OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/21143/New_DRM_Low_iPod_Shuffle_Has_Headphone_DRM_Chip Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:31:34 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353338 http://osnews.com/thread?353338 I definitely won't be buying one of these. Is this even legal? I would think this is monopolistic type, even worse then what Microsoft does. It's like all of sudden making all windows users only able to use a Microsoft mouse, and all old mice no longer work. This is a sham. Shame on Apple Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (airwedge1) Comments RE: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353339 http://osnews.com/thread?353339 This is UNTRUE: http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/16/no-drm-in-headphones-for-new-ip... Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Meace) Comments This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353346 http://osnews.com/thread?353346 There is no encryption in the control chip Apple is using in the iPod Shuffle's Earphones. 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. Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kgav) Comments No way http://osnews.com/thread?353347 http://osnews.com/thread?353347 I have a pair of very expensive headphones, because sound quality is important to me. I also have a "gaming chair" that can plug into the headphone jack of the ipod to have the music play out of the speakers in and around the chair.

If this becomes industry standard, I will hold on to my old ipod for many years to come. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Boomshiki) Comments stupid sheep http://osnews.com/thread?353349 http://osnews.com/thread?353349 You keep buying their crap and the keep dumping on the end user. Even if the headphones dont have DRM, making the device able to be controlled only through special headphones is STUPID! Lots of people buy headphones other than what come with the ipods. People also lose or break their headphones quite often. This is just another way Apple is screwing its customers. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TechGeek) Comments RE: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353351 http://osnews.com/thread?353351
Is this even legal? I would think this is monopolistic type, even worse then what Microsoft does. It's like all of sudden making all windows users only able to use a Microsoft mouse, and all old mice no longer work.


"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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (atsureki) Comments RE: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353353 http://osnews.com/thread?353353 It is legal, the movie industry did it with blu-ray components. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[2]: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353354 http://osnews.com/thread?353354 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). Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dvhh) Comments Comment by kgav http://osnews.com/thread?353355 http://osnews.com/thread?353355 We are talking about the iPod Shuffle here. It is a niche product, it is the smallest cheapest iPod. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that on device controls will remain on all other iPod models.

With the Shuffle being a device people use when jogging, skiing or doing other activities it does make sense for the controls to be on the earphone cable. It is natural to reach up towards your neck and be able to maintain your stride and balance, as opposed to the half dozen places people put the Shuffle on their person.

Do you think after-market controller manufacturers for PS3 or Xbox don't pay a licensing fees? Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kgav) Comments RE: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353358 http://osnews.com/thread?353358 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 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rexstuff) Comments Apple sheep http://osnews.com/thread?353359 http://osnews.com/thread?353359 "It's a shame, and one that consumers should feel empowered to fight."

(rolls eyes) I won't waste my time "fighting" a company that won't listen. Instead I'll go buy a product without DRM! There are other MP3 players! Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (massysett) Comments Comment by macUser http://osnews.com/thread?353360 http://osnews.com/thread?353360 However, there is no DRM in this new control chip, according to Monster Cable's Kevin Lee, who added, "In fact, it's not even authentication. It just gives us a way to control the iPod."

Where is the DRM? Where is the history of apple going after iPhone peripheral makers that reverse engineer the connection? It sounds pretty straight forward to me... if you want compliance with the "Made for iPhone" program you use the chip. Considering the importance of the controller, I can see why Apple did this.

How about a retraction of the article title... It's inaccurate and misleading. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (macUser) Comments RE[2]: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353361 http://osnews.com/thread?353361 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:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works and it also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.


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 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments There's no DRM chip. http://osnews.com/thread?353363 http://osnews.com/thread?353363 The so-called DRM chip is a PIC (programmable interrupt controller) necessary to implement the control buttons on the headphone cable. You don't have to use Apple's at all, particularly if you know how to program a PIC yourself (not hard, and they are cheap), but Apple sells them pre-manufactured and programmed if you want them.

Every set of earphones for the micro shuffle is going to need one, but there's no DRM going on, no authentication, and no mandatory licensing or approval procedure. That's all FUD. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FellowConspirator) Comments RE[3]: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353365 http://osnews.com/thread?353365 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 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rexstuff) Comments Another silly article. http://osnews.com/thread?353367 http://osnews.com/thread?353367 Thanks, Thom, for doing any sort of insightful research on the issue before posting to get the anti-Apple crowds riled up.

This is such a non-issue. There is no DRM. Nothing at all here to report or get upset about. Just a headphone with a chip so you can control the volume and press forward and backwards. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NathanHill) Comments RE[4]: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353368 http://osnews.com/thread?353368
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.


No, this is what you stated:

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...


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.

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?


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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments RE[4]: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353369 http://osnews.com/thread?353369 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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (milles21) Comments This isn't News http://osnews.com/thread?353373 http://osnews.com/thread?353373 This isn't news, again. This is 1-2 day old speculation that is in fact proven wrong.

Online 'journalism' at it's best. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mckill) Comments Idiots http://osnews.com/thread?353381 http://osnews.com/thread?353381 It's just a damned controller chip. They are very simple for other companies to copy and this is a non issue.

Way to go finding yet another ignorant anti-apple article to fan the flames.

