Update — No DRM In New iPod Shuffle 264
An anonymous reader writes "BoingBoing Gadgets has updated their story from yesterday on DRM contained in the new iPod Shuffle. (We also discussed this rumor last week.) It's a false alarm. There is a chip in the headphone controls but it is just an encoder chip. There is no DRM and no reason to believe that third party headphones wouldn't work with the new Shuffle. (Apple would still prefer you to license the encoder under the Made for iPod program, but with no DRM, there is no DMCA risk to a manufacturer reverse engineering it.) The money quote: 'For the record, we do not believe that the new iPod headphones with in-line remote use DRM that affects audio playback in any way.'"
Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:4, Insightful)
* Mobile phones & Ipods (make sure user can't run Apps which haven't paid the Apple tax)
* In their O/S (Check it's installed on correct hardware)
* ITMS (video)
* Video out of Iphone (make sure you can't use third party docks to watch ipod/iphone vids on your TV.
So frankly, DRM on Apple products was not surprising - it was a natural assumption to make.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So...no DRM, only ARM.
They are still trying to lock you into their crappy products, or 3rd party products that have paid the Apple tax for certification and pass those costs onto you.
Why does it always get so complicated every time Apple try to reinvent simplicity?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simplicity (Score:5, Insightful)
What I mean is the standard 3.5mm jack is simple, and works brilliantly for it's intended role. So why mess with it?
"Made for 3rd generation iPod shuffle" is fairly simple, but 99% of people would have no idea what generation their iclod is (/. crowd aside).
"Plug these in, hear music" is even more simple, and how it should be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I mean is the standard 3.5mm jack is simple, and works brilliantly for it's intended role. So why mess with it?
I guess that would be because 3.5mm jacks don't carry remote control signals. Really this whole argument is a joke â" we're complaining at apple because they put a remote interface on their headphones, something that other companies have been doing since god knows when. Not only that, but apple have a good history of allowing 3rd parties to see those specs and get verified as producing
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And so will the shuffle. Plug in 3.5mm headphones, turn on, listen to music.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>And so will the shuffle. Plug in 3.5mm headphones, turn on, listen to music.
Might as well listen to the radio if you can't rewind, fast-forward, or skip songs. Apple's decision to not include controls on the actual device is stupid. It doesn't save money, because you still have to spend money on the appropriate buttons, whether they are on the Ipod of the headphones.
Re: (Score:2)
Use any standard analog inline volume adapter, or set of headphones with such a thing in the cord ;)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My Creative Muvo MP3 player came with a pair standard ear-buds. They were too big for my ears, though, so I replaced them with another pair of standard ear-buds, with no loss in functionality of anything.
This is the same player that uses a standard AAA battery.
But then, I went shopping for something that worked, rather than something popular.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I've gone through at least three pairs of ear buds for my iPod because if I forget them out, my cats like to chew on the ends. So I ran out to Target and got a replacement pair for $12 from some shmoe brand.
But then, I just wanted to listen to music on something that works, not put on airs of superiority online while jerking off.
Re:Simplicity (Score:5, Informative)
This entirely misses the point though - without the Apple headphones there is no way to control the iPod, You can't pause, skip tracks, change volume etc. All it does is play when normal headphones are installed.
Most (all?) other MP3 players that use remote controls on the headphone line have the remote control as a separate part which you can use with any headphones you like. Even the old iPod remotes are like that. Now you have to buy a remote control just to use non-Apple headphones, and currently there isn't one available.
It's not DRM but that doesn't make it any more attractive to me.
Re:Simplicity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's perfectly valid to complain about that, since the design of the new shuffle is so stupid -- WTF is the point of having separate controls, when the separate controls are almost as big as the damn player itself?! The second-gen Shuffle was a much better design.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As many others said, the simple reason is because the headphone is meant to work as a remote controller, so that Apple can eliminate all controls from the surface of the iPod. Nothing so innovative - we had CD players and tape recorders with remotes for years. The remotes disappeared because, I think, the media players got compact enough, so that they no longer need to have remotes to control the players that previously had to stay somewhere inside a pocket or some kind of bag.
Just think of the smallest m
Re: (Score:2)
Why is _everyone_ missing the point? :-)
The iPod Shuffle DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUTTONS ON IT!
