iPod Shuffle Finds Its Voice

theodp writes "Steve Jobs wasn't around to convince you that you should be impressed, but on Wednesday Apple unveiled a 4GB Shuffle that's half the size of its predecessor. Holding up to 1,000 songs, the pre-shrunk Shuffle sports a 10-hour battery life and also adds a new VoiceOver feature that can recite song titles, artists, and playlist names, as well as provide status information. Even without a show from Steve, the new player is generally leaving folks dazzled, although there are some complaints." Update: 3/14 at 14:10 by SS: Reader Mike points out some disturbing news that the new Shuffle contains DRM which, according to a review at iLounge, prevents it from fully working with any headphones that don't have an Apple "authentication chip."

Comments

And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe consumers will draw the line when Apple requires its users to install DRM-equipped electrodes in their own frontal lobes.

Maybe.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[broken_chaos]

Is there actually any evidence of the chip being a DRM "authentication" chip, as opposed to just a non-standard control interface? A single iLounge review is hardly what I'd call conclusive evidence - considering they note in there that there are likely to be 3rd-party remotes that do not have headphones attached before long.

While not an ideal situation, by far, I think it may not be quite as bad as your initial reaction paints it to be. It *is* also explicitly noted in the review that it still does play music through any headphones, and that the control is what's missing - not the music itself.

I also highly doubt that any such headphones will become required on any other iPod devices, since the shuffle is the only thing Apple has constantly been trying to cut down the number of buttons on. Furthermore, I personally would welcome some 3rd-party remote-only accessories, as they seem like they'd be likely to work with other recent iPod models as well, when you don't feel like digging it out of your pocket.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[broken_chaos]

Ah, you beat me to it (I replied below). This really doesn't seem anything beyond a non-standard control interface - particularly since it doesn't seem to fit the definition of "Digital Rights Management" at all. It more accurately fits "Physical Rights Management" - in terms of restricting what accessories are required to do something with their device. It does nothing to the (digital) music playback (music is reported to play just fine through any headphones).

I wouldn't doubt that one could, with a little ingenuity, hack together some sort of standard headphone jack on the end of a cut-off earbud remote that currently comes with the shuffle, as well.

Normally I support the EFF quite highly, but they seem to be jumping the gun a little on this one, going on the word of one iLounge review, as opposed to a report from someone actually taking the thing apart to see how it works - such as a manufacturer.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Non-standard != proprietary DRM.

People have already started announcing 3rd party accessories for the new iPod shuffle. It may not be a standard headphone jack, but it's not locked-down. I'm sure in a months time there will be people who've made their own iPod shuffle headphone controller just for the fun of it. If you want to talk about price of accessories making the whole package too expensive, then that's something else.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF are doing exactly the same thing as the RIAA/MPAA do when they call copyright infringement stealing. They are using a similar but technically different term to describe something because of the emotional weight behind the word. It is dishonest and the EFF should be above doing it. Frankly I sense the presence of a certain attention grabbing campaigner behind this.

What Apple has done is no different to mobile phones with non-standard power adapters, cars with non-standard stereo systems and cameras that use custom batteries. Sure all these things are a pain in the arse and companies should be 'discouraged' from doing them but they are not DRM.

In addition might this not all be FUD or least a conspiracy theory? Every time a scare like this comes up in regard to Apple the evil anti-consumer thing they have supposedly done also happens to have size and aesthetic advantages. Maybe the new Shuffle has this 'DRM' requirement because they took the controls off the player to make it smaller. Of course you could also argue that this is just a convenient excuse.

Also you don't have to buy a iPod or any Apple products. There are plenty of equally capable alternatives. If you don't like the product don't buy it.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The impression I get about the EFF is that they've become a bit too much like Greenpeace. I'm an environmentalist, but I do get sick of Greenpeace. I also don't like the DMCA, but the amount of spin coming from the EFF lately is a bit too much for me. When organisations like this start going after the small stuff, I think they undermine the very importance of what they're fighting for and just end up preaching to the choir.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[berend botje]

Too bad Rockbox has "by techies, for techies" approach to the user interface.

