No DRM in Headphones for New iPod Shuffle

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/16/no-drm-in-headphones-for-new-ipod-shuffle/)

The Mac web has been abuzz over the past few days regarding the possibility of an "authentication" or "DRM" chip included inside the headphones for Apple's new iPod shuffle (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/11/apple-releases-smaller-4gb-ipod-shuffle-in-black-and-silver/) released last week. After several days of investigation, explanations, and misunderstandings, the chip appears to contain no authorization or encryption component.

Following up on comments from iLounge (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipod-shuffle-third-generation/P6) regarding the existence of such a chip, Boing Boing Gadgets discovered the chip (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/14/we-found-the-chip-in.html) located inside the new iPod shuffles' headphone control module. The discovery touched off speculation that Apple had added the chip as a means to force third-party manufacturers to pay a licensing fee in order to produce headphones compatible with the new iPod shuffle.

Macworld, however, contacted an Apple spokesman (http://www.macworld.com/article/139414/2009/03/appleheadphonechip.html) about the matter. While the spokesman confirmed the existence of the chip, its intended purpose is said to be related to the "Made for iPod" program alone. Boing Boing Gadgets was also able to speak with Apple (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/16/manufacturer-confirm.html) and received what is so far the clearest explanation regarding whether the chip contains DRM:Just spoke with Apple. There is no encryption or authentication on the chip, so clones could conceivably be made, just not with "Made for iPod" official certification. And now we know!

Article Link: No DRM in Headphones for New iPod Shuffle (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/16/no-drm-in-headphones-for-new-ipod-shuffle/)

[Mykbibby]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

Well that's great to hear... The less DRM the better.

[Kilamite]

Good news! I read the Engadget article and paniced - I'm not a fan of the iPod headphones, and didn't fancy paying a premium price for 3rd party headphones because of this proposed DRM.

Happy now!

[PeteB]

It's actually a prototype of a mind-control chip.

[Markov]

Good. I don't think everyone really wants DRM part of their daily lives...

DRM annoys the hell out of me. :mad:

[GeekLawyer]

BoingBoingGadgets really came into their own in this whole story. That quirky little band of "happy mutants" stayed a step ahead of the established media.

Good on them. And good on Apple for less DRM.

[InkMaster]

May I be the first to say YAAY!

I personally don't care for the shuffle and would never buy it, but nice knowing that those who will get it be able to use whatever they want with it.

[Consultant]

Yes, also the Apple Insider article explaining what IS DRM.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/16/apple_criticized_for_ipod_shuffles_new_authentication_chip.html

[mr_matalino]

Everyone...just...relax

[JMax1]

And knowing is half the battle!

[Jayomat]

i haven't heared of that "feature", better said restriction, but it would have been the most **!"§%&!`? thing apple has ever made...:confused:

[alexbates]

Good, Im glad to hear that other headphones might work in the future.

I hope Apple doesn't decide to do this with other iPods later though.

[edolecki]

Excellent! I have been hearing tons of bad voodoo being aimed @ Apple over this now debunked rumor.

[lunarworks]

It doesn't matter if it's true or not: The story can't be undone. All the haters will continue to say that "Apple has DRM in their headphones!", even though it's been disproven.

[Eric S.]

Better news, but I still won't be buying one. ;)

[BRLawyer]

Everyone...just...relax

And once more the PC fanboys come with their FUD about this headphone DRM, which ends up as a lot of BS, of course...Apple doesn't need to do that when it's on top of the game for years and years already.

[Scottsdale]

Maybe people shouldn't be so damn quick to accuse without having a clear understanding of what they are accusing Apple of doing in the first place.

Apple should bring lawsuits for harmful damage to reputation by ALL that reported the inaccurate information. Congrats to Mac Rumors for getting this right.

Honestly, this is Apple's business anyways. Why shouldn't they have the right to decide who gets to sell parts that work with Apple devices. THEN, it is the consumers choice whether they want to deal with an Apple company that will not work with their worthless Bose headphones... JK, I know there are a bunch of Bose haters/lovers on this site.

But seriously, we all know that Apple requires APPLE hardware to run OS X, why shouldn't it require Apple licensing at a minimum if companies wish to profit off Apple's iPods? At the same time, opening the availability will usually create a WIN-WIN scenario where Apple will get more iPod sales if people can buy their own headphones when Apple is getting paid for the headphones in the $79 price to begin with.

The rumors sometimes go overboard though, and here is a perfect example. A bunch of the other sites reported this information as verbatim FACT.

Way to go Arn and crew. Waiting reflected accurate reporting here.

[Gasu E.]

It's actually a prototype of a mind-control chip.

...did you ever wonder how it is that the iPod always seems to play the very song you want to hear at the time?

[Le Big Mac]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

The less DRM the better.

It's not even DRM, even under the theory of what it does. It's a chip that could require a proprietary connector, which is also a problem, because it means everybody would have to pay to play.

I hope this report is correct, and the others wrong. I don't really want an Apple Tax on accessories for iPod.

[Voidness]

It doesn't matter if it's true or not: The story can't be undone. All the haters will continue to say that "Apple has DRM in their headphones!", even though it's been disproven.
Exactly. A misinformed statement in iLounge's Shuffle review spread to all tech blogs like wildfire, who took this statement as an undeniable fact and started their sensationalist blogging. :rolleyes:

[amac4me]

Maybe people shouldn't be so damn quick to accuse without having a clear understanding of what they are accusing Apple of doing in the first place.

...

Way to go Arn and crew. Waiting reflected accurate reporting here.

I couldn't agree more!

[slffl]

Well what do you know? Yet ANOTHER rumor that turns out to be untrue, but posted on all the flaming anti-Apple zealot websites like Gizmodo, Digg, and Engadget.

Also, I bet the retractions don't get the attention the made-up-rumor does.

[Eric S.]

Ars Technica is still reporting that third-party headphones require an Apple-supplied chip, although it is one that does not do authentication:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/third-party-headphones-do-require-apple-supplied-chip.ars

[8CoreWhore]

So the world is not ending after all?:cool:

[Scottsdale]

So the world is not ending after all?:cool:

Not until December 21, 2012!

Whatever you do, DON'T HOLD OFF ON BUYING THE NEW iPOD SHUFFLE FOR 3+ YEARS... At $79, live a little.

[avionicsman]

I thought apple was going to force me to listen to Yani!!!!!:D

[Small White Car]

Good. This story made NO SENSE to me when I heard it. I figured it was false.

I figured something like this would come out eventually. It's actually pretty bad that Apple PR didn't jump on this sooner. This story should have been here at Macrumors at 6 AM because Apple was sending out press releases about it.

Alas, that's not the way they work and for many folks, the damage has been done. This will remain an urban legend for quite some time.

[jaw04005]

I don't get the fury over calling it a DRM, authentication, control or special chip.

No matter what you want to call it, the point still remains that a special headphone chip is required for headphones to be able to control the new iPod shuffle.

A chip that third-parties (V-moda, Shure, Ultimate Ears, Bose, etc) are either going to have to reverse engineer (with the threat of possible legal action) or license from Apple (through the Made for iPod program).

Either way, they're going to pass this new additional cost on to us.

[question fear]

I don't get the fury over calling it a DRM, authentication, control or special chip.

No matter what you want to call it, the point still remains that a special headphone chip is required for headphones to be able to control the new iPod shuffle.

A chip that third-parties (V-moda, Shure, Ultimate Ears, Bose, etc) are either going to have to reverse engineer (with the threat of possible legal action) or license from Apple (through the Made for iPod program).

Either way, they're going to pass this new additional cost on to us.

Exactly.

And speaking personally, my annoyance is that (from what I've read) apple has no intention of offering an adaptor. So if I wanted to replace my old shuffle, my options are Apple headphones or the door right now. And in the future, I'm going to have to factor the cost of new headphones into a shuffle purchase. That alone makes the shuffle worthless (to me! not in general, but to me!) because I can't keep the damn Apple headphones in my ears while I run.

[dacreativeguy]

Oh good. I'm glad this important matter has finally been settled. I was really worried that the homeless jobless people living in tent cities would be forced to buy overpriced apple accessories in order to hear audiophile quality on their $79 buttonless mp3 stick.

On to the next crisis...

[Jayomat]

Exactly.
That alone makes the shuffle worthless (to me! not in general, but to me!) because I can't keep the damn Apple headphones in my ears while I run.

Apple actually reinvented runnig and calls it the.......iWalk......... it's awesome....... ;)

[thejakill]

i'm tired of all the bitching and whining since this new ipod was released. ilounge actually used the term "nightmare scenario" in their review. can we amp up the drama any further?

the shuffle was never intended for anything more than a cheap, exercise ipod. i got mine and i love it, because it does exactly what it is supposed to do, be small and easy to tuck away while working out. the headphones are fine and the controls are easy to find and use. it doesn't take a phd to figure out a 3 button control scheme. the multiple playlists and 4gb of memory are much appreciated. it was never intended to be your first or main ipod.

the good news is tomorrow when they announce the iphone 3.0 software, the whiners can move on to bitching about that.

