 Mar 2009 - 23:45
Because the sound quality on Apple's stock earphones is diabolical. Sure they do the job, but even cheap alternatives sound much, much better.
What if I don't want to use those crappy headphones?
Also, users might want to connect the Shuffle to another system to play on louder speakers. With the old Shuffle and other iPods (and all other MP3 players!) this works really well, but on this new one, eh, fail.
The EU already had a go at Apple in the past for the iPod earphones allowing 10db over the recommended limit.
That ruling was the dumbest thing the EU has come up with. It had nothing to do with the earphones themselves, but with the volume limit on the iPod itself. Maybe YOU want to live in a society that thinks it has to play nanny to all of its citizens (more like subjects), but I certainly don't. The government has no right to tell me how loud I can listen to my music. Thank God I don't live in the EU!
The EU did it to stop thousands of kids from potentially going deaf. I'd say that's pretty reasonable. The EU is there to protect the consumers in the EU, and that's what they did.
I'm one of the people who thinks the idea of a screenless MP3 player is intriguing, but not anymore.
This article does kind of state the obvious - you can't control the iPod without buttons to do so - but it's still a shame. I'm guessing what the article really gets it is that Apple needs to actually approve the controller. It's like the app store all over again, but for hardware accessories instead of software. Yes, it will ensure quality products, but it will filter some out as well. And they killed off the PRODUCT (RED)
Although this is par for the course from the likes of Apple. MiniDVI, Recessed phone jacks, MiniDP and assortment of other retarded adapters solving a problem that wasn't there to begin with while pocketing $$.
Is it a stupid design choice? I think so, but I can see why they're doing it. They're shifting the "bulk" of the design around so that the device can be stored anywhere, without risk of pressing buttons, and without requiring you to pull the device out to hit a button. Whenever I would use my iPod (now ancient, but still working) at the gym or on the track, I used the included "headphone remote adapter" because it was way easier than pulling out the iPod itself. Further, by removing a button on the iPod and putting it on the headphones, perhaps the overall bulkiness of controls can be diminished or made less intrusive (although they certainly didn't seem that intrusive on the earlier models).
So it seems more like a design choice, pure and simple, than a power grab. If they do this across all of their product lines, go ahead and make the claims that you did. Otherwise, let's just call it for what it is - a stupid design choice - and not go farther than that. I expect that this will sell horribly (and it deserves to), but if they really want a buttonless product then of course you need to introduce headphones that have a way to communicate with the device. Given that those aren't exactly standard, yeah, you'll have to introduce measures like they did here. No big deal.
Um, dude? That's EXACTLY what it is. Companies will need to license the tech from Apple in order to manufacture compatible headphones. It's a money grab, nothing more, nothing less. Much like the dock connector BS that happens every few generations or so, this is nothing more than Apple trying to gobble up as much cash as they can.
Or were you being sarcastic?
What the hell are you talking about? Apple has used the same dock connector (other then the shuffle) for every iPod since they first started using a dock connector instead of just a firewire port.
You're wrong. They're testing the waters to see how people react to this sort of thing. You gotta be pretty naive if you believe Apple won't put this sort of thing on their newer iPod's and phones. They start with their lowest product, see how it does, and move on up to the bigger ones next.
ORLY? Clueless man is clueless.
And btw, first time I see apple copying Microsoft
And btw, first time I see apple copying Microsoft
Thats exactly what its like take the steve jobs/apple rose tinted glasses off and live in reality.
What is going on at Apple?! The UK price hike irked me enough, as did the distinctly underwhelming iMac updates. Then they go on and push draconian crap like this.
So, so disappointed. The comment ricknl made about Apple shooting themselves in the foot when they get popular seems to be right on the button. It seems like, quite frankly, they need to continuing making more mistakes so that they can take a step back and evaluate just exactly where they are.
Unless I missed something, didn't the first gen Zunes NOT work with Microsoft's own Plays for Sure DRM?
Why would it matter now?
Also, it appears that third-party headphones need a special chip - although not a security chip - to make songs play/pause/next? Given that the shuffle itself doesn't include the buttons, is that a surprise?
This would only be news if Apple were refusing to allow third party manufacturers to make iPod Shuffle compatible controls. And to my knowledge, they're not.
Also, it appears that third-party headphones need a special chip - although not a security chip - to make songs play/pause/next? Given that the shuffle itself doesn't include the buttons, is that a surprise?
