Update — No DRM In New iPod Shuffle

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.'"

Comments

Places Apple still have DRM.

[Anonymous Coward]

* 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:Places Apple still have DRM.

[vux984]

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:Places Apple still have DRM.

[Archimonde]

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:Places Apple still have DRM.

[mobby_6kl]

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.

Re:Places Apple still have DRM.

[Choad Namath]

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

Re:Places Apple still have DRM.

[OnlineAlias]

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

[CountBrass]

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*!

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable

[CountBrass]

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.

Re:Boing Boing Unreliable

[MoellerPlesset2]

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."

Why all the fuss?

[abhi_beckert]

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:Why all the fuss?

[syousef]

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.

Oh right, proprietary headphones needed

[ricelid]

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.

Re:Authentication chip != DRM

[Firehed]

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.

Not DRM but still Evil?

[Macrat]

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

Re:Simplicity

[spankyofoz]

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.

hysterical Hatorade drinkers with bum eyes

[Uberbah]

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.

Re:Simplicity

[AmiMoJo]

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

[mrchaotica]

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.