[PeteB]

...did you ever wonder how it is that the iPod always seems to play the very song you want to hear at the time?

Yes, that explains how Genius works. It's not choosing songs that we want to hear, it's telling us that we want to listen to the songs that it chooses.

[Tastic Bycrom]

And knowing is half the battle!

The other half is violence

[thejakill]

Exactly.

And speaking personally, my annoyance is that (from what I've read) apple has no intention of offering an adaptor. So if I wanted to replace my old shuffle, my options are Apple headphones or the door right now. And in the future, I'm going to have to factor the cost of new headphones into a shuffle purchase. That alone makes the shuffle worthless (to me! not in general, but to me!) because I can't keep the damn Apple headphones in my ears while I run.

do you really think someone won't create headphones that fit your needs AND work with the shuffle 3g?

[Darth.Titan]

I don't get the fury over calling it a DRM, authentication, control or special chip.

No matter what you want to call it, the point still remains that a special headphone chip is required for headphones to be able to control the new iPod shuffle.

A chip that third-parties (V-moda, Shure, Ultimate Ears, Bose, etc) are either going to have to reverse engineer (with the threat of possible legal action) or license from Apple (through the Made for iPod program).

Either way, they're going to pass this new additional cost on to us.

No, that's not what the article says at all. Any manufacturer who wants to can make compatible headphones. The chip would only be required if that manufacturer wants to use the "Made for iPod" label.

From the original article/post:

Just spoke with Apple. There is no encryption or authentication on the chip, so clones could conceivably be made, just not with "Made for iPod" official certification. And now we know!


This is marketing and that is all. Let's stop spreading incorrect information.

[plumbingandtech]

Well what do you know? Yet ANOTHER rumor that turns out to be untrue, but posted on all the flaming anti-Apple zealot websites like Gizmodo, Digg, and Engadget.

Also, I bet the retractions don't get the attention the made-up-rumor does.

Bingo.

Well said.

[commander.data]

Is "Made for iPod" a new program? I'm not a big fan of these umbrella branding programs like Games for Windows. Seems to be a lot of money thrown at marketing for not much real value gain to the end user.

[arn]

Update: Apple offers a "Made for iPod" licensing certification for accessories that work with their iPods. With the introduction of this chip, Apple seems to have extended "Made for iPod" certification to headphones/remotes that work with the iPod shuffle. Previously, these accessories were not required to be "Made for iPod" certified. So while there is no DRM in the chips, themselves, it is unlikely that a 3rd party manufacturer would be carried in an Apple Store unless they are "Made for iPod". The implication is that Apple has further extended their control over 3rd party accessories for the iPod.

[unitysong]

If this chip is required for an accessory, I would still define it as DRM. Much like the latest model iPods and iPhones will only work with a video out cable that contains Apple's authentication chip.

Already have the first version of the Apple-branded dock connector to video cable? Well you'll have to buy a new one if you want it to work with your new iPod. It's does that exact same thing except the new one has permission to provide video-out.

This forces third parties to either 1) go pound sand, or 2) pay Apple for the privilege of making an accessory once Apple has approved it.

Printing "Made for iPod" on a box is secondary and doesn't require digital authentication. This about Apple controlling your choices, a.k.a. DRM.

[Abstract]

I don't get the fury over calling it a DRM, authentication, control or special chip.

No matter what you want to call it, the point still remains that a special headphone chip is required for headphones to be able to control the new iPod shuffle.

A chip that third-parties (V-moda, Shure, Ultimate Ears, Bose, etc) are either going to have to reverse engineer (with the threat of possible legal action) or license from Apple (through the Made for iPod program).

Either way, they're going to pass this new additional cost on to us.

As I was reading through the thread, I was trying to figure out why nobody mentioned this. :confused:


Apple offers a "Made for iPod" licensing certification for accessories that work with their iPods. With the introduction of this chip, Apple seems to have extended "Made for iPod" certification to headphones/remotes that work with the iPod shuffle. Previously, these accessories were not required to be "Made for iPod" certified. So while there is no DRM in the chips, themselves, it is unlikely that a 3rd party manufacturer would be carried in an Apple Store unless they are "Made for iPod". The implication is that Apple has further extended their control over 3rd party accessories for the iPod.

Ok, so if I bought this thing for running, I'd likely be stuck with low end Sennheisers, Bose, and the worst yet.....possibly something like Skull Candy (:( :().

No thanks. I'll take the old model. At least it has controls and fits a normal iPod adapter.

[commander.data]

If this chip is required for an accessory, I would still define it as DRM. Much like the latest model iPods and iPhones will only work with a video out cable that contains Apple's authentication chip.

Already have the first version of the Apple-branded dock connector to video cable? Well you'll have to buy a new one if you want it to work with your new iPod. It's does that exact same thing except the new one has permission to provide video-out.

This forces third parties to either 1) go pound sand, or 2) pay Apple for the privilege of making an accessory once Apple has approved it.

Printing "Made for iPod" on a box is secondary and doesn't require digital authentication. This about Apple controlling your choices, a.k.a. DRM.
It isn't really DRM because it's purpose isn't to lock out other vendors. The latest updates from Macworld's investigation show that the chip is a "control" chip and not an "authentication" chip. The chip is needed to encode the signals into a form that can be transferred over the microphone conductor.

Most likely it's something like Morse code and basically digitizes the button presses. For example pressing volume up might result 3 short signal bursts followed by 3 long signal bursts, while volume down is 3 long signal bursts followed by 3 short signal bursts. Other button commands are similarly encoded.

The chip's purpose is functional rather than malicious. Claiming the encoding chip is DRM would result in claiming a digital camera is DRM since it takes light and encodes it into 0s and 1s to store an image.

[ChrisA]

Good news! I read the Engadget article and paniced - I'm not a fan of the iPod headphones, and didn't fancy paying a premium price for 3rd party headphones because of this proposed DRM.

Happy now!

You've got it 100% WRONG.

What this means is that only "made for iPod" headphones will work. This will seriously limit what can be plugged into this iPod. For example no current device currently on the market would work.

[slffl]

You've got it 100% WRONG.

What this means is that only "made for iPod" headphones will work. This will seriously limit what can be plugged into this iPod. For example no current device currently on the market would work.

No it doesn't! I means that the chip tells the player that it is 'Made for Ipod' licensed! You can still make headphones that will control the shuffle without the license and without the chip.

(this is how I understand it)

[timmybadshoes]

Macworld is reporting a slightly different confirmation.

It isn't drm but to place the inline controls in headphones it seems there will be a licensing fee from apple for the control chip. Still seems like a shady move to me.

http://www.macworld.com/article/139414/2009/03/appleheadphonechip.html

[jaw04005]

No, that's not what the article says at all. Any manufacturer who wants to can make compatible headphones. The chip would only be required if that manufacturer wants to use the "Made for iPod" label.

Maybe you should re-read the referenced articles that are involved with this story. A special chip IS required if third-parties want their headphones to CONTROL the new iPod shuffle.

Third-parties can either reverse engineer the Apple chip (which may subject them to legal action) and build their own or license the chip directly from Apple via the Made for iPod program.

Either way, a new control chip is required and it's going to end up costing us (as consumers) more money in the form of more expensive headphones.

"iPod-accessory vendors V-moda and Scosche, as well as other vendors speaking to Macworld anonymously, have confirmed these reports, though calling the circuitry a “control chip” rather than an authentication chip. As with Apple’s dock connector and—more recently—proprietary circuitry necessary for iPods to output video signals to third-party accessories, Apple will charge vendors a fee, via the Made for iPod program, to include this new control chip in headphones and other accessories. In the past, vendors have told Macworld that such fees are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for iPod-compatible versions of common accessories."

http://www.macworld.com/article/139414/2009/03/appleheadphonechip.html

[nick9191]

I want to say great job Apple, sorry I doubted you, but of course great job would have been just putting the buttons on the device.

[fluffy]

Basically, people are using the term "DRM" inappropriately, which means Apple can quite honestly say it's not a DRM chip - because it's not (i.e. it's not decrypting the audio stream in the headphones or whatever). But it's still a proprietary lock-in device.

It is possible that the control chip is justifiable (if it's actually sending out pulse codes to the iPod instead of just shorting out different pairs of pins depending on which button is pressed), and hopefully Apple is not going to go after companies which simply reverse-engineer the protocol (which will probably be trivial to do).

[tubbymac]

I might have cared if this was on anything other than the iPod shuffle. I don't know anybody who would buy a shuffle.

[jaw04005]

I might have cared if this was on anything other than the iPod shuffle. I don't know anybody who would buy a shuffle.