This would only be news if Apple were refusing to allow third party manufacturers to make iPod Shuffle compatible controls. And to my knowledge, they're not.
The bad thing is Apple charges for the chip, so that'll jack the price up of the third-party earphones. Companies can't make earphones for the new shuffle unless they pay Apple to do so
Then again, this whole Shuffle idea is absolutely balls if you ask me. Seems totally unnecessary for people to have to buy new headphones just to go jogging with their shuffle.
I fail to see how this is different than printer manufacturers putting chips on their ink cartridges. Yeah, it sucks, but third parties will always find a way around it, and business will go on.
From what I read, Neowin and a LOT of commenters are totally blowing this out of proportion. It's not DRM. It's nothing that Apple has deliberately put in to stop you from using other headphones. It's just a controller chip for the buttons that sends a signal to the iPod. There is nothing from stopping an enterprising third party from reverse engineering the chip. Hell, I have half a mind to bust out an oscilloscope and do it myself. It's just a matter of recognizing the codes and building a chip that duplicates them. There's no "security handshake" mechanism whereby the player sends encrypted signals to the chip and verifies that they are, in fact, Apple headphones.
Someone says "control chip" and everybody goes nuts. Sheesh.
Quit your whining and do the smart thing: vote with your wallet. If you don't like it, send a message to Apple by not buying it. It's that simple!
Edit: On another re-read of the article in question, it struck me that part of the confusion may come from how badly worded it is.
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing seems like.
I can't help but wonder if it was written in a "badly worded" fashion on purpose.
Regardless, I wouldn't buy a Shuffle anyway. Size is not an issue for me, and I would prefer seeing what I am going to listen to.
It's the same thing that Apple did with the 2007 iPods, adding another Apple chip for Video output, and breaking compatibility with every video cable and device released until then. This is totally disrespectful for both their 3rd party developers and customers, since we were forced to buy stuff we already had in order to make it compatible with our new iPods. One thing that has made the iPods so successful is the vast amount of accessories available for them, and Apple is screwing all of us by adding this locks to their new hardware.
They could have kept compatibility with older accessories. There were a number of accessories used to output video through the dock connector, and most of them still worked with the new iPods if you plugged the iPod cable first to "unlock" the video signal and plugin in the named accessories immediately after disconnecting it. It was only because of the authentication chip that those cables didn't work with the new iPods.
Fail article.
I wonder if I can use those headphones on my iPhone.
They then will pull the DMCA (the DRM protection law) to back their claim if any headphone maker reverse engineers their chip.
So explain to me how it isn't DRM...
Fail article.
I wonder if I can use those headphones on my iPhone.
DRM would be making it illegal and taking to court any manufacturer who would produce headphones compatible with the new ipod shuffle commands. But there's a difference between "DRM" and "proprietary controls". Of course if they have their own special superchip, that's DRM.
So explain to me how it isn't DRM...
DMCA protects copyrights (that's what the C stands for). These headphones in no way act as a copyright control (although patents probably do come into play), so the DMCA would not apply.
According to iLounge, the iPhone headphones remote won't work with the shuffle, only the ipod earphones with remote and the new in ear earphones with remote. This prove that the shuffle need some kind of authentication chip, because even the older iPhone buds won't work.
So explain to me how it isn't DRM...
DMCA protects copyrights (that's what the C stands for). These headphones in no way act as a copyright control (although patents probably do come into play), so the DMCA would not apply.
Actually DMCA would apply.
http://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
Read the EFF write up to understand a bit more of what the DMCA covers. Also, the US is a common law country so court rulings are very important. Look at the cases that have utilized the DMCA. Lexmark used the DMCA to argue that third party ink manufacturers were violating its rights under the DMCA.
http://www.eff.org/cases/lexmark-v-static-...ol-case-archive
The basic way of understanding it is they argue the DMCA applies because the software on the device uses the DRM to protect itself. By reverse engineering the chip you're attempting to fool the software (which would be covered under US copyright law). It is the same argument the MPAA makes when they sue companies or people for ripping DVDs or BluRay movies (DVD and BluRay decrypting software is illegal in the US under the DMCA).
Last edited by Frazell Thomas on 15 Mar 2009 - 12:47
In a sense, most of the 3rd party companies reverse engineer the thechnology, like Bose and their sounddocks. < snipped > - Calum
This is no different than what they are practicing to this day....google "Made for iPod logo"
Last edited by Calum on 15 Mar 2009 - 11:11
Now, whichever the third party decides to do, it doesn't not seem to be in their best interest unless being "authorized" is relatively cheap to the point where the manufacturers can rely on the consumer to purchase their new headphones.
