Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No DRM in Headphones for New iPod Shuffle
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
On to the next crisis...
Apple actually reinvented runnig and calls it the.......iWalk......... it's awesome.......
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.
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.
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.
do you really think someone won't create headphones that fit your needs AND work with the shuffle 3g?
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:
This is marketing and that is all. Let's stop spreading incorrect information.
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.
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.
You just got made...
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.
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.
As I was reading through the thread, I was trying to figure out why nobody mentioned this.
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.
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.
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)
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
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
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 Apples dock connector andmore recentlyproprietary 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
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).
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).
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).