You need a pair of headphones with a "remote control" device on them to use it.
Apple designed it like this so that you can put the player away, so you dont have to pull it out of your pocket to change songs, volume up/down pause etc.
The same goes for many mobile phones, the Sony PSP, if you want to provide extra functionality outside the 2 channel sound, you have to do something extra.
Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a complete inverse logic here.
"Made for X" is inverse of "make it simple" (aka works with 99.8% players in the market). For all intents and purposes, that 3.5mm jack on the shuffle isn't standard at all. They could have made the connector in a say, magsafe style and call it a revolution. In either way you need an (unreleased) adapter (to connect normal headphones) or "made for X" headphones to use the shuffle properly. This is analog to putting apple "enhanced" usb ports on apple computers. "Well it works great if you have apple hardware connected to the usb ports, but if you want to use your usb printer/memory stick/whaterver, you should buy just this small adapter (link to apple store)." It is a lock-in coupled with royalities (which are transferred to you and me) plain and simple.
How fun would be to go into a store wanting to buy some pair of earphones, but you have to buy only sony XLX branded ones because you only have compatible sony player. Or you want to buy that excellent sounding Shure headphones, but alas, those work only with yamaha pianos. Or you want to buy computer keyboard for your dell, but the store only has "made for hp" ones.
I don't want to live in that world, world of lock-in (I'm not saying that there is no lock-in today too, quite the reverse), high prices and most of all completely unnecessary and artificial limitations. But lock-in is ultimately for consumers good isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a complete inverse logic here.
Only because your head and colon are inverted.
"Made for X" is inverse of "make it simple"
No, it's not. The parent, since you didn't comprehend his post the first time:
For all intents and purposes, that 3.5mm jack on the shuffle isn't standard at all
And the point is....? If you want
Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:5, Informative)
No, the remote on my Sony discman (probably, IIRC the connectors were similar) wouldn't work with my SAFA CD/MP3 player, but when a classmate stepped on my Sony's remote and made most buttons useless (there were of course separate buttons for next and previous tracks, play/pause as well as volume control and remote lock instead of the ridiculous morse code bullshit) I could still use my discman with ANY headphones I had. From $2 shitty earbuds from a cheap walkman knockoff to my ER-4s, the only difference being that I had to use the controls on the device itself. Also, while the remote was still in one piece, I could again use any of my headphones with the remote by unplugging the Sony earbuds from the top of the remote and plugging the ER-4s in.
Does that clear it up? Discman: no remote, no remote functionality. Shuffle: no remote, no functionality. At least not until you buy an adapter for half the price of the player [apple.com] itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The topic at hand isn't "Inline non-standard [0] volume/playback controls suck." We already know this. Bearing that in mind, I don't see how you've done anything more than restating beelsebob's point. :)
[0] What standard?
Re: (Score:2)
I hear Apple is now making a special version of the shuffle for people who want controls on the player rather than through the headphones.
This version will have the traditional Apple click wheel controller, and will even include a small screen to see what's playing:
See here [apple.com]
This is why one makes a product line. See, some folks want the smallest possible player. Other folks will want controls on the device. Whining that they're not making the exact device that you want suggests a simple course of action-- go
Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Crank the volume up to max, lose the special earbuds, and get a 3.5" analog inline volume adapter. It's almost as if you've hired your own DJ and radio station!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
mobby_6ki answered you pretty well, but I wanted to connect my post (the post you are replying to) and his post.
The problem is that the shuffle *doesn't* have any hardware controls (aside from on/off) on the the unit itself. The controls are *only* on the right earbud cable. Why is this a problem? Because there is no other way besides an adapter (*sold separately*) or "made for shuffle" earphones. That is the biggest problem. The consumer doesn't have a clear choice in headphones. The shuffle out of the box
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but there's a big fucking difference between doing that and locking out and suing anyone who doesn't want to pay for the certification!
If a third-party doesn't want to pay for "made for iPod" certification, then they shouldn't be allowed to write the logo on the box. But they should still be allowed to se
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those of us who know what they are doing would take the specs every time over "made for X".