It really isn't very good.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[Skuld-Chan]

This is debatable - what ilounge is claiming is that if you don't have headphones with controls all it does is play a loop of the playlist - because the player doesn't have any physical controls on the device.

Apple is *forcing* you to buy their headphones if you want to control it and from what I understand is that 3rd parties cannot make these special headphones without a special chip only apple has.

So yes - its drm.

And while some 3rd party could reverse engineer the lockout chip apple could in turn shut them down with the dmca.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple is *forcing* you to buy their headphones if you want to control it and from what I understand is that 3rd parties cannot make these special headphones without a special chip only apple has.

The problem being, this part is just speculation at this point and seems unlikely. No one has seen said chip or tried to reverse engineer the new interface from Apple.

So yes - its drm.

Assuming said speculation was true it wouldn't be DRM, but it would be intentionally enforced hardware component lock-in. If you want to call it DRM, go ahead, but it is inaccurate. Either way it is annoying and likely actionable if someone had the legal muscle.

And while some 3rd party could reverse engineer the lockout chip apple could in turn shut them down with the dmca.

...if any such chip exists as opposed to the more likely scenario that Apple built a nonstandard interface and did not include a special locking chip. So far, all anyone has seen is the interface, not this supposed chip.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[diamondsw]

Yes, the "video lockout" chip was the same deal as Nintendo and their custom chips in old NES cartridges. It was a response to crap flooding the market - from Chinese knockoffs these days - and such knockoffs even caused damage to the iPods. It's to control their licensing, yes, but how does that really affect you moving forward, other than what hooks up to your iPod is guaranteed to work and be of decent quality? I haven't seen a single example of Apple denying the chip to a company who has requested it, so I don't see the big deal.

The "DRM" here is much more likely tied to the fact that the controls are on the damn headphones, so of course you can't hook up normal headphones. How are you supposed to play/pause/etc? Stupid damn decision in the first place, and one I hope we see reversed on the next generation.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[American Terrorist]

The impression that I get about Apple is that they've become a bit too much like RIAA, minus the "association". I'm a fan of innovative user interfaces, but the locked-down MP3 players and cell phones are too annoying for me to use. If my friends have non-DRM protected music on their iPod, they can't* share music with me, and since I don't have i-tunes, I can't share music with them. I like my girlfriend's iPod nano as far as usability, but giving her music to put on it is such a pain in the ass. iTunes is like the bastard child of RealPlayer and IE. *without using DMCA violating software

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[FourthAge]

DRM apologist! Stop it. Just STOP IT.

Like the EFF say, Apple's abuses would not be tolerated if they came from Microsoft, Ford or Toyota.

Abuses like this are always tolerated by the Apple geeks. No matter what Apple does, there an apologist who is ready to explain why it's necessary and important. It's like listening to early 20th century intellectuals apologising for the Soviet Union. No matter what happened in the USSR, the intellectuals were ready to explain why Stalin was a great guy. They were talking ideologically-inspired bollocks. Similarly, the Apple you believe in, and the Apple that really exists, are very different.

So stop it. Stop this stupid "Apple is good" groupthink, because Apple aren't good. If they ever were, then this incident and the TV out incident should tell you that things have changed. Apple is Microsoft, but in fashionable and more expensive clothes, and it's time we all admitted that.

(Score -1, Insulted Apple)

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[gabebear]

Wow... fanatics like you make it hard to have a conversation about why DRM is bad. This looks like a stupid design choice, possibly meant to lock out 4th-party manufacturers, but it's not DRM. As the GP wrote, there are legitimate reasons for locking out 3rd-parties, such as keeping people from making cheap knock-offs. This problem involves physical products and solves a real-world problem. DRM doesn't solve any real-world problems...

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[WCguru42]

Fair point, Rockbox offers a ton of neat features, but when you look at UI design for people that are, how do you put it, stupid when it comes to computers, they do not want that. They want something to hold their hands, to keep them from screwing up and to give them fewer choices so there's less to think about. That style of design doesn't make much sense for people that are good with computers, but for people that struggle with them (the majority of the world) it's far better. Maybe in 10 or 20 years Apple's design paradigm won't work because there will be enough people that grew up with computers that there won't be a strong enough market for simple UI.