You can be sure it's coming to everything else too. Apple doesn't create new licensing agreements for just one product.

The next iPhone and iPod touch will likely require the same chip. It's an easy way to make a few bucks on every iPod accessory sold (dock connector and new headphone chip).

[Eric S.]

I might have cared if this was on anything other than the iPod shuffle. I don't know anybody who would buy a shuffle.

Really? I have a Classic, a touch, and a shuffle. (And an old 2G iPod, no longer used as a music player.) They're all useful in different ways.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Wait. So I'm glad to hear it's not DRM (which I had a hard time believing anyway) but if I'm reading all this correctly, this just doesn't apply to the shuffle. Could we see future iPods and iPhones having this "requirement" on the headphone connection? I guess I understand for the remote control portion, but could they also apply this to standard headphones?

[drlunanerd]

You can be sure it's coming to everything else too. Apple doesn't create new licensing agreements for just one product.

The next iPhone and iPod touch will likely require the same chip. It's an easy way to make a few bucks on every iPod accessory sold (dock connector and new headphone chip).

Hang on a minute. I don't think this is anything new. This chip is likely already present in Apple's recent remote-control headphones for the iPod nano and Classic. It's only being made a big deal now because the shuffle needs such headphones to function properly - the other iPods do not.

There are already third-party remote control headphones (with mics) that work with the iPhone and new iPods. Do these already have this chip too? I think they will.

[michael.lauden]

Really? I have a Classic, a touch, and a shuffle. (And an old 2G iPod, no longer used as a music player.) They're all useful in different ways.

yeah like... the iPod Touch is useful to listen to music, surf the web, go on AIM and can be used to be extremely productive

and a Classic can store more music and a shuffle can annoy you while on Jogs when you want to listen to 'that' song!

[twoodcc]

well, glad that's all it is.

[fishmoose]

You can be sure it's coming to everything else too. Apple doesn't create new licensing agreements for just one product.

The next iPhone and iPod touch will likely require the same chip. It's an easy way to make a few bucks on every iPod accessory sold (dock connector and new headphone chip).

I hope your wrong but you are probably right.
For me if they bring this to the rest of there products I'm done with iPhones and iPods, I will find another phone/music player to use, I as a consumer want to be able to use any headphones!

[dwd3885]

It really doesn't matter. You still need an adapter to use your own headphones!

[leddedup]

The first portable CD player I ever bought had a remote in-line with the headphones. They were standard two-wire headphones (i.e. one wire each for left and right, with the ground conductor ostensibly the shield of the wires). Anyways, I know for a fact that it used the same mini-audio connector that every single pair of headphones still uses, and it was able to control the CD player from that remote (and it had a tuner as well actually). There were probably 5 or 6 buttons on the remote. Regular headphones could be used with it.

What I'm trying to get at is that in order to do something like this, Aiwa (the company that made the CD player) had to have had something to decode what the inline controller was doing. I'm guessing that pressing a button shorted the audio to ground for a prescribed amount of time, and something in the output circuit detected that and converted that to a code (the remote in line with the headphones was passive, so it would've had to have been something like that).

So, I'm guessing this chip in the shuffle is something similar. If you want access to how the recipe in their remote will work, you have to pay them. Standard Apple practice.

[Casiotone]

Maybe you should re-read the referenced articles that are involved with this story. A special chip IS required if third-parties want their headphones to CONTROL the new iPod shuffle.

Third-parties can either reverse engineer the Apple chip (which may subject them to legal action) and build their own or license the chip directly from Apple via the Made for iPod program.

Either way, a new control chip is required and it's going to end up costing us (as consumers) more money in the form of more expensive headphones.

"iPod-accessory vendors V-moda and Scosche, as well as other vendors speaking to Macworld anonymously, have confirmed these reports, though calling the circuitry a “control chip” rather than an authentication chip. As with Apple’s dock connector and—more recently—proprietary circuitry necessary for iPods to output video signals to third-party accessories, Apple will charge vendors a fee, via the Made for iPod program, to include this new control chip in headphones and other accessories. In the past, vendors have told Macworld that such fees are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for iPod-compatible versions of common accessories."

http://www.macworld.com/article/139414/2009/03/appleheadphonechip.html

Despite using a lot of bold and underlining, you are wrong.

Third parties can reverse-engineer the signaling protocol and can't be sued for that. Reverse-engineering is not illegal in itself.

Apple could only sue if the chip encrypted the signals (using encryption), which would then make it fall under the DMCA where reverse-engineering is not allowed. But from what we now know, and it will be proved even further-more, the signaling protocol is not encrypted so it's perfectly legal to reverse-engineer it.

[lvt]

Mine arrived today and I love it. It is smaller than it looks in the pix. My ears are not audiophillic (too much standing near speakers in my youth) and it sounds just fine. Apparently I have apple-sized ears because the buds fit just fine. Other phones do work, but as reported there is no way to pause, change songs or volume (turn on sound check!). I guess that makes it kind of like listening to radio:rolleyes:

The new earbuds work in the 3G iPhone to change songs but not volume. They work perfect in the 4 Gen Nano, except there is no VoiceOver (yet?).

I am a satisfied customer. :cool:

[DoubleU]

The device doesn't have any buttons, so some sort of external controller is needed. I can't use other manufacturer's headphones with it but I can't use any other Apple headphones with it either. There will probably be third party headphones available for it relatively soon that are better (and cheaper) than the Apple ones. I don't see this being extended to the rest of the iPod/iPhone line as they've got the surface areas to support buttons.u

[toontra]

If Apple bring this in on the entire iPod/iPhone range they can say goodbye to me as a customer. I want to use my own phones - they are very expensive and very good and I won't be swapping for 3rd-rate Apple (or Apple approved) models.

[manhattanboy]

How can anyone rate this article positive.
Apple restricting headphone use is NOT (I repeat NOT) good.

[hjb1000]

So if the embedded chip in the remote serves no purpose other than for marketing 'made for ipod', then what the hell is it there for?!

Seriously, why have a propietory chip in the remote at all?

The main issue is not the 'made for ipod' sticker anyway, it's the fact that you can't use any of the existing headphones made for ipod in the past.

Oh, and you can't plug this thing into your home stereo- how useless is that?!

[cgc]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

Well that's great to hear... The less DRM the better.

Does the iPhone add that annoying tag at the beginning of the message above or did the poster add it? Why should anyone care if it was wirelessly posted from your iPhone with all the specs included? WTF?

[digiguy23]

This issue is over my head. Seriously, Apple just added this model to their product line along with other models. For around $89 bucks that fits into a niche, every one is getting huffy and puffy and the world is coming to an end. It looks like Apple doesn't have a right to bring out different models without people having attacks.

[sushi]

Why am I not surprised.

It's simply a controller chip.

[kbmb]

Maybe Apple is thinking like the inkjet printer makers. Buy a printer, it comes with free ink. By the time you need more ink....you can usually find a deal for a whole new printer (with free ink) for cheaper than buying ink for your printer.

Not very green....but maybe Apple just wants everyone to buy a new shuffle if they lose/break their earbuds! :D

-Kevin

[rstansby]

Hang on a minute. I don't think this is anything new. This chip is likely already present in Apple's recent remote-control headphones for the iPod nano and Classic. It's only being made a big deal now because the shuffle needs such headphones to function properly - the other iPods do not.

There are already third-party remote control headphones (with mics) that work with the iPhone and new iPods. Do these already have this chip too? I think they will.

I am interpreting this a bit differently than you are. I think this chip is required to encode the different controls. The new iPod Shuffle has volume up/down controls as well as other new controls that the old ipod headphones don't have. It is just like adding a microphone to the iPhone earbuds. Old earbuds would not work because they didn't have a microphone. Old earbuds won't work with the iPod shuffle because they don't have these new controls. Apple added this chip so that they could upgrade the shuffle and offer control from the earbud cord. They didn't add this chip to control the aftermarket earbud manufactuers.

[gnasher729]

Apple could only sue if the chip encrypted the signals (using encryption), which would then make it fall under the DMCA where reverse-engineering is not allowed. But from what we now know, and it will be proved even further-more, the signaling protocol is not encrypted so it's perfectly legal to reverse-engineer it.

The DMCA only covers situations where encryption is used to control access to copyrighted works. This chip transmits commands from the inline controller to the iPod; that isn't a copyrighted works (and if it was copyrighted, then surely the user who creates the input to the inline controller would be the copyright holder).

[gnasher729]

Seriously, why have a propietory chip in the remote at all?

Apple would need some kind of hardware. Either they buy it, or they make it themselves. And since Apple owns a company making all kinds of chips, and they probably intend to sell millions of them, I'd think building their own chip is cheaper.

[wizard]

Good, Im glad to hear that other headphones might work in the future.

I hope Apple doesn't decide to do this with other iPods later though.