Right, because we buy something based on the specs, try it, and find out that despite claiming various specs, they've done an incompatible implementation and it doesn't actually work rebliably, if it works at all. And then we troubleshoot it until we are sure it doesn't actually work, and then we return it in frustration and get something else, until we find something that works.
That is how those of who know what they are doing operate.
Oh, sure, if we're late to the party we can look at what other people tried and follow their successes. But how is that really any different than following a 'made for X' sticker? In either case we wait for someone else to vet compatibility.
And if we don't have that, its just trial and error. No amount of knowing what you are doing is going to magically give you foresight on which hardware is really compatible vs which just should be compatible based on the specs.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, if we're late to the party we can look at what other people tried and follow their successes. But how is that really any different than following a 'made for X' sticker? In either case we wait for someone else to vet compatibility.
So how is waiting any different except that instead of paying Apple extra for vetted and slightly outdated hardware you buy the vetted and slightly outdated hardware for less from the vendor of your choice in the exact configuration you like?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
*They also encrypt firmware on all new ipods, specifically to prevent people from installing alternate firmware such as Rockbox [rockbox.org].
Seriously, encrypting firmware? How evil is that? How can apple apologists even try to justify that?
Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:4, Informative)
Not just that, but there's also now some sort of crypto signature on the index files the newer iPods create/read. If it's not present then the iPod refuses to recognise any of the music.
This seems to be there solely to destroy interoperability with any non-iTunes software (Amarok). Great, thanks Apple.
(Sightly OT - as linux user, with a 40+ GB music collection, mostly in mp3 format, what is the best current high capacity media player? 32GB Xen X-fi with an additional SD Card? Or is there anything else non-Apple that can store all my music?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that makes it good!?!
I'd quite like an iPod, probably a classic because of the high capacity, but if they're gonna break interop just because they feel like it then never mind eh?
In the native Apple fanboi tongue (pretention): (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, good day sir. I wish to inform you that I shall NOT be refraining from raping your mother and eating your father. Please do not suffer the illusion that your parents will be left un-assailed.
There we are. Now I may ravage or consume your parents with utter impudence, because I never said I wouldn't (in fact, I strongly implied I would!).
Bother! It would STILL be evil, even if I proclaimed I were to do it! Amazing! Therefore, dishonesty is not necessarily a prerequisite of evil!
Ah yes, another crippling counterargument from a skilled orator. Well played sir, putting the word "wank" in your sentence sure annulled the fact that IT IS PRETTY DAMN EVIL TO INTENTIONALLY GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SABOTAGE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT THEIR HARDWARE TO PLAY NICE WITH THEIR SOFTWARE.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. My. God. No-one can possibly be that stupid.
>>THEIR SOFTWARE
>"playing nice" with iTunes
>iTunes
>iTunes
>>THEIR SOFTWARE
What about this do you NOT GET? Not everyone wants to use iTunes, nor should they have to (inb4 DUHHHHH BUT DEY SHUDDNIT BUY DAR IPAD, I'm doing Apple a favour by buying an iPod, the least the "It Just Works" company can do is NOT go out of their way to make it harder to use - see: "evil", "2 faced hypocrites", "worse than microsoft"). But since you're such a goat's dick (and I'm not), I'll try and compromise by installing their bloated shit-poor excuse for a
Re:Places Apple still have DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
What if I want to do exactly as you say and listen to my OggWankis files in my new BMW, using my Wanker Player 5.1. It is a free country after all. Welp, nope, my BMW is only compatible with an ipod jack and the very encrypted firmware we are discussing here. This jack is patented and licensed by Apple only, and Apple holds on to that one like a rabid dog. So I MUST use an ipod, and only an ipod. Apple uses the patent on the ipod jack to ensure it maintains a defacto monopoly on players, when those players are being used in new ways and in different markets. This is the very definition of 'evil company', in my opinion.
Keep drinking the freedom kool-aid there, Russ.
Boing Boing Unreliable (Score:5, Insightful)
What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of
The real story is Boing Boing is an unreliable site: who'd have thought that on the interwebs there would be dishonest sites *shock* *horror*!
Re: (Score:2)
What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of /. for lying, and then a second time for admitting they lied.
You'd prefer they just left the "lie" out there? Where I come from admitting your mistakes and taking responsibility for them is a good thing and to be encouraged. If you honestly believe they misled everyone despite knowing the purpose of the chip in the first place, please present your evidence.
Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (Score:5, Insightful)
All this has taught BoingBoing is that they can lie, get the publicity, then admit they lied and get more publicity. As to evidence: I'd point to the fact that they had no evidence whatsoever to back-up their claim and yet they made it any way. The onus isn't on me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is I don't believe it was an honest mistake, so I'd rather they didn't lie in the first place.
As I said, present your evidence.
As to evidence: I'd point to the fact that they had no evidence whatsoever to back-up their claim and yet they made it any way.
As has been pointed out to you, there were other sites reporting the same.
The onus isn't on me.
Actually it is, since you're the one accusing them of lying with no evidence. They may have said something that turned out to be wrong but they've ret
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Very well, then I will accuse BoingBoing and any other sites who reported on this to be grossly incompetent at basic first-year electrical engineering.
Anyone can figure this, even yours truly (who isn't even trained as an electrical engineer: Apple has added extra pins to the headphone jack in order to support things as simple as a single-button headset control on the iPhone. Clearly it was not feasible for Apple to keep just adding pins onto a short headphone jack in the hopes of cramming more buttons in.
I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sort of like Bush Administration officials on Iraqi WMD's: if they weren't lying through their teeth, they were less competent than a jellyfish. Pick your poison.
You still insist on accusing them with no proof and nothing to back you, yet you don't seem to realise the irony.
Yawn. And you don't realize that you're asking him to prove a negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no actually. What happened was that one site looked at the new headphones and found there was a chip in there. Instead of coming to the most obvious conclusion -- that supporting the custom functionality of the headphones would logically require some sort of hardware in there -- that outlet (iLounge) jumped straight to OH NOES A DRM CHIP.
Everybody else who reported this "story" went solely on that, building increasingly purel
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The onus isn't on me.
Yes it is. You're the one who made a claim (BoingBoing is lying).
How do you propose we prove the negative?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's no question that BoingBoing *wanted* to believe this - they're pretty strong anti-DRM crusaders and they're supposedly very anti-Apple because of this. But I'm pretty sure BoingBoing is, if not the most read, then certainly in the top 10 blogs read, so I honestly doubt they did this for more traffic.
But there is a strong whiff of hypocrisy around BoingBoing. For example - Cory Doctorow leaves the US because it invades personal freedoms and moves to...London? The most surveilled city in the wor
Re: (Score:2)
At least Slashdot never does anything like that.
The 'admit the incendary story they posted on the front page is nonsense' bit, I mean.
Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I felt exactly the same way, except I pointed to my old(or ancient depending on your perspective) creative MoVu. It had 1GB of storage AND a display for half the price of the shuffle, and months before apple ever released it. Oh yeah, and it had an input jack, a microphone, a FM tuner and connected via Mini USB.
But alas the marketing team at Apple is the real reason they own most of the market, not the merit of their product.
Re: (Score:2)
while much better and cheaper alternatives
Then why does Apple still have 80% of the mp3 player market. And don't give us that BS about advertising; if Apple's marketing was all-powerful, then why are they behind Dell & HP in marketshare.
Re:Boing Boing Unreliable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>"We heard there was DRM in the iPod, so we opened the headphones and found this unknown chip!"
Heard? From whom? What proof?
Thats internet journalism for you. The blogger revolution is simply nothing more than rumors and outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this has less to do with Boing Boing being dishonest and more to do with a bad journalism. I have many problems with news sites and professional journalists today (especially most IT journalists), but they do have a very good point when it comes to many bloggers. When your site becomes as popular as Slashdot or Boing Boing, where you make enough money to live off it, shouldn't you also be doing a better job than most of other bloggers when it comes to basic journalistic principles?
I like both sites,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hysterical Hatorade drinkers with bum eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh grow up fanboy. They linked to someone elses story, with caveats.
Oh pull your head out. The Boing Boing headline [boingboing.net]
Remember that old saw about how "a lie travels around the world before the truth has a chance to put it's shoes on"? The original liar obviously deserves most of the blame, but that doesn't absolve everyone who spread the lie of responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes you 90% of an "hysterical Apple fanboi" then.
The 10% you're missing is obviously the bit with the taste and the cash and the intellect.