It's similar to cars, most people want an automatic, you don't have to think about it, but those who understand their cars want manuals because it's just better. But try convincing someone who struggles with a manual to switch and you'd be better off banging your head against an engine block. Or, to put it in a more familiar way, "Why would you pick an automatic over a manual? You get more control over your vehicle, you get better gas mileage, all you have to do is right foot down, left foot up. It just doesn't make any sense."

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[Swift2001]

Can I ask you to stop the "Apple is evil" groupthink? Automatically jumping to the conclusion that whatever they do is evil because it isn't free, isn't Linux, isn't techie enough? They've come up with a new controller, which 3rd parties will adapt to just like they always have.

On these forums, I've been told endlessly that iTunes would never give up DRM, that it was all Jobs' idea, and so on ad infinitum. The truth is that Jobs adopted it reluctantly, and that he saw its days were numbered. The labels were angry enough at iTunes' dominance in the market that they gave Amazon and other DRM-free catalogs just to hurt Apple commercially. But the "Apple is evil" crowd that infests these forums insists on their vision.

As for the "this kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated from Microsoft" meme, since we're talking about the Zune here, nothing they do is important at all.

They changed the controller chip. End of story.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[broken_chaos]

There's no evidence of an authentication chip beyond an iLounge review that sounds like speculation. 3rd-parties have already announced earphones and remotes for the new shuffle. The iLounge review did not dissect or attempt to reverse engineer the earphone controls, so I do not think they're qualified to be a authoritative source on what is or isn't inside the remote.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[adisakp]

Assuming said speculation was true it wouldn't be DRM, but it would be intentionally enforced hardware component lock-in. If you want to call it DRM, go ahead, but it is inaccurate. Either way it is annoying and likely actionable if someone had the legal muscle.

According to Apple's VP of iPod marketing, third parties will soon be selling a small cable with the controls on it that you can plug any headphones into. It's not even a "lockout". Basically they have an extra hardware feature on their headphones that isn't standard. To get these hardware features, you need to buy Apple headphones or a third party adapter with this hardware feature. Actually, you can still use any headphones but without the additional hardware buttons on the adapter or on Apple headphones you lose the control features. It's hardly DRM.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[adisakp]

BTW, Where is the outrage for the "DRM" of Google using a weird USB headphone adapter on Android phones?

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[snowwrestler]

And your position is like the anti-Communist witch-hunting that pursued anyone who was not as strident in their positions as the hunters thought they should be. There's a vast middle ground between apologists saying everything is great and zealots calling everything the end of the world. Most people just don't give a shit about B2B supplier contract issues like this.

The EFF is foolish to waste time on this when (for example) the entire end-user online video experience remains horribly laden with real actual Digital Rights Management schemes. A propriety part in a hardware accessory is NOT DRM. The EFF of all people should know better.

Re:And DRM in the fucking *headphones*.

[mdwh2]

It was the EFF that was screeching that Apple was being evil and nobody would stand for it if Microsoft did the same: "If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft "authentication chips" in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."

Right. Are you disputing this claim? Do you think that MS wouldn't be criticised if they did the same thing? What example of MS DRM do you have, where no one complained about it?

Comparing Apple against Microsoft, Ford, Toyota is not just stupid, but apeshit retarded FIRST BECAUSE the EFF made Microsoft a poster child for its War on DRM, SECOND because Windows has a monopoly position and therefore has no need for DRM to lock it to PCs and THIRD because Microsoft pushes far more draconian DRM that creates terrible products that nobody wants to buy. Yet his comments suggest that Apple has done something Microsoft does not do.

No, that's not what he's saying. He's not saying "MS don't do DRM", he's saying "If MS did something like this, they'd be criticised". So pointing out that MS were criticised for doing similar things supports his argument. In order to disprove it, you have to not only show that MS have done what Apple are doing, you also have to show that no one criticised them for doing so. (And you say that I am the one who can't follow logic!)

Then you come along and start yapping about ad hominems and straw men. What's next, are you going to call me a sock puppet and say in Russia your argument isn't backwards?

I "came along" (or rather, joined in the discussion that everyone is free to do here) and "yapped" ad hominems and straw men, because you made an ad hominem, and I was referring to a straw man argument. What on earth does sock puppets and Russia have to do with hat?

