OSNews

This is UNTRUE: http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/16/no-drm-in-headphones-for-new-ip...

but it means that due to apple dominant position onto the mp3 player market, the are now trying to be in control of the accessory market ( why didn't they made a more "pluggable" remote control, I guess a supporter would say "because it would require a more bulky controller for mechanical resistance"), but let's face it a buyer is less likely to choose a non "certified for ipod" when offered the choice, and given that apple won't even try to enter the "netbook"(tm) market.
It needs to find alternative source of revenue.
On the other hand, I wonder how much microsoft get paid per "certified for windows XX" sticker, it certainly have urged Intel to push microsoft to lax their policy (for intel to keep a good grip on the laptop market).

"Apple is being a monopoly like Microsoft" is one of the most inexplicably popular and foolish things that people say on the Internet. Apple has no monopoly to abuse, and the remarkable popularity they do have they didn't cheat or even abuse to get. FairPlay was feasible in the first place because they never, and I do mean never, broke compatibility with good ol' CD-Rs. There is no lock-in. You're not stuck with an iPod. It's just hardware and soundwaves. It's easy to migrate, even the "locked" stuff -- maybe not at full quality, but that's the thing with DRM, and I doubt Apple did any worse a job warning their customers about usage restrictions than Microsoft did warning theirs that all the WMDRM servers would swiftly go down and reduce their purchased music to nothing but cruft on the platter.

That said, the way the new Shuffle works, pretty and durable as the device itself is, is nothing but dumb, and consumers should know going into the purchase that it's an inflexible gimmick. You have to talk to it to control it, so you can't just go and replace the stock headphones with whatever you feel like or it won't even work.

you don't have to talk to it, it's controlled through the headphone with the pic chip. The Shuffle talks to you. The reason voice has been added to the shuffle is to give it more functionality, i.e. it allows you to use playlists, as the shuffle will tell you what the playlist is and you press a button when you find the one it is. It also allows you to use the shuffle without having to really handle the device, which is good for the intended audience which is runners etc..

As said above the chip is purely for control of the device with no DRM, leaving it open for others to copy.

I don't see what the fuss is, if you don't like the controls on the headphones buy a nano or another brand all togeather.

This is not new, i remember buying a tape based sony walkman in the mid ninties. This walkman remote functionaility would only work with sony remotes.

Apple has no monopoly to abuse

In the EU, monopolies start at 25% share of the applicable market.

Edited 2009-03-17 09:18 UTC

Just as the old one, only worse, big deal, get a Sansa Clip/Fuze instead.

It is legal, the movie industry did it with blu-ray components.

Well duh, Apple has always been worse than Microsoft when it comes to vendor lockin. Welcome to the last 25 years.

Bit of a fine distinction, though. "It's not DRM, it's a proprietary control circuit for which no specs will be released, and without which, the device will not function properly." Riiight. Not DRM at all...

Does anyone with more (American) legal knowledge know if reverse-engineering said chip would constitute violating the DMCA?

Edited 2009-03-17 01:48 UTC

1) This chip is not DRM - no matter how much you scream and curse about it. Using your logic, any chip that doesn't disclose how it operates is practising DRM - which would make the whole IT industry DRM riddled. Your claim about the head phones and DRM are bollocks.

2) Here is the definition of the DMCA:

Considering that the chip is not used to implement DRM to protect copyrighted material - your accusation against Apple is foolish at best. Will they take action? if the company went around associating or insinuating that it was iPod compatible as to infer the blessing of Apple, then you might have a court case regarding trademark issues.

Again, the chip is not DRM nor is it used for any form of copyright protection and thus the DCMA does not come into play.

Edited 2009-03-17 02:16 UTC

Careful with this 'you' business. I make no such accusations. As I do not own an MP3 player, let alone a shuffle, I really couldn't care less.

Strictly speaking, you are right. The chip isn't really 'managing' the rights of anyone or anything. Yet the similarities of this to other DRM technology and methods is quite striking. At the very least, it is a form vendor lock-in. You have to buy special, or at least, apple-approved headphones if you want them to work with your apple product. All legality aside, it is poor form, to say the least.

Thank-you for the clarification wrt the DCMA. Are there other laws in the States, though, that would impede a company from reverse engineering the chip, in order to make compatible headphones?

Edited 2009-03-17 03:03 UTC

No, this is what you stated:



Which is a clear statement that you believe that the chip can be classified as DRM. I didn't pull my accusation from no where - I simply read what you wrote and based on the "Riiight. Not DRM at all..." indicates a sarcastic quip pointing to the fact that you do believe that the chip is a form of DRM.