Authentication chip != DRM (Score:2, Informative)
Please stop calling authentication chips DRM. DRM = digital rights management, its for digital content, you cant physically have DRM on a headphone cord.
Re:Authentication chip != DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
This is no place for sensible discussion! (I kid. Mostly.)
The point was brought up several times by several people, myself included, in the last discussion. (Interestingly enough, many of those posts got modded up and down about a dozen times each.) It's a lock in, and only partially - you need an adapter or specially manufactured headphones, but there's nothing to stop reverse engineering, or from using unlicensed headphones/adapters.
On a side note, I wonder if the EFF is going to retract their statement, or issue some sort of apology...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On a side note, I wonder if the EFF is going to retract their statement, or issue some sort of apology...
They already have http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/apple-adds-still-more-drm-ipod-shuffle [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks. Still a bit slanted, but that's expected with the EFF and any similar organizations.
On a related note, I cannot find iLounge issuing a retraction or apology anywhere for their mistake setting off this whole thing.
Re:Authentication chip != DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be rights management on a digital device. But more to the point, DRM has become a catch-all term for any form of vendor lock-in, specifically lock-in which when avoided is punishable by the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use any standard third party headphones.
Just don't complain when those headphones don't work with Apple's view of controlling their DAP.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No it doesn't. Rights in DRM are copyrights. A typical DRM scheme is to encrypt a music file and then try to make sure that only people who have paid for it are able to decrypt it. Or forcing people to activate software before using it. Essentially trying to use encryption and authentication to stop copyright infringement.
Expanding the term to cover things like a closed protocol allowing the remote on the headphone cord to control an MP3 player risks making it meaningless. Though actually I could accept it
retractions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see what's honest about that. Why didn't they ask an electrical engineer then, rather than engage in wild speculation?
Because anyone who did know anything about electronics could immediately tell you that you should expect to find a chip in there; something the people at BoingBoing gadgets made a big deal out of. With three button states to send ov
Why all the fuss? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a company wants to make an MP3 player with buttons on the headphone cable, instead of on the device, why is that evil?
Why is everyone going mental? So you can't use the headphones you already have, so what? Just buy a different MP3 player!
Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that. By the end of the month there will even be a handful of other headphones to choose from.
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack, and you'll be buried in lawsuits if you do it the same as someone else is doing it, so a new approach had to be made. Why is this such a big deal? We're stifling innovation by making a scene over stuff like this.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I wish that Apple would have designed the player so that when any pair of headphones were inserted it would just start to play. This is possible because the headphones are removed it stops. I can get i
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I see why we don't build an MP3 player into a pair of headphones is because the industry has moved away from the big earphones to the tiny ear buds, at least for MP3 players.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but there's actually a large selection of MP3 players built into headphones, sunglasses, etc.
http://www.google.com/products?q=headphones+built-in+mp3+player [google.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I wish that Apple would have designed the player so that when any pair of headphones were inserted it would just start to play.
Of note, the only control left on the device is the power/shuffle switch. You can plug in any headphones you like, turn it on, and it plays. This is a giant load of rubbish over absolutely nothing.
A new way of doing remote control of players, which will more than likely (looking at apple's track record) be open to industrial partners to duplicate.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said before, this could be solved in a different way. First you have to realize that the control function is actually separate from the sound reproduction function.
Make the remote a separate device, and put a headphone jack on it. You'll then be able to use remote control with any headphones. In fact, count with me until such device from a third party or Apple itself appears for this iPod: 3... 2... 1...
(unless they will be assholes and shoot it down)
Re:Why all the fuss? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company wants to make an MP3 player with buttons on the headphone cable, instead of on the device, why is that evil?
- It isn't standards compliant. When standards disintegrate the consumer pays.
- It promotes vendor lock in. It isn't inter-operable with other equipment. Consider digital SLRs. Once you buy into a brand and you've invested in enough equipment you're stuck with that brand unless you sell it all and start again.
- People who are replacing an older model may not realize there is new lock in until they've actually bought the product.
Why is everyone going mental? So you can't use the headphones you already have, so what? Just buy a different MP3 player!
When a market leader pulls this crap, others do too and pretty soon all the MP3 players you can buy have this "feature".
Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that.
That's nice. They get what they want. What about those that do care about the headphones? What about those who can't use ear buds due to hearing or ear problems?
By the end of the month there will even be a handful of other headphones to choose from.
- Not if there's a patent on the tech and Apple wants to lock them out
- If they aren't locked out there's a licensing fee which drives the price up of all the headphones
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack
Sounds like a good argument to develop a standard rather than applaud this bad behaviour.
you'll be buried in lawsuits if you do it the same as someone else is doing it, so a new approach had to be made
Don't you see there's something very very wrong with that? At this point it's not innovative so why are people afraid of being buried in lawsuites? Sounds like an argument for IP law reform.
Why is this such a big deal? We're stifling innovation by making a scene over stuff like this.
This is innovation? Seriously? Controlling a player externally via a proprietary cable? Really??? If this is considered innovation, there's a real problem.
blah blah blah (Score:2)
If you don't like the new headphones - don't frikkin buy a new shuffle.
You're telling me to wake up??? Sheesh!
He was being nice. I'd tell you to pull your head out, as there are no set standards for you to whine about. If Apple wants to release an mp3 player that only works with an infrared remote control and bluetooth headphones, that's their business. And you of course are free to take your business elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. They get what they want. What about those that do care about the headphones?
Er, they won't buy 3rd Gen iPod Shuffles and Apple won't make any money out of them? I don't see the problem.
The only problem is if you have built up a huge library of iTunes music: So don't do that, then! If you like the design of the iPod, then iPod/iTunes will work quite happily with a music library of un-DRM'd MP3 files.
Fuss fuss fuss - get with the 21st Century (Score:2)
It isn't standards compliant. When standards disintegrate the consumer pays.
You aware of the price consumers paid having to support "standards" like ISA, SCSI, RS232, Centronix, and others that "had to" be complied with, at considerable cost in $$$ and size and complexity, for years beyond any sane benefit.
It promotes vendor lock in. It isn't inter-operable with other equipment. Consider digital SLRs.
For some systems, inter-operability is a hindrance. You're buying into a SYSTEM, not an individual product,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Sounds like a good argument to develop a standard rather than applaud this bad behaviour.
There is a kind-of standard which solved the problem years back, which (for instance) my old Sony Minidisc player and at least 3 or 4 of the phones I've had follow.
You have a propriety connection into the phone, and at the other end of the cable you have your clip with microphone/volume/pause/track-skip/answer-call buttons an
Re: (Score:2)
Apple (going on their track record) even have the decency to let 3rd parties build the remotes, something which can't be said for most other vendors.
THAT is the problem. How decent of them to let people use their product without paying 10x what it should cost.
You're telling me to wake up??? Sheesh!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say this: if Apple had offered right from the start at low cost a short dongle with the player controls on it so you can plug in any headphone with a 3.5 mm stereo phone jack, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
But since Apple didn't do that, the whole thing smacks of "illegal product tie-in" and ends up forcing a long delay as third-party iPod manufacturers make the dongle and headphone manufacturers redesign their headphone cables to be truly compatible with the 3G shuffle.
Re: (Score:2)
I considered that as well when I was looking at the new shuffle specs. Unfortunately, a "short dongle", by its nature, forces the controls to be near the player body. If you're going to force that aspect of the design, you might as well put the controls on the player itself.
Apple clearly thought that the controls needed to be higher up on the body, closer to the user's head, and let that drive several decisions you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Headphones are the device (Score:2)
Because the reactionaries haven't realized that these headphones are the device. The stick part of the shuffle is only there because the engineers haven't yet shrunk it out of existence. If you buy the new Shuffle you're buying earbuds that play music with controls on the cable.
Since these fancy earbuds are also cheap, complaining that you can't replace them with other headphones is lik
Re: (Score:2)
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack
There is. Put a headphone jack on the remote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When has itunes or the ipod ever stopped you from listening to a cd that you've ripped?
Re: (Score:2)
Never.
What's the opposite of "insightful"? More than half the posters here are complaining about nonexistent forms of DRM even though the article is about the absence of DRM.