Why not, this would be even better on iPhone if the signalling is compatible with the mic. input. My reasoning here is that iPhone generally ends up in a more secure location (pocket) this easier and more feature full remote controls end up being more useful. I'm really hoping that this tech is compatible with future iPhone's.

As a side note I think Apple should really take these guys, who falsely reported this as DRM, to the cleaners. It would be a far better use of their lawyers time then going after Psystar or whatever their name is. Basically they need to make sure these guys never have a dime to spend for the rest of their lives.


Dave

[Masquerade]

apple's headphones carries a electric signal when tapping the button and that signal is interpreted by the music player or iphone.
however, a chip is necessary to "hold down" the signal and therebefore for expanding the control (liek fast forward). its obvious that this is mandatory since ipod shuffle don't have any clickwheel.


obvious is too, that ipod shuffle is a bad product don't buy it. XD

[jackfrost123]

I had the horrific experience of using a sony superexpensive yet garbage laptop with the atrocity that is vista, and I come back to our beloved forums and apple to learn about the earbub controler issue, so what apple will license it or peiple reverse engineer it! Big deal! THE OTHERS HAVE GOT IT SO BAD!!!!!!!!!!

iPhone os is gonna be so great to!!!!

Posted from iPhone

[aarond12]

Good. This story made NO SENSE to me when I heard it. I figured it was false.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. To put DRM on an ANALOG OUTPUT of a device doesn't make sense in the least. The analog output will not allow for "perfect" copies of the original as it has to travel through the iPod's D-to-A converter.

This is a complete non-story. My Creative MP3 player from 2000 had a similar connector (3/8" four conductor) with inline controls. It also has a chip inside the controller.

The FUD surrounding Apple products continues to astound me. :mad:

[Sabenth]

I am a little late on this one but what dose this chip do.

[jaw04005]

There are already third-party remote control headphones (with mics) that work with the iPhone and new iPods. Do these already have this chip too? I think they will.

The current third-party headphones with remote controls do not work with the new shuffle. Apple's recent in-ear headphones may work with the new shuffle, not sure.

Despite using a lot of bold and underlining, you are wrong.

Wrong about what? I noticed you didn't quote any text that I was wrong about. :rolleyes: All the information I posted was directly from the Macworld article.

I suppose you're taking issue with the "which may subject them to legal action" line. The DMCA is not the only legal concern here. Apple may well have patents for the new chip. I wouldn't put it past them to go after third-parties that reverse engineer the new headphone chip, they've did it for the dock connector (which ironically is part of the same "Made for iPod" program that the new headphone chip is a part of).

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-defends-its-made-for-ipod-trademark-against-atico/

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/05/16/apple_files_first_lawsuit_in_defense_of_made_for_ipod_licensing.html

[PinkyMacGodess]

Is this proof enough that the iPod market is destined to take a hit during this economy?

Apple is grasping at thin air and trying to make a market out of it.

What's next? Apple 'not being able to guarantee that third party accessories (that have not paid for 'the chip') will function as designed'?

I smell the beginnings of desperation... Desperate to keep the profit margins up and the money coming in. Taking the iPod 'closed' could be a huge mistake for Apple but when you look, it's already pretty closed already.

[Digitalclips]

I am a little late on this one but what dose this chip do.

Its good to talk dam shame wont see the iPhone for a while oh well





I assume the spelling and punctuation in your post and in your footer is a deliberate joke ? Just curious ;)

[jackfrost123]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one. To put DRM on an ANALOG OUTPUT of a device doesn't make sense in the least. The analog output will not allow for "perfect" copies of the original as it has to travel through the iPod's D-to-A converter.

This is a complete non-story. My Creative MP3 player from 2000 had a similar connector (3/8" four conductor) with inline controls. It also has a chip inside the controller.

The FUD surrounding Apple products continues to astound me. :mad:. Apple gets thrown so much mud from everewhere, even at our phorums,whilst using that prementioned vista sonny lappie, I came to anohter coclusion, roll drums, we here some with being noteful others with their winhing. But it's what makes apple great: SCRUTINY on already great products. While poor vista Sony that none cares enough to ha a real community around they laptops ugly, with tackpads as large as the 1/10 of than on apple, awfull display that none notice......and let me remind allo....****** Vista too... First time I opened up this lappie and I got 10 warning messages from ogiginal vista.....

W E A R E S A F E H E R E A T A P P L E.

[Casiotone]

The current third-party headphones with remote controls do not work with the new shuffle. Apple's recent in-ear headphones may work with the new shuffle, not sure.



Wrong about what? I noticed you didn't quote any text that I was wrong about. :rolleyes: All the information I posted was directly from the Macworld article.

I suppose you're taking issue with the "which may subject them to legal action" line. The DMCA is not the only legal concern here. Apple may well have patents for the new chip. I wouldn't put it past them to go after third-parties that reverse engineer the new headphone chip, they've did it for the dock connector (which ironically is part of the same "Made for iPod" program that the new headphone chip is a part of).

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-defends-its-made-for-ipod-trademark-against-atico/

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/05/16/apple_files_first_lawsuit_in_defense_of_made_for_ipod_licensing.html

You've got a point there, but let's take a look at the big picture:

Apple decides not to put controls on the new iPod shuffle by design. There's no open standard for the type of control on the headphones. Apple creates their own standard, but then have to distribute the protocol to third parties. They already have an infrastructure that deals with distributing information about interfacing the iPod, and it's the "Made for iPod" program.

Should they have made an exception for the headphone control protocol? Maybe, but then again, the same arguments against licensing in this particular case could apply to the whole "Made for iPod" program ("it's just a connector!", "it will increase the price of accessories!")

See, the iPod is popular, and third-parties are ready to pay to get the privilege of having the "Made for iPod" icon on their packages. Why shouldn't Apple make money out of it? It's called supply and demand, and capitalism. I won't deny the unfortunate effects of capitalism, but Apple has to compete in a capitalist market and maximize their profits to their shareholders.


And I doubt that third-parties got on the "Made for iPod" program just because they were afraid of being sued by Apple. The particular case you linked to (both links are about the same case) is the first known instance of Apple suing a company about it and it happened in 2008, and I can't find any other instances of a similar case since then.

Personally, I still think that the 1st gen iPod shuffle was the best one in terms of controls and form factor, but if you don't like the new one, don't buy it. I don't see it as setting any kind of "dangerous precedent" and potentially "nightmare scenario".

Especially since (let's use bold for this one): Apple publicly stated that they will release an adaptor that will work with all standard headphones. It may cost you extra, and be cumbersome, but all the concerns about locking out other third-party headphones are greatly diminished by this fact.

[DRJacobson]

Honestly, this is Apple's business anyways. Why shouldn't they have the right to decide who gets to sell parts that work with Apple devices.

I think its a bit of a stretch to think of headphones as being some sort of iPod "part" or accessory. I think most people would think of the iPod's job as delivering audio out, not necessarily inclusive of particular headphones.

[Atomike]

It seems that many folks here do not think this is a big deal - or that this is a non-story. And all of those people are either not smart at all, or they do not really understand what this article is saying. If you think this is a non-issue, you really need to go back, and read the article again, and then maybe again if you're really not smart. This chip is not nothing. It doesn't just sit in the earbuds and take up space. It is not necessary for the earbuds to work - so ask yourself why it's there. Will that chip's existence make your life better?
If you think Apple is acting like good guys here, your zealotry is far, far larger than your intellect could ever hope to be. That type of zealotry is why most people make fun of Apple fans.

[jmadlena]

It seems that many folks here do not think this is a big deal - or that this is a non-story. And all of those people are either not smart at all, or they do not really understand what this article is saying. If you think this is a non-issue, you really need to go back, and read the article again, and then maybe again if you're really not smart. This chip is not nothing. It doesn't just sit in the earbuds and take up space. It is not necessary for the earbuds to work - so ask yourself why it's there. Will that chip's existence make your life better?
If you think Apple is acting like good guys here, your zealotry is far, far larger than your intellect could ever hope to be. That type of zealotry is why most people make fun of Apple fans.

The chip is necessary for the buttons to actually function. You can't just press the center button and not have something there to actually make that into a useable signal for the shuffle. That is all this chip does: turn the physical button press into a signal for the iPod to interpret.

I don't think Apple is acting like a 'good guy,' but it isn't acting like a 'bad guy' either. This chip is totally necessary for the G3 shuffle to function, not just something they added in to mess with everyone.

[Jayomat]

It seems that many folks here do not think this is a big deal - or that this is a non-story. And all of those people are either not smart at all, or they do not really understand what this article is saying. If you think this is a non-issue, you really need to go back, and read the article again, and then maybe again if you're really not smart. This chip is not nothing. It doesn't just sit in the earbuds and take up space. It is not necessary for the earbuds to work - so ask yourself why it's there. Will that chip's existence make your life better?
If you think Apple is acting like good guys here, your zealotry is far, far larger than your intellect could ever hope to be. That type of zealotry is why most people make fun of Apple fans.

omg what ************

[NT1440]

omg what ************

Dont you love idle speculation?:)

"I dont know what it does, but it does SOMETHING, and thats bad!"