I wouldn't think there would be given that since the iPod was released that people have been reverse engineering before specifications disclosures were made under the 'made for iPod' policy by Apple. So there will be third party vendors willing to make them and they won't suffer any problems. The benefits of works for ipod' policy is that it gives vendors the information they need in a timely manner rather than a delay of weeks/months before they can release a product. The question therefore is whether a vendor thinks it is good value on their part to pay for access to specifications in return for being able to affix a logo onto their product stating that it is blessed by Apple in terms of compatibility.

It is not a nearly vendor lock in of any kind. It is basically saying we have certain certifications for our product i.e "Made for iPod" If you want to use the made for ipod brnad then you license it.

You can implement it without using the made for ipod brand. This is no different from any other vendor certifying products. Also Thom a little retraction would be nice.

It would be nice for a little clarification on the issue.

You'd be right if it were just a certification. If it were simply obtaining Apple's blessing to market your third-party hardware for the iPod, like MS's Games for Windows.

But because Apple's closed control circuit is required to properly use headphones, stereo connections, etc, it leaves the realm of simple certification and licensing and ends up as Something Else altogether.

Though there are similarities (which is what I was -trying- to get at), my respondents are quite right that it's not DRM - there are no copyrighted works involved. Yet still, the producer of my product is dictating how and when and with what I can make use of the product. As one of the articles pointed out, I cannot use the shuffle in my car stereo until and unless someone manufactures a special connector, with or without Apple's blessing. A simple 1/4" jack, the decades-old standard, will no longer suffice.

And that's what I find irritating about the whole situation. Anyone else who cares a whit about standards, openness and interoperability should join me in condemning this design decision, and others like it.

Everything Apple does has vendor lockin.

But so is an Intel chipset or Intel CPU (I'd assume you need a chipset built on some released information from Intel), your mobile phone loader (eventually), your DS loader, ...

So f--king what?

There is an optional Licensing fee for those who wish to use the Apple control chip. But Apple freely declared that there was no encryption and manufacturers are able to clone the chip.

Actually, Apple has NOT said manufacturers can or are allowed to clone the chip. Someone might be able to clone it later on but until then you have to buy earphones that have the authentic one in them.

As for no encryption..well, you can call it whatever you wish, but it's that chip which controls the Shuffle. Without that chip you can't do anything with it. 3rd party manufacturers have no choice but to license the chip from Apple if they wish to provide earphones for it.

Now, what this means for end-users? Well, they can't use any of their old earbuds, even if they were of superior quality compared to the Apple ones. And if they wish to replace the default earbuds they'll have to find ones with "Designed for iPod Shuffle" logo, no other ones will work. And those that work will have a higher price tag on them due to licensing cost. It's a lose-lose situation for end-users.

From a technological point of view: there is no reason why Apple couldn't have added a few buttons on the iPod Shuffle itself. That would have helped. And as for the earphones..I've seen several devices out there which have some controls on the earbud cable and they work just fine without some odd chip. Apple _could_ have just provided the functionality of the chip inside iPod Shuffle, but having it as a separate chip allows them to squeeze some more extra income..

Well, I guess they could make it smaller with no controls, many people probably do use the stock headphones and no-one force anyone to buy this POS so I don't see the problem.

This stupid crap even made it on the front page. Real OS news are moved to Page 2. Right now, every Page 2 story except "Palm, Sprint Reveal Plan Pricing Options for Pre" is a real OS-related article.

I have Java 1.4.2, 5.0 and SE 6.

And they do have an excuse, they alter their JVM so Java applications in OS X will work more like native OS X applications.

Agreed. While there's plenty of DRM gripes against Apple, this no more qualifies as DRM than an external keyboard does. Good god, we need a keyboard to control our desktop computers. Let's everybody cry DRM! How dare we need an external device!
Are the editors here idiots? Seriously? If you want to go after Apple for DRM go ahead, they deserve it in many respects, but if you're going to claim DRM you'd better make damn sure you know what the hell you're talking about. Stick to the fscking truth for once, or get the hell out of here and go join Slashdot where this bs belongs.

The story has already been updated. In fact, I did so quite shortly after publishing it.

There is no story other than made up speculation. You're update should provide a real summary indicating there is no DRM at all instead of just linking to some other site.

The story has already been updated. In fact, I did so quite shortly after publishing it. "

If Thom had any integrity, he'd fix the title. It is inaccurate and misleading.

The story has already been updated. In fact, I did so quite shortly after publishing it. "

If Thom had any integrity, he'd fix the title. It is inaccurate and misleading. [/q]
Hear, hear. The title should be adjusted accordingly. Articles with titles like this make OSNews look more and more like a joke everyday.

And what a nice idea to close the very same article with "[..] the usually trumpeted cases don't affect anyone (Windows Vista and 7)".

Because nobody uses it? *SCNR*

Nice flame Thom!