If you want to attack apple how about going after them about their java implementation? At least there's basically no excuse for it's performance or being out of date. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Evan) Comments RE[2]: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353383 http://osnews.com/thread?353383 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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (REM2000) Comments RE[2]: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353384 http://osnews.com/thread?353384 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 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades) Comments RE: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353387 http://osnews.com/thread?353387 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.. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WereCatf) Comments it was just http://osnews.com/thread?353393 http://osnews.com/thread?353393 FUD from the pro microsoft people here






i know you are going to wote this down and call me a troll Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mellin) Comments *Sigh* http://osnews.com/thread?353394 http://osnews.com/thread?353394 I have a DVD player that has no controls other than power and eject buttons on the unit, and a small portable TV that has only a power button on the unit - all other controls are on the remotes. Maybe we should stir up a storm about them too.

Morons Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mrhasbean) Comments RE: *Sigh* http://osnews.com/thread?353395 http://osnews.com/thread?353395 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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darknexus) Comments Every time I read an article... http://osnews.com/thread?353396 http://osnews.com/thread?353396 ...like this it reinforces in my mind where Microsoft spend a lot of those marketing dollars... Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mrhasbean) Comments Great troll article! http://osnews.com/thread?353398 http://osnews.com/thread?353398 8/10 - would be trolled again. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dlundh) Comments RE: Another silly article. http://osnews.com/thread?353406 http://osnews.com/thread?353406 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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KAMiKAZOW) Comments Hey Thom: how about correcting this story? http://osnews.com/thread?353409 http://osnews.com/thread?353409 The original post is totally mis-titled and incorrect. How about doing a little honest journalism and correcting this?

Apple has stated there is NO DRM on the chip.

Have a little journalistic integrity...oh, that's right...in this day and age it's not required. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Smeagol) Comments RE: Hey Thom: how about correcting this story? http://osnews.com/thread?353410 http://osnews.com/thread?353410
Have a little journalistic integrity...oh, that's right...in this day and age it's not required.


The story has already been updated. In fact, I did so quite shortly after publishing it. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments Yet Another Sensationalist Headline from OSNews http://osnews.com/thread?353411 http://osnews.com/thread?353411 Yet another sensationalist BS, inaccurate headline from Thom. Maybe Thom needs to learn to do something called "journalistic research" before he posts this tabloid style crap. Clean up your reporting OSNews... Or you are gonna start losing readers. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (pantheraleo) Comments RE[2]: Hey Thom: how about correcting this story? http://osnews.com/thread?353413 http://osnews.com/thread?353413 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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mckill) Comments RE: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353423 http://osnews.com/thread?353423
I would think this is monopolistic type, even worse then what Microsoft does.
Well duh, Apple has always been worse than Microsoft when it comes to vendor lockin. Welcome to the last 25 years. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aliquis) Comments The headline... http://osnews.com/thread?353427 http://osnews.com/thread?353427 @Thom
So how about changing the headline? This is just gonna annoy people and not lead to anything productive. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fx__) Comments RE: stupid sheep http://osnews.com/thread?353435 http://osnews.com/thread?353435
You keep buying their crap and the keep dumping on the end user. Even if the headphones dont have DRM, making the device able to be controlled only through special headphones is STUPID! Lots of people buy headphones other than what come with the ipods. People also lose or break their headphones quite often. This is just another way Apple is screwing its customers.

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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aliquis) Comments RE[2]: Wow http://osnews.com/thread?353436 http://osnews.com/thread?353436
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.
Just as the old one, only worse, big deal, get a Sansa Clip/Fuze instead. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aliquis) Comments RE[4]: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353438 http://osnews.com/thread?353438
At the very least, it is a form vendor lock-in.
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? Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aliquis) Comments RE: Idiots http://osnews.com/thread?353440 http://osnews.com/thread?353440
If you want to attack apple how about going after them about their java implementation? At least there's basically no excuse for it's performance or being out of date.
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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aliquis) Comments RE[2]: Hey Thom: how about correcting this story? http://osnews.com/thread?353443 http://osnews.com/thread?353443
"Have a little journalistic integrity...oh, that's right...in this day and age it's not required.


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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (macUser) Comments RE[3]: Hey Thom: how about correcting this story? http://osnews.com/thread?353446 http://osnews.com/thread?353446
"[q]Have a little journalistic integrity...oh, that's right...in this day and age it's not required.


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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Chicken Blood) Comments RE[5]: This is wrong! http://osnews.com/thread?353489 http://osnews.com/thread?353489 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. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rexstuff) Comments Get Over It http://osnews.com/thread?353525 http://osnews.com/thread?353525 Personally, I just wish people would quit whining about things like this. If you are dumb enough to completely tie yourself into a company that treats you this way you deserve what you get (cough...MS/Apple...cough).

Don't like it? Quit buying their products unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket that you are dieing to spend on proprietary accessories.

Apple makes cool stuff, but you know you are buying into the corporate philosophy and culture, not just the product. If you don't mind that then you don't have anything to complain about.

Jeff Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (johjeff) Comments RE: Yet Another Sensationalist Headline from OSNews http://osnews.com/thread?353598 http://osnews.com/thread?353598 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! Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ford Prefect) Comments