Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Update — No DRM In New iPod Shuffle

Posted by kdawson on from the nothing-to-see-here dept.

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.'"

48 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Places Apple still have DRM. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by spankyofoz · · 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?

      --

      - There is no point, it's like a sphere -
    2. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by vux984 · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by Archimonde · · 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?

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    4. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *They also encrypt firmware on all new ipods, specifically to prevent people from installing alternate firmware such as Rockbox.

      Seriously, encrypting firmware? How evil is that? How can apple apologists even try to justify that?

    5. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, 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 itself.

    6. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by Choad+Namath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and have no control over volume or what track you're listening to. That's a pretty stunning lack of functionality.

    7. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by Nursie · · Score: 3, 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?)

    8. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by intheshelter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that is complicated at all. I think it's more likely you want to complain about Apple and so you make a big deal about nothing to try and get people to think it is complicated.

    9. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lots of other companies do "made for xxx" stickers, and it takes time to certify that something really is compatible, so you have to charge for it, even if you're not looking for a new revenue stream.

      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 sell the product!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by Archimonde · · Score: 2, 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 can't be used with normal headphones (that was my point with magsafe-like connector). If they included the adapter you probably wouldn't see this or my previous post. But the adapter isn't included so eventually you have additional cost after you bought the shuffle. And that is lock-in.

      Let me be clear about this, I hate proprietary stuff and the consumer is always the one paying for it, be it through money or lack of choice. I wouldn't say a word if the headphone market is non-existent and there aren't independent manufacturers. But that market clearly exists and lets say some manufacturer made headphones1, headphones2, and headphones3. But shuffle comes out and their competitor is going to release "made for shuffle" certified headphones. So our mentioned manufacturer has to produce say headphones1 "made for shuffle" and pay apple for the certification. And who is footing the bill for certification? Users who bought those headphones of course.

      I hate lock-in from sony, apple, iriver, whatever. But apple has huge market share (not a monopoly though) so when sony releases some locked-in stuff, pretty much nobody blinks. But with apple this isn't the case which is completely understandable.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    11. Re:Places Apple still have DRM. by OnlineAlias · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Boing Boing Unreliable by CountBrass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is the real story.

    What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of /. for lying, and then a second time for admitting they lied.

    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*!

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by CountBrass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is I don't believe it was an honest mistake, so I'd rather they didn't lie in the first place.

      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.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by syousef · · Score: 2, 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 retracted it. You still insist on accusing them with no proof and nothing to back you, yet you don't seem to realise the irony.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What disappoints me is that Apple gets (buys?) a ridiculous amount of publicity in so called "news" stories for inferior and overpriced products while much better and cheaper alternatives hardly ever get a mention - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00126V8WU

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't call it lying. But I would call it very, very, very bad 'reporting' (and did so at the time). Basically the 'story' amounted to "We heard there was DRM in the iPod, so we opened the headphones and found this unknown chip!" As if proprietary chips with strange numbers was an unusual thing. And as if the chip they found could really concievably be used for DRM (it's a simple chip that doesn't look anything like a DSP or microcontroller. IMHO, hardly likely to be a DRM decoder of any sort). More importantly, why didn't they just draw up the schematic and try to deduce what the thing did? And look at the signals with a logic analyzer or similar? The answer seems to be 'because they simply didn't know what they were doing'. Really, I think any halfway competent Electrical Engineer with the right tools should probably be able to fully reverse-engineer those headphones in very little time. I know I probably could, and I'm just an electronics hobbyist. Lesson here is: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

    5. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, 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.

      It's patently obvious that in this case, given the number of buttons and gestures that the Shuffle supports, there needs to be more complex signals than merely having button-mapped pins into the device. And lo and behold, this is exactly what it turned out to be - an encoder chip so that the input signals can be fed into the Shuffle.

      Anyone even familiar with rudimentary electronics would come to this conclusion at first glance. To go the "OMG DRM" route was either trolling, or sheer incompetence.

    6. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by Uberbah · · Score: 2, 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.

    7. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, 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.

    8. Re:Boing Boing Unreliable by Eevee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real story is that Boing Boing posted a story that doesn't involve the author's latest book...

