Cory Doctorow On What iPhone's Missing Headphone Jack Means For Music Industry (fastcompany.com)

Rumors of Apple's next iPhone missing a headphone jack have been swirling around for more than a year now. But a report from WSJ a few weeks ago, and another report from Bloomberg this week further cemented such possibility. We've talked about it here -- several times -- but now Cory Doctorow is shedding light on what this imminent change holds for the music industry. Reader harrymcc writes: Fast Company's Mark Sullivan talked about the switch with author and EFF adviser Cory Doctorow, who thinks it could lead to music companies leveraging DRM to exert more control over what consumers can do with their music.From the article:"If Apple creates a circumstance where the only way to get audio off its products is through an interface that is DRM-capable, they'd be heartbreakingly naive in assuming that this wouldn't give rise to demands for DRM," said Doctorow. If a consumer or some third-party tech company used the music in way the rights holders didn't like, the rights holders could invoke the anti-circumvention law written in Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Steve Jobs famously convinced the record industry to remove the DRM from music on iTunes; is there really any reason to believe the industry might suddenly become interested in DRM again if the iPhone audio goes all digital? "Yes -- for streaming audio services," Doctorow says. "I think it is inevitable that rights holder groups will try to prevent recording, retransmission, etc." Today it's easy to record streamed music from the analog headphone jack on the phone, and even to convert the stream back to digital and transmit it in real time to someone else. With a digital stream it might not be nearly so easy, or risk-free."Doctorow shares more on BoingBoing.

Comments

I can't hear you

[thegarbz]

Ultimately DRM boils down to even more labels not wanting their music to be heard. There's a simple answer to that, don't listen.

If you don't want to produce good quality CD music uncompressed playable through an awesome amplifier to a standard pair of headphones without any bullshit circuitry in between, then by all means don't produce it. There's enough music in the world that we don't need to jump through hoops if we can't hear your stuff.

Re:I can't hear you

[Yvan256]

https://modarchive.org/

http://ocremix.org/

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple answer is, if you don't want to pay for it, don't listen.

Re:I can't hear you

[MightyMartian]

That's largely where I'm heading. More and more of my music purchases are either direct from the artist, via Bandcamp or similar services. I'm not interested in streaming services, I actually like to own music, and not merely rent it (I'm an album guy). It's not really even a matter of price anymore, it's not like I can't afford to buy music off of iTunes or other online music stores, it's simply that I value my freedom to play the music I own how I want and when I want, and not be beholden to the vagaries of a large corporate machine that long ago abandoned any notion of interest in the consumer as an individual.

Re:I can't hear you

[tripleevenfall]

The music industry will rightly do whatever they can to protect against use of content that they own without their permission. Consumers will have to decide if the content is high enough in quality that they will pay for it or pay a streaming service for it.

I hate the idea of a phone not having a headphone jack, and I would not buy such a phone. However, the fact that it might stop me from using a product illegitimately is not one of my reasons.

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Music is ridiculously, almost concerningly abundant. The other day I was struck with the realization that I've never actively pursued an album, illegally or otherwise.

To be fair, I also realized I actively dislike 99% of music with lyrics. I'm quite content with the pile of... auxiliary music I have. Soundtracks, dumps, batches, stuff from video game music. Rhythm games usually contain plenty of music. Plucking out their audio and putting it on my phone probably runs afoul of some fine print somewhere, but whatever.

Music just sticks itself on my hard drive, there's that much and it's that eager. I have a two hour audio track I don't entirely recognize, the filename suggests it was from some trance club event in Denmark in 2004. I have no idea where or when it came from, I don't remember when I acquired it.

"Every second Youtube gets 17 seconds' worth of submission" or however the trivia goes. It'd be no surprise the music world is similarly flooded, and any illusion otherwise is a result of humans circulating 1% of it. I'm not even talking about indie noise, even our platinum stuff gets backseated after a while, with a Guitar Hero featurette being their future's best case scenario.

Re:I can't hear you

[PolygamousRanchKid]

who thinks it could lead to music companies leveraging DRM to exert more control over what consumers can do with their music.