Can you actually form an argument without resorting to "OMG it's apeshit retard!" ?

Headphones

[Ganty]

The inability to use your own headphones is a big problem, in fact this makes the new shuffle unusable for me as I can't use earbuds.

Ganty

Re:Headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

So its a $15 4gig memory stick with a $5 audio/mp3player chip, sold for $79.

Come on Apple, make all ipods/iphones min 32gig with 64/128gig options, and make all shuffles 8gig min.

How about real innovation, like a shuffle thats bluetooth capable. WIRES SUCK!!

Btw, I suggested the voice speaking mp3s a year ago, its a no brainer over lunch idea. Good thing any and all mp3 players could implement this, unless it has a stupid patent on it.

We know you can, yes YOU can.

Re:Headphones

[mlts]

I'm not sure who Apple is catering to by forcing people to either wait for third parties to license the earbud chip, or use the "one size fits some" earbuds that are included.

Children who are given this as their first MP3 player might not be able to use the earbuds.

People who want an inexpensive iPod for jogging or campus won't be able to use these earbuds, because earbuds tend to fall out.

Which leaves people who are just buying a really low end iPod for financial reasons. If someone wants a generic MP3 player, choices abound in this market segment. Apple has competition here, as opposed to the other models which the choices thin out dramatically, especially the high capacity iPod Classic.

This is a head scratcher, because Apple tends to know better than this. Maybe they will make an adapter with the volume controls and button for $29 or so, so people can use their own cans.

UI-wise, features seem to have been lost. Say I have a long DJ mix with no breaks in it. From what I've seen, I can't fast forward or rewind in a song, its either go to the beginning or skip, with no in between.

All and all, I am disappointed. Yes, this is their low-end product, but there are some definite features that some people use everyday that are missing. At least the 2G Shuffle is still for sale. If I had to buy a Shuffle, I'd buy the 2G which has half the capacity, but allows me to do basic music navigation actions with a single button press as opposed to multiple triple-clicks.

Re:Headphones

[pizzach]

This is a head scratcher, because Apple tends to know better than this. Maybe they will make an adapter with the volume controls and button for $29 or so, so people can use their own cans.

Which is likely why Apple is still offering the old iPod Shuffle at least until 3rd party headphones start coming out. If things truly go awful, they can always back track too. :-p

http://store.apple.com/us/tab?node=home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_shuffle&tcid=tg_tabcontroller&tab=1

Re:Headphones

[pizzach]

Just a note because I don't think I was clear enough about the link. Scroll down and notice that apple is selling both versions of the iPod shuffle. Even more intriguing, they are filling different pricing brackets. $50 vs $80 which sounds very similar to the original iPod Shuffle pricing. The people who want the cheapest iPod would still be going for the earlier revision so the headphone argument is mostly moot for those people anyway.

Re:Headphones

[tsa]

For $29 you can get an MP3 player with a screen and no ridiculous headphones.

Re:Headphones

[commodore64_love]

It's called "lockin".

You kill the third-party market by designing your hardware in such a way that people can only buy the OEM's product. It used to be common practice in the computer industry, until the mid-90s when generic PCs took over. However Apple has clung to that paradigm right up to the present day.

Re:Rockbox

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But that's not really a music player -- It's software that you can install on a music player. Apple is not fighting to keep it off the iPod, they just don't care about supporting it. Big difference. And why are you surprised? Apple isn't a bad company IMHO, but they're not there to be everyone's best friend, either.

morse code controls

[nloop]

I appreciate Apple trying to get rid of too many control interfaces. For the most part I am behind them all the way.

However, the one button to control this thing is rediculous. On a shuffle I often end up jumping forward or backwords through a fair amount of songs to find something I am in the mood for. On this one you double click to go forward, triple click(?!) to go back. Fastworward/rewind? double click and hold, triple click and hold (but only if you are more than 6 seconds into the track, or the triple click restarts the track). Say the name of the song? Click once and hold for 1 second. NOT FOR LONGER, if you hold longer, then you go to playlist selection!