[doctor-don]

removed comment

[MagnusVonMagnum]

It doesn't matter if it's true or not: The story can't be undone. All the haters will continue to say that "Apple has DRM in their headphones!", even though it's been disproven.

And all the fanatics will tell us how it doesn't matter that Apple keeps taking more and more steps into total control of all hardware, accessories and software for the Macintosh lines. I wouldn't be the LEAST bit surprised if Snow Leopard requires ALL software to be sold through the iTunes store with Apple taking 30% off the top of things like Photoshop next. Apple is getting out of control.

I used to think how great it would be if Macs could some day surpass greedy old Microsoft and put the Bill Gates foundation out of business. I now think Bill Gates is a flipping SAINT by comparison to Steve Jobs and the cronies running Apple. They DEFINE the words greed and control freaks.

Not until December 21, 2012!

Whatever you do, DON'T HOLD OFF ON BUYING THE NEW iPOD SHUFFLE FOR 3+ YEARS... At $79, live a little.

Live a little? Why on earth would I want a player that forces me to either use POS earbuds that won't even stay in my ears and sound like a muffled fart or pay an exhorbitant fee for an adapter so I can use actual High Fidelity earphones with it? I don't know what that chip actually does, but whatever it is, it's NOT GOOD. You can be sure of that much. Maybe they'll have a certified for Apple mini-display port adapter chip next. Maybe you won't get quite as good of color definition without paying for a license to make an "official" adapter or something. It just smacks of EVIL to me. I'm really starting to wonder if I jumped out of the frying pan (Microsoft) and into the fire (Apple). Everything Apple does these days is to PREVENT HONEST COMPETITION. And what drives me nuts is how the fanatics think it's all OK and everything Apple does is great and for your best interests when in fact it's only for their pocket books. I had really hoped the move to Intel would finally mean decent prices and good value. Instead, it appears as if they are scheming as far fetched as they possibly can to get your every dime.

[iMaggot]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

Well that's great to hear... The less DRM the better.

I agree, DRM needs to die ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!.

[butterfly0fdoom]

I am interpreting this a bit differently than you are. I think this chip is required to encode the different controls. The new iPod Shuffle has volume up/down controls as well as other new controls that the old ipod headphones don't have. It is just like adding a microphone to the iPhone earbuds. Old earbuds would not work because they didn't have a microphone. Old earbuds won't work with the iPod shuffle because they don't have these new controls. Apple added this chip so that they could upgrade the shuffle and offer control from the earbud cord. They didn't add this chip to control the aftermarket earbud manufactuers.

I think that was his point. His point was also that the chip already exists in the Apple Headphones with Remote and Mic and the Apple In-Ear Headphones with Remote and Mic, the former of which is identical to the Shuffle's headphones except the Shuffle's included headphones lacks the microphone. And it's because the Shuffle requires those controls that there's a big fuss over something that already existed since the original iPhone was released.



The most amusing part about all this is accessory companies already announced intentions to release headphones with the remote controls back in September. It's only now that there's a big fuss about it. Just leave it to the blog community to stir up controversy for Apple when the problem doesn't even exist.

[Voidness]

Really, people still outraged about this little chip need to calm down. There isn't any sort of "nightmare scenario" to come from this. Here's a breakdown of the facts:


Apple decided to move the Shuffle's buttons off from the device itself to the earbuds.
The buttons on the earbuds need some sort of protocol to communicate with the Shuffle.
Apple designed a chip to define a standard protocol to handle button presses on the earbuds.
If a third-party wants to make new headphones with a built-in remote to work with the Shuffle, they need access to the chip, which requires the "Made for iPod" License.
This is also the case for the standard iPod Dock Connecter, which has been around for years.


The worst that could come from this is that all remotes will require a "Made for iPod" license to work with future iPods. Headphones will continue to work as always. How is this a "nightmare scenario"?

[locust76]

DRM? iPod Shuffle? So let me get this straight... people are worried that Apple is implementing DRM on the output of the iPod Shuffle, mere months after announcing that all iTunes music will be offered without DRM?

What exactly would preventing copying through the headphone output of the iPod accomplish? You can simply, y'know, copy the song from your hard drive. One could easily open iTunes Plus music in any audio editor/converter and change the format, so why the hell would one go through all the trouble to connect the iPod to the Line In and record their music, instead of simply copying/converting the file?

[inkswamp]

Good, Im glad to hear that other headphones might work in the future.

Other headphones work already, you just don't get the extra functionality as with the Apply-supplied ones.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3472

To hear some of the crybaby hysterics on Digg and elsewhere, you'd think the world was coming to an end or something. :rolleyes:

[russellelly]

DRM? iPod Shuffle? So let me get this straight... people are worried that Apple is implementing DRM on the output of the iPod Shuffle, mere months after announcing that all iTunes music will be offered without DRM?

What exactly would preventing copying through the headphone output of the iPod accomplish? You can simply, y'know, copy the song from your hard drive. One could easily open iTunes Plus music in any audio editor/converter and change the format, so why the hell would one go through all the trouble to connect the iPod to the Line In and record their music, instead of simply copying/converting the file?

You have completely and utterly misunderstood what's being discuessed. Go back to the article and read it again.

[knightlie]

Maybe people shouldn't be so damn quick to accuse without having a clear understanding of what they are accusing Apple of doing in the first place.

+1
Also pretty disturbing was the number of posters over on AI who were justifying this alleged use of DRM - AI's biased article (by Prince Mclean, surprise surprise) even described it as "innovation."

Way to go Arn and crew. Waiting reflected accurate reporting here.

+1

[knightlie]

It seems that many folks here do not think this is a big deal - or that this is a non-story. And all of those people are either not smart at all, or they do not really understand what this article is saying. If you think this is a non-issue, you really need to go back, and read the article again, and then maybe again if you're really not smart. This chip is not nothing. It doesn't just sit in the earbuds and take up space. It is not necessary for the earbuds to work - so ask yourself why it's there. Will that chip's existence make your life better?

It makes the buttons work. Without it you can't control the iPod.

Take the tin foil hat off, for crying out loud. :rolleyes:

If you think Apple is acting like good guys here, your zealotry is far, far larger than your intellect could ever hope to be. That type of zealotry is why most people make fun of Apple fans.

That's right, insult everyone, then we'll all take you more seriously. And what does your vast intellect tell you this Evil Chip of Doom is for?

[*LTD*]

It seems that many folks here do not think this is a big deal - or that this is a non-story. And all of those people are either not smart at all, or they do not really understand what this article is saying. If you think this is a non-issue, you really need to go back, and read the article again, and then maybe again if you're really not smart. This chip is not nothing. It doesn't just sit in the earbuds and take up space. It is not necessary for the earbuds to work - so ask yourself why it's there. Will that chip's existence make your life better?
If you think Apple is acting like good guys here, your zealotry is far, far larger than your intellect could ever hope to be. That type of zealotry is why most people make fun of Apple fans.

As a satisfied Mac user that is relieved to not have to use Windows, and who has the luxury of using perfectly integrated "made for" and "designed for" hardware/software, this is a non-issue. As in, I really don't care.

Apple isn't "acting like good guys", they're not acting like anything. In fact, it's a smart move to move the controls off the device. This new shuffle is another example of Apple just forging ahead in terms of design and dragging the rest of the industry with it, kicking and screaming.

Very nice idea to put the controls with the headphones. It's logical and very practical. Watch the rest of this half-asleep industry either follow suit or produce compatible headphones in no time. The iPod accessory market is absolutely huge.

Apple TAKES RISKS. It takes a little while for everyone else in the industry to get a clue, if they're not ooohhing and aahhhing from the get-go (enter the iPhone.) And then the copying ensues, as usual . . .

You can't be an Apple user and at the same time criticize their strict control over hardware and software. It is BECAUSE OF that strict control that Apple users have the kind of luxuries and user-experience that Windows users can only dream of. Think of the alternative. **shudders.**

[BongoBanger]

Right, can someone clarify the following once and for all:

1) Can I control the new Shuffle effectively with legacy earbuds either manufactured by Apple or a third party OEM?
2) If I don't want to use Apple's earbuds then do third party earbuds have to use this protocol and, as such, have controls built into them?
3) Will I be able to buy an adapter whether this is from Apple or a third party which will perform this function and how much do you think these will cost?
4) If Apple don't grant a 'Made for iPod' license to, say, Sennheiser am I screwed?

[*LTD*]

Why are most of you treating the Shuffle like a regular iPod??