Unfortunately this sort of uninformed, thoughtless reaction is common in other parts of life too. Like when the governor of Louisiana complained about taxpayer money going to volcano research. As in trying to understand and prepare for major natural disasters. That's a bad idea, Mr. Governor? Really?!?
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that now they have an RIAA lapdog very likely pulling the DOJ to their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
Manually sorting and storing music was annoying back in 1997. I don't see how going back to a system that was cumbersome with only a gig or two of 96/128kbps mp3 files is supposed to be better for devices that can store 60+ gigs. I (and most likely not for one) like my metadata.
Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I spliced the cable of my mobile phones headphones which had control buttons on the cable as well. It was great PITA. Those wires inside the cable are extremely tiny and are joined with nylon thread (probably for endurance) which makes those signal wires almost impossible to handle by hand. So unless you have some special tools and alot of patience I can't recommend cutting the cables.
Re:Oh right, proprietary headphones needed (Score:4, Informative)
Those wires inside the cable are extremely tiny and are joined with nylon thread (probably for endurance) which makes those signal wires almost impossible to handle by hand. So unless you have some special tools and alot of patience I can't recommend cutting the cables.
That special tool is called fire! Half a second under flame and the nylon fibers ball up near the bottom, and the copper wires can then be twisted together. Everything has those fibers now, and you need this technique to modify everything from a cellphone charger to a bluetooth headset to a standalone DVD player.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe, I did try that method before though, and it barely worked for me because the timing with the flame has to be just right not to melt the tiny copper fibers too;) That was around two years ago, and I only did it once though. Maybe it is not that difficult though.
But in any case, my only point was that it isn't too simple to splice those wires if you are doing it for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought of doing this, but I suspect you'll likely find this very hard for a myriad of reasons, least of which is that the control part is actually about 3" below the right headphone earpiece -- so you'll have to do at least two splice jobs, one for each ear. I had hoped you could actually adapt the built-in headphones into an adapter, but I fear that's unlikely to be feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought of doing this, but I suspect you'll likely find this very hard for a myriad of reasons, least of which is that the control part is actually about 3" below the right headphone earpiece -- so you'll have to do at least two splice jobs, one for each ear.
or you could do it the smart way instead, take it all apart, and just make a pigtail that you can use with any headphones. Or, you know, wait two or three weeks and buy one from Taiwan.
Not DRM but still Evil? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have that backwards....
A new cold war with Russia... (Score:2)
Apple +1, Universe -1
Cory and Xeni (Score:2)
Remote control without lock-in (Score:2)
The first person to create a remote control with a standard headphone jack on it for the iPod Shuffle 3G will make big money.
e.g. iPod => remote cable => remote => headphone cable => headphones of your choice
Unless Apple prevents that. We'll see whether they're really evil.
I've already seen this solution on an old Philips discman. I don't know why they didn't think about this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Like this, maybe?
http://www.scosche.com/ecom/images/news/435.12913.600x400.Adapter.jpg [scosche.com]
http://www.scosche.com/press.room/?year=2009&newsID=435 [scosche.com]
AFAIK, these kinds of headphones are not new (Score:2)
They aren't non-standard either. 3.5mm contact with 4 contacts on it and buttons on the lead have been around for ages, I have no idea who started them or how interoperable they are. I had a pair that came with my Nokia N95, play, stop, forward, reverse, volume, on a standard sized 3.5 mm plug with one extra contact. That actually terminated in the remote which had a socket for any normal 3.5 mm three contact headphones, so you could use your nice sennheisers with the phone instead of the shitty nokia buds.
headphone adapter (Score:2)
I never liked those earbud 'phones anyway. If you buy one of those new
shuffles and have a pair of phones you'd rather use the solution is simple
(if you can solder). Just cut the cable anywhere between the control pod
and the earbuds, solder a 3.5mm stereo jack onto the cable, and plug in
your favorite pair of headphones. Unless Apple has done something
devious by using very high or low impedance in their phones your
headphones will now work fine, and you can still control your shuffle
using the controls on th
Oh really, there's _no_ DRM? (Score:2)
The new iPod isn't FairPlay-compatible? Really? That's gonna piss off some old iTMS customers. And this new iPod will also play music even if the database (which apparently Apple thinks it holds the copyright to) isn't signed with Apple's key?
That's what "no DRM" would mean.