Either way, those who like to run and such would have to buy a new headset just to run in comfort. Or, they can buy the current Shuffle or perhaps another mp3 player altogether and not have to worry about this crap at all.
And plenty of headphones don't have volume knobs. Infact pretty much all mid to high end one's won't.
And I agree, if MS pulled this ****, they would be on every Tech site and people would be bitchin left and right. Seems Apple has done a good job in keeping their followers. Wonder when they are going to start serving the kool-aid.
Sadly, I still think people are going to buy this abomination of a product.
... again IMHO, more likely than not... it's done to make it extremely difficult for you to plug a recording device in to the headphone jack and record your music in the order you want. I wouldn't be surprised to read a Neowin article down the road suggesting that Apple had to do this in order to continue (without modification to the terms) with it's agreements to the record companies, in much the same way that radio stations are generally not permitted to play listener requests immediately (on demand) or play multiple tracks from the same artist's album in sequence without some sort of royalty agreement or other permission.
The sound comes out of any headphones you feel like plugging in. It's the "press and hold to make it talk to you" feature that isn't supposed to work.
The reasoning you propose is absolutely not reasonable.
The reasoning you propose is absolutely not reasonable.
Why not quote the 'relevant' part of what I wrote: "...to make it extremely difficult for you to plug a recording device in to the headphone jack and record your music in the order you want.... "?
With other / traditional iPod's, you could plug in your recorder, record a song, pause recording, select the next song... etc.
Now you can't. Thus what I wrote is reasonable.
Of course you could always cut the damn earbuds off and wire them in a stereo plug and be right back where we all were before the release of this technology.
How many times while growing up were you told to "just try" and received credit for the effort?
Anyway, I think the new shuffle is doomed to fail either way...
Presumably they are keeping control over who can make the controller chip in the headphones in order to ensure only good quality ones get made.. still, I think it's all a rather bad move on their part.
btw, +1 on "it's a trendy fashion accessory".
on the subject of the headphone, this new iPod Shuffle headphone design means you can't buy any other brand (which can somehow enhance the sound quality of an iPod) which leaves new iPod users even more clueless what real sound quality is. good luck with your trebles cause you will never hear bass again. do not break or loose your new fangled headphones or you have to shell out more $ for that. XD.
I know the new shuffle has the controls on a cord coming from the unit, this is to decrease its size. This probably has more to do with the controls than the headphones. People are always so quick to complain about everything.
Then why does the article say "or a third-party product which incorporates an 'Apple authentification chip', if you want to use the new device. "
Sounds like a dongle to me. It's just not included in the box, has to be purchased separate. You can still use any headphones you want.
Hardware Rights Management
I think the article is bull****.
Let us stop talking about the no controls part and talk about the validation of this article! And wheather it is true or not.
And as I stated in my previous post, it cannot be true because people have already checked and know it works with other headphones, regardless of controls.
Whatever the people at iLounge found, it isn't what they think it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
Especially since now news sites are reporting that Apple is in fact NOT using any DRM.
The headphones are simply using a remote control chip that sends signals to the device, which Apple has stated anyone can copy - They just will not receive "Made for iPod' status; just as a lot of 3rd party headphones don't now.
If a 3rd party company wishes to embrace the shuffle enough to add this type of chip to their line, they can.
End of story.
NOT
using any DRM.
The headphones are simply using a remote control chip that sends signals to the device, which Apple has stated anyone can copy - They just will not receive "Made for iPod' status; just as a lot of 3rd party headphones don't now.
If a 3rd party company wishes to embrace the shuffle enough to add this type of chip to their line, they can.
End of story.
Hum
I guess what i wrote under this post doesn't apply then. I still hate iTune though
This is the sort of things that keep me from buying an iPod.
I really do like the iPod Touch. In fact if you consider the hardware only it's my favorite mp3 player on the marker. That thing is so sexy it screams buy me buy me when i look at it.
I really wish Apple would open the iPod line a little more. I don't want to install iTune to transfer music to my mp3 player. And i want to stay away from drm. I can understand Apple not letting you install free 3rd party apps found on internet (after all MS don't let you do this with the 360 either) but i want to have more freedom with the things i buy than Apple is giving me with the iPods.
I will keep my Sansa running Rockbox.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.