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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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!
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!
Aiwa CD Player
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
How can anyone rate this article positive.
Apple restricting headphone use is NOT (I repeat NOT) good.
Apple restricting headphone use is NOT (I repeat NOT) good.
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?!
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?!
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?
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.
Think of it like an inkjet printer
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!
-Kevin
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!
-Kevin
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.
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).
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.
Why not????
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
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
what the hell... its just.. a control chip
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
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
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
Analog DRM!?
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.
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.