It's an entry level/convenience product, nowhere near the level of the iPod Touch or even the Classic in terms of functionality/features. If all I need it for is, say, something quick to listen to now and then in cases where the iPod Touch or the iPhone would be too bulky, then I'm really not going to care about the luxury of using my favourite hot-**** third-party earbuds with it.

Who gives a damn if you can't use other earbuds with it? And if you care so much, you should have a standard iPod of some kind to begin with. :rolleyes:

More proof that internet tech forums have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the needs, wants, and interests of the average user.

[iOrlando]

i have no complaints here.

[Chupa Chupa]

Its frightening how many people refuse too look at the BIG PICTURE here.

FACT: The new shuffle requires an authorized controller to work with 100% functionality. Yes, you can plug in any headphones and put the shuffle in shuffle mode, but you can't do anything else like pause or skip.

FACT: An authorized controller adapter is available not just at extra cost, but only from a 3rd party blessed by Apple. This effectively allows the 3rd party to charge a higher price than if there was free market competition and anyone could market the controller adapter.

FACT: Apple previously put an authorization chip in docks for video output so that current iPods that support video will not work in older docks, even if they have video out jacks; even Apple's own.

FACT: What we are witnessing is Apple's version of the old tale of how to boil a frog. (You don't put the frog in a pot of hot water as it's likely to jump out and escape. Instead you put the frog in cold water then gradually raise the temperature. By the time the water reaches an unsurvivable temperature the frog is already immobilized and death is imminent.)

In this case, we consumers are the frog, happy and comfortable with iPods. The water is "Made for iPod" accessories that are increasingly less optional and more mandatory (via an authorization chip) for complete iPod operation.

First it was video docks, now controllers, next is what... USB chargers? Don't smirk because I'll bet its in the plans. After the long fight to rid DRM from music why are so many people "ok" with locked in accessories that unnaturally increase consumer cost and reduce buying choices?

If Apple succeeds here do you really think they'll stop putting authorization chips in future products, not just iPods, but Macs too. Apple already limits our choice of video cards.

For all that are willing to give Apple a pass just something to consider. I have no problem with innovated "made for iPod products" that add functionality, but to require them for basic functionality is just mad and cynical, not to mention greedy.

[SPUY767]

And knowing is half the battle!
▲

[diamond.g]

This new shuffle is another example of Apple just forging ahead in terms of design and dragging the rest of the industry with it, kicking and screaming.

Very nice idea to put the controls with the headphones. It's logical and very practical. Watch the rest of this half-asleep industry either follow suit or produce compatible headphones in no time. The iPod accessory market is absolutely huge.

Just a note, Sony tried this before. They didn't have the clout of Apple so it didn't work. I will give Sony credit with actually making the controls accept other headphones. Maybe Apple will decide to do the same thing.

For reference see the PSP headsets (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665411969&categoryId=8198552921644574403) (which used to come with the original PSP...)

[ogee]

FACT:
FACT:
FACT:
FACT:


Rumor websites are not facts.

Fact is Apple is preparing an adaptor for use with all (or most define all) 3rd part headphone as is a 3rd party. Apples in-ear head phones work apparently. there are at least 5 3rd party providers who have announced compatible headsets, Klipsch, V-Moda, Etymotics, Monster and Scoche, others will follow.

Its not all gloom and doom.

[technocoy]

Its frightening how many people refuse too look at the BIG PICTURE here.

FACT: The new shuffle requires an authorized controller to work with 100% functionality. Yes, you can plug in any headphones and put the shuffle in shuffle mode, but you can't do anything else like pause or skip.

FACT: An authorized controller adapter is available not just at extra cost, but only from a 3rd party blessed by Apple. This effectively allows the 3rd party to charge a higher price than if there was free market competition and anyone could market the controller adapter.

FACT: Apple previously put an authorization chip in docks for video output so that current iPods that support video will not work in older docks, even if they have video out jacks; even Apple's own.

FACT: What we are witnessing is Apple's version of the old tale of how to boil a frog. (You don't put the frog in a pot of hot water as it's likely to jump out and escape. Instead you put the frog in cold water then gradually raise the temperature. By the time the water reaches an unsurvivable temperature the frog is already immobilized and death is imminent.)

In this case, we consumers are the frog, happy and comfortable with iPods. The water is "Made for iPod" accessories that are increasingly less optional and more mandatory (via an authorization chip) for complete iPod operation.

First it was video docks, now controllers, next is what... USB chargers? Don't smirk because I'll bet its in the plans. After the long fight to rid DRM from music why are so many people "ok" with locked in accessories that unnaturally increase consumer cost and reduce buying choices?

If Apple succeeds here do you really think they'll stop putting authorization chips in future products, not just iPods, but Macs too. Apple already limits our choice of video cards.

For all that are willing to give Apple a pass just something to consider. I have no problem with innovated "made for iPod products" that add functionality, but to require them for basic functionality is just mad and cynical, not to mention greedy.

PLEASE PEOPLE take some reading comprehension courses! This does not stop third parties from making their own iPod headphones. It's just extending the Made For iPod program which is alot like, say, the Certified Honda program. If something has Made for iPod on it it's like a badge saying that Apple approves this accessor, therefore you can be certain that it will work properly with your Apple hardware.

A third party can still make their own headphones that work perfectly well with the shuffle, it just more than likely won't be carried by Apple in their store and typical, do-no-research consumers can feel certain that it will work properly with their player.

This is being blown so far out of proportion it's hilarious.

Plus, it's a 79 dollar player. If you don't like it get another brand, etc or spend another 75 and get a REAL iPod.

[Bye Bye Baby]

Has apple gone insane?

What are they thinking?

[question fear]

Other headphones work already, you just don't get the extra functionality as with the Apply-supplied ones.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3472

To hear some of the crybaby hysterics on Digg and elsewhere, you'd think the world was coming to an end or something. :rolleyes:

Except that as it currently stands, all you can do is plug it in and let it play. And set the volume using your apple headphones first, since you can't on your current headphones (unless they have their own volume controls)

Right, can someone clarify the following once and for all:

1) Can I control the new Shuffle effectively with legacy earbuds either manufactured by Apple or a third party OEM?
2) If I don't want to use Apple's earbuds then do third party earbuds have to use this protocol and, as such, have controls built into them?
3) Will I be able to buy an adapter whether this is from Apple or a third party which will perform this function and how much do you think these will cost?
4) If Apple don't grant a 'Made for iPod' license to, say, Sennheiser am I screwed?

1) Not currently. It will play and that is all. No track changing or volume control (unless the headphones have a separate volume control button)
2) Not currently. Apparently in the future they will be available.
3) Supposedly Apple and 3rd parties will be supplying these, but it is unknown when that will happen. Cost is also unknown.
4) It all depends on whether there is an adaptor that allows you to use the Sennheiser earbuds. It also depends on whether Sennheiser reverse engineers the chip and offers a non "Made for iPod" version. Though I've never heard of a known company being denied a "Made for iPod" tag, so it's probably a non-issue.

IMHO, if Apple had reasonably priced adaptors out right from the start people wouldn't be freaking...it's that they released the shuffle and basically told everyone "OH, BTW, you are stuck with the official headphones until we get around to an adaptor. See ya!" If adaptors were around for $15-$20, I think it would have lowered the roar to a murmur, since most people who wanted their own headphones would just grab the adaptor and go from there. It's the gap between the release of the shuffle and any way to use something non-Apple that gives a lot of fuel to the ire. Again, just my opinion.

[pavvento]

BoingBoingGadgets really came into their own in this whole story. That quirky little band of "happy mutants" stayed a step ahead of the established media.

Good on them. And good on Apple for less DRM.

Are we at the point now where we're saying 'good job' when you're 'allowed' to use your own headphones on a musical device?

[knightlie]

For all that are willing to give Apple a pass just something to consider. I have no problem with innovated "made for iPod products" that add functionality, but to require them for basic functionality is just mad and cynical, not to mention greedy.

They are not required for basic functionality - that basic functionality is provided by the earphones included with the iPod.

[saltyzoo]

As a manufacturer I can sell more of my products by:

1) Giving them better features, functionality, desirability

or

2) Adding more circuitry that the customer will have to pay for that provides no new features, functionality or desirability, but without it products the customer already has or wants will be useless.

Why can't they just keep making better products that people want to buy instead of forcing people to buy their limited selection because they "have to"?

My respect for Apple diminishes with every story like this I read.

[Goona]

As a manufacturer I can sell more of my products by:

1) Giving them better features, functionality, desirability

or

2) Adding more circuitry that the customer will have to pay for that provides no new features, functionality or desirability, but without it products the customer already has or wants will be useless.

Why can't they just keep making better products that people want to buy instead of forcing people to buy their limited selection because they "have to"?

My respect for Apple diminishes with every story like this I read.

Yeah like good ol' Apple is concerned with your respect, they care more about your money.

