No DRM in Headphones for New iPod Shuffle

[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 (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.

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 (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]

No facts here!

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.