This is not a step forward. Apple's approach to a simple design before made them accessible to nondorks. Grandmother friendly. My grandmother would need a cheat sheet to operate this. It honest reminds me of The Onion's coverage of The Wheel.

Get a Sansa Clip instead

[spike2131]

The 4GB Sansa Clip is a similar size, $18 cheaper, similar battery life, has a small screen, and doesn't lock you into the iTunes ecosystem.

Re:Get a Sansa Clip instead

[spike2131]

Similar size, meaning in this case, "small enough you don't notice the dam thing".

Re:Get a Sansa Clip instead

[tp9674]

Actual the Sansa is 1.35" x 2.17" x 0.65" = 1.90 cubic inches = 5 shuffles, but your point still stands.

NOT Digitial Rights managment

[goombah99]

The headphones do not contain Digitial Rights Management. device will play just fine with ordinary headphones. in no way does it block access to your music.

the headphones can contain a controller to tell it to advance to a given song or change volume. Were you somehow expecting unmodified headpones to do that? how exactly?

Re:NOT Digitial Rights managment

[Firehed]

I would expect at the very least Apple's existing headphones with a remote to do that, yes. I'm given the impression that's not the case. As I do own a couple sets of third-party headphones with a remote built in (to replace the headset that comes with the iPhone), I'll wait until I can test them. Either way, I find the requirement for an external remote when using a music player with any non-headphone audio output (which I'm doing 95% of the time) completely idiotic.

Re:Rockbox

[Firehed]

I think it's much more likely that they don't want someone ripping off their iPod OS for their own $39 Chinese knock-off device. Nor do they want people to be easily able to reverse-engineer the app store protocols and hack the thing for their own profits. That it broke third-party replacement firmwares was probably more of a happy (for them) coincidence.

"DRM" Claims are Ridiculous

[krunk7]

So I'm reading all these heated DRM posts and do something incredibly silly: before posting, I did a little research.

Calling this "DRM" is simply wrong headed. It doesn't meet any definition of "DRM". Not even remotely. And lockin? How can it possibly be lockin if anyone who wants to can manufacturer them?

Re:I Like It

[serviscope_minor]

Basically, I've gotten tired of lugging around the bigger devices while I bike.

I really don't understand people like you. If you're mountain biking, it really ruins the experience of riding outside and makes it easy to miss other trail users. If you're biking on the road listening to music, then you're insane since it turns you from vulnerable to cars to vulnerable and unaware.

Re:Screen costs money and take up case space.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Are you joking? You're comparing a 2.3 cubic inch device with a clunky 1-word "screen" to a 0.3 cubic inch device with a no-eyes-required audio interface.

Yes, he is. At some point there are diminishing returns regarding size.

over having a clunky device with a bad interface

You concluded that from, what, the fact that it's not an iPod? The Sansa clip actually has a pretty decent UI, as does the rest of the Sansa line. And you can load it without needing special software - it's a freaking mass storage device.

It certainly is not, unless you start with the assumption that size and interface are worthless.

Yes, it certainly is. It has more features (screen, FM radio, voice recording) for less dollars. It's not an evaluation of the quality of the Sansa or the iPod, it's just a fact.

I don't personally have a need for a tiny jogging-targeted music player

Apparently neither do any of the people buying the new Shuffle, because (according to Gizmodo) the tiny little headphone-cord cables are extremely tricky to use when jogging because they are too close to your head and too small (which makes them difficult to manipulate when you're bouncing around.

Look, I like the previous-gen Shuffle's design (I own one). But there's a point when things get absurd. Requiring proprietary headphones means I can't use it in my car and I can't use it with my Shure e2g canalphones. There will probably be a $30 adapter at some point, but then we're talking about a $110 music player, which is getting into iPod Nano territory.

Re:Screen costs money and take up case space.

[ClosedSource]

"Because putting in a screen costs money"

So Apple passes-on those savings to customers .. oh wait.

Re:Cubic Inches

[whyde]

It is disingenuous to measure the "size" of the new shuffle without including the size of the cord up to and including the "remote control" portion of the headphones. In fact, since the device is nigh unusable without the bundled headphones, you should just probably find the total displacement of the whole shebang before you've found the true size of it all.