Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Oct 2017 22:33 UTC
Multimedia, AV

Nilay Patel on the further disappearance of the headphone jack, and its replacement, Bluetooth:

To improve Bluetooth, platform vendors like Apple and Google are riffing on top of it, and that means they’re building custom solutions. And building custom solutions means they’re taking the opportunity to prioritize their own products, because that is a fair and rational thing for platform vendors to do.

Unfortunately, what is fair and rational for platform vendors isn’t always great for markets, competition, or consumers. And at the end of this road, we will have taken a simple, universal thing that enabled a vibrant market with tons of options for every consumer, and turned it into yet another limited market defined by ecosystem lock-in.

This is exactly what's happening, and it is turning something simple and straightforward - get headphones, plug it in literally every single piece of headphones-enabled audio equipment made in the last 100 years, and have it work - into an incompatibility nightmare. And this incompatibility nightmare is growing and getting worse, moving beyond just non-standard Bluetooth; you can't use Apple Music with speakers from Google or Amazon, and Spotify doesn't work on the Apple Watch.

Removing the headphone jack was a user-hostile move when Apple did it, and it's still a user-hostile move when Google does it.

Thread beginning with comment 649676
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: DRM is the future
by kurkosdr on Sun 8th Oct 2017 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: DRM is the future"
Member since:

What is DRM if not copy protection?

DRM is part of the original format, copy protection is a kludge tacked later on.

In DVDs for example, CSS, the APS flag and the Region Lock flags are DRM, ARccOS is copy protection.

The difference is that DRM, being part of the original format, defines the technical measures to prevent copying from unauthorized devices and in addition defines how the technical measures should be handled by authorized devices, as well as how the content should be handled by authorized devices, while copy protection is a kludge intended to confuse the machine and partially reduce compatibility and doesn't make the distinction between unauthorized and authorized, and defines only the technical measures to achieve "protection" against copying.

The main difference is that, while DRM could be made to allow managed copying from authorized devices (think iTunes DRM allowing copying the song to iPod), copy protection tries to block all copying (think Sony XCP).

Edited 2017-10-08 09:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3