[saltyzoo]

Yeah like good ol' Apple is concerned with your respect, they care more about your money.

My money follows my respect.

[bruinsrme]

Dont you love idle speculation?:)

"I dont know what it does, but it does SOMETHING, and thats bad!"

I agree, chips cost money, r/d cost money, installing chips cost money. Special headphones will ultimately limit the number of headphones that I will be able to chose from.

Having the new shuffle and the headphones to me are not very comfortable and sound like ass compared to the headphones I am using with my iphone.

Hopefully I can replace the ear bud part with something that doesn't sound like a coffee can.

[BongoBanger]

IMHO, if Apple had reasonably priced adaptors out right from the start people wouldn't be freaking...it's that they released the shuffle and basically told everyone "OH, BTW, you are stuck with the official headphones until we get around to an adaptor. See ya!" If adaptors were around for $15-$20, I think it would have lowered the roar to a murmur, since most people who wanted their own headphones would just grab the adaptor and go from there. It's the gap between the release of the shuffle and any way to use something non-Apple that gives a lot of fuel to the ire. Again, just my opinion.

I agree. The key to me is making the price of the adapter commensurate with the price of the Shuffle plus, of course, the uncertainty isn't helping.

[Eric S.]

Why can't they just keep making better products that people want to buy instead of forcing people to buy their limited selection because they "have to"?

It's unfortunate that Apple didn't take a more evolutionary approach to updating the shuffle. If they would have taken the 2G form factor and added things like the voice interface, capability for Apple lossless format and multiple playlists, etc., IMO they would have had a better product. But Apple's need to be revolutionary sometimes bites them in the butt, and this moving the controls onto the earbud cable is one of those times. I hope we see a return to something more like the 2G form sometime in the future.

[Gasu E.]

FACT: What we are witnessing is Apple's version of the old tale of how to boil a frog. (You don't put the frog in a pot of hot water as it's likely to jump out and escape. Instead you put the frog in cold water then gradually raise the temperature. By the time the water reaches an unsurvivable temperature the frog is already immobilized and death is imminent.)

In what sense is this a "fact"?

Why can't they just keep making better products that people want to buy instead of forcing people to buy their limited selection because they "have to"?


Who here is being forced to buy anything?

[danny_w]

Just a note, Sony tried this before. They didn't have the clout of Apple so it didn't work. I will give Sony credit with actually making the controls accept other headphones. Maybe Apple will decide to do the same thing.

For reference see the PSP headsets (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665411969&categoryId=8198552921644574403) (which used to come with the original PSP...)
If I'm not mistaken Sony did it long before the PSP. I had a Sony Clie (Palm) PDA (NX series I think) many years ago that included a headphone/remote for mp3 listening, and it included volume and forward/back controls on it.

[Nukemkb]

I wonder when an "adapter" will be out so I can plug it into my car stereo receptor...

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Here is what you "it's OK" folks are not seeing. Apple COULD have simply included the control cable and had a 3.5" female connector at the end and included regular earbuds. You would then plug them into the connector to use them and it would be 100% just as functional for the included headphones. It would also mean thatyou could use ANYONE's headphones with the control module as well since it would essentially be just an external control line for the player that any headphones could plug into just as if the controls were on the device and you plugged in any headphone.

They chose NOT to do that even though it makes the most sense because they want MONEY from EVERY HEADPHONE MAKER IN EXISTENCE. Basically, they want a TAX to be able to plug in a headphone of your choice to the shuffle. You CANNOT *CONTROL* the Shuffle without that chip. So please spare me the BS about it not being "DRM" or some other word because it's just that, a WORD. It's blatantly obvious what Apple has done here and it's to try and get 30% off the top of all headphone sales just like they did with iPhone app sales. They think they're the Godfather of electronics companies now and expect everyone on earth (and maybe god himself) to pay them 20-30% taxes on everything just for the privilege of having to exist in the same market place as Apple. And the big reply of the FANATICS is (as usual), "if you don't like it, go buy someone else's music player". Wow. What a great idea. I will do exactly that in the future.

Come to think of it, my Nokia cell phone will play AAC music files just fine and with $6 2.5" to 3.5" headphone adapter and a $5 4GB micro-SD chip (Apple will never support such things because that would mean being able to upgrade an 8GB player to a 16GB one for a mere $18 or so instead of the additional $100-200 Apple wants for more storage in their iPod lines), I can get exactly the same functionality as this shuffle thing and use any headphones I want. The best part is I already own the cell phone so for $11 I get the equivalent of a $79 iPod Shuffle and I can use my JVC noise-canceling headphones with it. I can even change the rechargeable battery out without issue (something that Apple can't seem to manage on almost anything they make these days since they'd rather charge you to change it for you!)

[hjb1000]

They chose NOT to do that even though it makes the most sense because they want MONEY from EVERY HEADPHONE MAKER IN EXISTENCE. Basically, they want a TAX to be able to plug in a headphone of your choice to the shuffle. You CANNOT *CONTROL* the Shuffle without that chip. So please spare me the BS about it not being "DRM" or some other word because it's just that, a WORD. It's blatantly obvious what Apple has done here and it's to try and get 30% off the top of all headphone sales just like they did with iPhone app sales. They think they're the Godfather of electronics companies now and expect everyone on earth (and maybe god himself) to pay them 20-30% taxes on everything just for the privilege of having to exist in the same market place as Apple.

+1 Word.

Just about every portable CD player in the past used this system- the remote control connects to the player, and then another socket within the remote connects whatever headphones you would like to use.
The old system was simple and worked well. I'm dumbfounded why Apple has chosen this terribly unintuitive system. It's just dumb.

Of course it makes more money for Apple, but at what price to their credibility?

[wizard]

Its frightening how many people refuse too look at the BIG PICTURE here.

There is no big picture here, this is one simple device in Apples line up.


FACT: The new shuffle requires an authorized controller to work with 100% functionality. Yes, you can plug in any headphones and put the shuffle in shuffle mode, but you can't do anything else like pause or skip.

No it doesn't, Apple has already indicated that manufactures are free to implement alternative hadware. Using Apple IP just means they can take advantage of "Made for iPod".


FACT: An authorized controller adapter is available not just at extra cost, but only from a 3rd party blessed by Apple. This effectively allows the 3rd party to charge a higher price than if there was free market competition and anyone could market the controller adapter.

This isn't true either though an authrsed chip dos have advantages, namely the Made for iPod program.


FACT: Apple previously put an authorization chip in docks for video output so that current iPods that support video will not work in older docks, even if they have video out jacks; even Apple's own.

That has nothing to do with this.


FACT: What we are witnessing is Apple's version of the old tale of how to boil a frog. (You don't put the frog in a pot of hot water as it's likely to jump out and escape. Instead you put the frog in cold water then gradually raise the temperature. By the time the water reaches an unsurvivable temperature the frog is already immobilized and death is imminent.)

This has no relationship at all to this issue. The whole problem we got here is that all the rukus about DRM here is based on ignorance. Until there are real facts posts like yours are not constructive.

In this case, we consumers are the frog, happy and comfortable with iPods. The water is "Made for iPod" accessories that are increasingly less optional and more mandatory (via an authorization chip) for complete iPod operation.

Besides the fact that this chip is not there for authorization you don't know what or how widely distributed alternative products will be.


First it was video docks, now controllers, next is what... USB chargers? Don't smirk because I'll bet its in the plans. After the long fight to rid DRM from music why are so many people "ok" with locked in accessories that unnaturally increase consumer cost and reduce buying choices?

Because this one device significantly expands consummer choice, it doesn't lessen it at all.


If Apple succeeds here do you really think they'll stop putting authorization chips in future products, not just iPods, but Macs too. Apple already limits our choice of video cards.

Personally i'd like to see such controls for the iPhone if it is compatible with the mic input.


For all that are willing to give Apple a pass just something to consider. I have no problem with innovated "made for iPod products" that add functionality, but to require them for basic functionality is just mad and cynical, not to mention greedy.

If you can't see the innovation here then this discussion is hopeless.


Dave.

[butterfly0fdoom]

+1 Word.

Just about every portable CD player in the past used this system- the remote control connects to the player, and then another socket within the remote connects whatever headphones you would like to use.
The old system was simple and worked well. I'm dumbfounded why Apple has chosen this terribly unintuitive system. It's just dumb.

Of course it makes more money for Apple, but at what price to their credibility?

Apple did use that remote system. But after the iPhone's release, Apple decided to expand upon the iPhone's remote capabilities instead of continuing support for the Radio Remote. And personally, I find the clicker remote more useful than the original Apple iPod Remote or the Radio Remote. I don't need an extra long wire, and I find the clicker to be in a good position, especially when I'm running.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No it doesn't, Apple has already indicated that manufactures are free to implement alternative hadware. Using Apple IP just means they can take advantage of "Made for iPod".