  3. Authentication chip != DRM by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Authentication chip != DRM by broken_chaos · · Score: 3, 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...

    2. Re:Authentication chip != DRM by Firehed · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:Authentication chip != DRM by Killer+Orca · · 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

    4. Re:Authentication chip != DRM by Hal_Porter · · 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 if the MP3 player authenticated the controller in the headphones before it allowed the controls to work on them.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. retractions? by socsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So are all those sites that posted rumors going to retract? iLounge, Consumerist, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc. The only honest source during this whole controversy was boingboing, who said that they are not electrical engineers and can't be sure of what it does.

    1. Re:retractions? by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only honest source during this whole controversy was boingboing, who said that they are not electrical engineers and can't be sure of what it does.

      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 over a single wire, you'd expect at least a shift register.

      From the looks of it, this is not a complicated chip, much less a DRM chip. I'd wager it isn't anything much more than a shift register, perhaps with some timer for button-bounces and stuff built in. Nothing I think it would take an electrical engineer long to find out.

  5. Why all the fuss? by abhi_beckert · · 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.

    1. Re:Why all the fuss? by lothos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When has itunes or the ipod ever stopped you from listening to a cd that you've ripped?

      --
      Hosting and Domain name coupons
    2. Re:Why all the fuss? by syousef · · 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.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Why all the fuss? by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 2, Informative
      > > 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.

      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 and sometimes a tiny screen, then have a standard 3.5mm jack on there. Problem solved. You can have all the control appropriate to the unit, and use whichever headphones you want.

  6. Oh right, proprietary headphones needed by ricelid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was just thinking about buying an iPod shuffle. Good thing I read this article that reminds me that I have to use the headphones that come with it, and I don't like those headphones nearly as much as I like my headphones. Hmm, I could probably splice the cable without tooo much trouble.

    1. Re:Oh right, proprietary headphones needed by bloodninja · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
  7. Not DRM but still Evil? by Macrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    While this was a false alarm, Slashdot will still consider Apple evil, right?

  8. Re:Simplicity by spankyofoz · · 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.

    --

    - There is no point, it's like a sphere -
  9. Re:Simplicity by beelsebob · · 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 a decent quality remote that actually does the right thing.

    When was the last time you saw a third party remote for a random mp3 player? If you did by some chance, when was the last time you saw one that didn't go through the exact same process as apple are using here?

  10. Re:Simplicity by theeddie55 · · Score: 2, Informative

    yes, other companies have been putting inline controls in headphones for years, but that's in addition to the controls on the unit, not instead of, most of these devices would still work just as well with standard headphones.

    --
    Blazing Spiders
  11. Re:Simplicity by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And so will the shuffle. Plug in 3.5mm headphones, turn on, listen to music.

  12. Re:Simplicity by theeddie55 · · Score: 2, Informative

    By "work just as well" i mean you'd still have all the controls available, with no controls available when using standard headphones, that's not working just as well.

    --
    Blazing Spiders
  13. Re:Simplicity by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  14. hysterical Hatorade drinkers with bum eyes by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh grow up fanboy. They linked to someone elses story, with caveats.

    Oh pull your head out. The Boing Boing headline

    Manufacturer confirms chip: iPod headphones now have the Apple Tax

    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.

  15. Re:Simplicity by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  16. In the native Apple fanboi tongue (pretention): by name*censored* · · Score: 3, 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!

    Wankbox [...] OggWankis

    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.

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
  17. Re:Simplicity by AmiMoJo · · 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.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  18. Re:Simplicity by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  19. Re:Remote control without lock-in by minimis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Like this, maybe?
    http://www.scosche.com/ecom/images/news/435.12913.600x400.Adapter.jpg
    http://www.scosche.com/press.room/?year=2009&newsID=435

  20. Re:Simplicity by Markus_UW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You forget the target market for the Shuffle, people who want a ludicrously tiny player -- for whom the nano is excessively large... They like to work out while their player is clipped some random place, and they don't want to go looking for the buttons if they want to change tracks or whatever. The corded controls make a lot of sense for this segment -- buttons on the unit as well would probably have been way to tiny to use, most likely. Really what they should have done was just put inline remote support in a chassis like they had, but they were obviously feeling some pressure from somewhere to make it tinier.