Except that they cannot control the Shuffle without the chip (not technically DRM, but if you cannot control playback, that's a bit of a drag, wouldn't you say?) and if they try to reverse engineer it, Apple will sue them like they sue everyone else (e.g. Psystar). There is no free lunch with Apple.


If you can't see the innovation here then this discussion is hopeless.


What exactly is innovative about screwing the consumer and taking profits from headphone makers that they don't deserve? The control line should have a female headphone jack on it and the problem would have been solved. No chip needed. No Made For IPod Program. None of Apple's business which headphones you use with their players. But I don't expect fantatics to get it. They think EVERYTHING Apple does is "innovative" and "great" and everyone else is a "hater" or "whiner". You're right, though. The "discussion" is hopeless with fanatics.

[MasterNile]

Except that they cannot control the Shuffle without the chip (not technically DRM, but if you cannot control playback, that's a bit of a drag, wouldn't you say?) and if they try to reverse engineer it, Apple will sue them like they sue everyone else (e.g. Psystar). There is no free lunch with Apple.

I'm sorry, I just jumped into this thread but can you show me where it says that unless it has these chips you can't control playback? AFAIK the only thing this chip does is get Apple money and the manufacturer gets a "Made for iPod" license or whatever and will be carried by the Apple store, other than that if they don't have a "Made for iPod" license they work just fine (including controlling playback) but will not be endorsed as for iPod and will not be carried by the Apple store.

[NT1440]

I'm sorry, I just jumped into this thread but can you show me where it says that unless it has these chips you can't control playback? AFAIK the only thing this chip does is get Apple money and the manufacturer gets a "Made for iPod" license or whatever and will be carried by the Apple store, other than that if they don't have a "Made for iPod" license they work just fine (including controlling playback) but will not be endorsed as for iPod and will not be carried by the Apple store.

No, you need the chip, but Apple has said that 3rd parties must get permission IF AND ONLY IF they want in on the "made for ipod" program. They are free to come up with their own chips, they jsut wont be officially recognized by apple.

[MasterNile]

No, you need the chip, but Apple has said that 3rd parties must get permission IF AND ONLY IF they want in on the "made for ipod" program. They are free to come up with their own chips, they jsut wont be officially recognized by apple.

I'm confused, so if a company doesn't buy the chip from Apple can you or can you not control playback with their headphones? Can someone point to a reference rather than all this hearsay?

[Sehnsucht]

FACT: What we are witnessing is Apple's version of the old tale of how to boil a frog. (You don't put the frog in a pot of hot water as it's likely to jump out and escape. Instead you put the frog in cold water then gradually raise the temperature. By the time the water reaches an unsurvivable temperature the frog is already immobilized and death is imminent.)

In this case, we consumers are the frog, happy and comfortable with iPods. The water is "Made for iPod" accessories that are increasingly less optional and more mandatory (via an authorization chip) for complete iPod operation.

First it was video docks, now controllers, next is what... USB chargers? Don't smirk because I'll bet its in the plans. After the long fight to rid DRM from music why are so many people "ok" with locked in accessories that unnaturally increase consumer cost and reduce buying choices?

Because not everybody has the time to scour the earth looking for each and every injustice ever perpetrated by man. ;) Some people just want to listen to their music. Maybe some like to stare at the plug on the bottom of their MP3 player and ponder the reason for its existence; I don't. As for "reducing buying choices", the massive ********* of third-party iPod accessories in existence accounts for fully 21.3% of the Earth's total weight (ok maybe not that much, but you get the idea.) Go to Best Buy, go to Wal-Mart, hell...walk into a freaking truck stop and there are shelves full of "Made For iPod" crap. Saying that there is little selection of accessories for iPods is like saying there's a world shortage of Coca-Cola. :D

What we can say about the proprietary Made For iPod is that it choked off the business for everybody else...I remember seeing only about 3 different Zune docking stations last time I went into Best Buy...which is okay because Microsoft has only ever sold about 3 Zunes anyway. :cool:

[butterfly0fdoom]

I'm confused, so if a company doesn't buy the chip from Apple can you or can you not control playback with their headphones? Can someone point to a reference rather than all this hearsay?

The company needs to use Apple chips to get the Made for iPod/iPhone tag. The company doesn't need to use Apple chips for compatibility; they're free to reverse-engineer the protocol. Reference is on the first page of the thread, IIRC.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'm sorry, I just jumped into this thread but can you show me where it says that unless it has these chips you can't control playback? AFAIK the only thing this chip does is get Apple money and the manufacturer gets a "Made for iPod" license or whatever and will be carried by the Apple store, other than that if they don't have a "Made for iPod" license they work just fine (including controlling playback) but will not be endorsed as for iPod and will not be carried by the Apple store.

The controls for the new Shuffle are on a little dongle thingy on the headphone cord. That interface is controlled by this chip. If you don't have the chip (or design your own without ANY help from Apple who is not going to tell you how to do it so you can avoid paying them the license fee) then you don't have control of the Shuffle. Without control of the Shuffle, it's a worthless POS, more or less.

Here's the rub, regardless of whether you believe 3rd party companies can easily make their own or will be allowed to make their own control chips. most of the best headphones out there are made by headphone companies, not iPhone accessory companies. People can't seriously believe that you're going to have a good selection of QUALITY headphones when a given company now has to offer a SEPARATE MODEL VERSION of a given headphone design JUST to accommodate this control mechanism (that should have been independent of the headphones with a female jack on the end instead of requiring REPLACING the CONTROL MECHANISM every single time you need new headphones). I mean just from a green standpoint, WHAT A WASTE of resources. You could have millions of useless control dongles in the landfills because the cheap-o ear buds get tossed or wear out. What's the point in that? What's the point in making headphone manufacturers turn out control mechanisms just for the Shuffle or occasional iPod Touch user when Apple could have provided one with a lousy female connector jack for ANY headphone in existence??? The control mechanism should be Apple's job. Headphones should be the job of headphone manufacturers!

Explain THAT to me without using concepts of making ARBITRARY MONEY for Apple and you'll have convinced me that Apple is groundbreaking and not just GREEDY. Apple's system is completely arbitrary and designed to net more license fees on objects that have NOTHING to do with computers or Apple technology. Headphones have existed long before Apple itself and now Apple is attempting to force headphone manufacturers to pay them a fee so their headphones will work with the Shuffle (and possibly other future iPod products).

Where does it end? Will Apple next put a chip or connector on their computers that requires a special monitor or adapter (sold by them only of course) to use with regular monitors??? Oops! Too late! :p

Are you surprised yet? Should anyone ever be surprised that Apple is becoming greedier than Bill Gates and Bernie Madoff combined these days?

No no no! I must have it all wrong. Apple is simply being INNOVATIVE and they deserve that money. How dare companies like Psystar try to muscle in on some of that action? Apple invented the computer and they deserve to control every facet of your iLife. They should watch you through your iSight (tm) and make sure you are doing everything the Apple way and wearing Apple approved clothing and accessories! Otherwise your iCar might not start and your iToilet might not flush! :eek:

And don't even think about using words like "podium" because it has the word "pod" inside it and EVERYONE knows that "pod" = :apple: Next Apple will be suing various coffee makers for using "coffee pods" without paying Apple a license fee or getting their permission to use that clearly Apple part of a piece of a name.

[MacAndy74]

I'm just glad to hear that all the trash talk about the new iPod being DRM stricken - is untrue. The new iPod isn't my style, a bit too minimalistic - however it does make a really nice tie clip, as quoted from Andy Ihnatko.

[Eric S.]

The company needs to use Apple chips to get the Made for iPod/iPhone tag. The company doesn't need to use Apple chips for compatibility; they're free to reverse-engineer the protocol. Reference is on the first page of the thread, IIRC.

Are they free to do that, or would Apple sue them? The only reference I see says "clones could conceivably be made" which doesn't mean that Apple says it's OK with them.

[butterfly0fdoom]

Are they free to do that, or would Apple sue them? The only reference I see says "clones could conceivably be made" which doesn't mean that Apple says it's OK with them.

As long as they don't slap on the "Made for iPod/iPhone" label, Apple won't hunt them down. There's a plethora of accessories that lack that label. Apple just doesn't advocate using those accessories.

[Eric S.]

As long as they don't slap on the "Made for iPod/iPhone" label, Apple won't hunt them down. There's a plethora of accessories that lack that label. Apple just doesn't advocate using those accessories.

But did any of those accessories reverse-engineer Apple-manufactured chips?

[butterfly0fdoom]

But did any of those accessories reverse-engineer Apple-manufactured chips?

Probably. I wouldn't know the details, but there's a rather large assortment of accessories without the Made for iPod label, especially outside the US.

[ashley11]

nice newshttp://sharepix4all.info/images/udas89hdusajd0sa/smile.jpg
thanks