This is exactly what the media companies want to do anyway with. You don't own your music, you simply have an EULA with a subscription service. And you pay a few every time you listen to a song. Software companies have already pushed this subscription model through.

Of course, for old fogies who grew up copying Pink Floyd and Yes albums to cassette tapes back in the 70's, this will not fly at all.

However, the media companies are thinking long term. They would like to convince the next generation of Internet kiddies, that this is "just the way it works."

Not a very positive view for the future.

Re:I can't hear you

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The Cybernoid II SID file is apparently ~4.5 Kbytes in size. I wonder how many such gems would fit into a single DRM'd clip at iTunes.

Re:I can't hear you

[tepples]

How long until video game publishers start flooding ocremix.org with takedowns for unauthorized use of their copyrighted musical compositions?

Re:I can't hear you

[tepples]

If I go into a grocery store, music is playing over the PA system when associates aren't making announcements. Part of my grocery bill goes toward the royalty for this music. So how can I practically avoid listening and avoid paying?

Re:I can't hear you

[mcgrew]

DRM for sound is completely impossible. CD with DRM? Plug the CD player's headphone jack to your computer's sound inputs and sample. Hell, I get albums weekly; every Sunday night KSHE plays six full albums. I just capture the stream on its way to the speakers.

The only way to keep DRM "protected" music from playing on an iPhone is to get rid of wi-fi, bluetooth, the headphone jack, and the USB port. If I can put data on it at all, I can strip the DRM from those data before loading it on a phone.

DRM is a bad joke.

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been up for some time, and the remix scene's been thriving for many years.... so I guess quite a while.

Re:I can't hear you

[jedidiah]

The problem with that is that the music industry no longer has a monopoly on mobile devices. The next generation of Internet kiddies is much less interested in music and distracted by other things.

The entire industry might find itself in the dustbin of history.

Re:I can't hear you

[Yvan256]

Doesn't copyright law also protect derivative works by other authors though?

Re:I can't hear you

[Obfuscant]

So how can I practically avoid listening and avoid paying?

Shop in stores that don't have background music. None of the ones I shop in do that. And when you stop shopping in a store that has music, tell the management why you are doing that. They'll rightfully dismiss you as a kook, but you'll have told them why.

Re:I can't hear you

[swillden]

Ultimately DRM boils down to even more labels not wanting their music to be heard. There's a simple answer to that, don't listen.

That's a nice theory, but only a very small percentage of people will do it. As long as the labels make the music available on the devices people want to use, for a reasonably-low cost, the vast majority will be happy with DRM'd music.

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple answer is, if you don't want to pay for it, don't listen.

Awww, you're cute.

The real person's simple answer is: if you don't want to pay for it, torrent it.

Re:I can't hear you

[squiggleslash]

It's also paranoid bullshit that this will lead to DRM. A digital port doesn't mean it doesn't eventually get converted into analog inputs for the speakers. And even if they found a way (note: they won't), putting a microphone and a speaker right next to one another will never have the same loss in quality that putting a camera in front of a TV will have. DRM will never work.

Digital line outs have nothing to do with DRM.

The other day I found myself unable to play music in my car because my analog cable to my car radio was slightly out of spec. Why was this a problem? Because virtually every cellphone now understands slight changes in voltage coming from the speaker cable as somehow meaning that the speaker cable has a remote control, with FF, RW, Pause/Play, etc buttons on it. So I would start driving and both Google Play Music and Amazon MP3 would start randomly skipping forward, or pausing, or occasionally skipping back.

The "market" has decreed that we want that fucking stupid functionality, even though you and I have never asked for it. And so they've implemented it, despite the fact that it now means the simple act of trying to pipe music to a car stereo is now impossible without functionally perfect cables, which means you and I get screwed.

A standardized digital line out will solve that problem.

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and Apple is the company that brought DRM free music to a mass market community. No one else did this and your talking point has no factual merit in today's market.

Thank you!

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big problem with this thinking though, because the music industry has hidden a copyright time bomb in society. When their sales decline further and further, they will start to sue independent music makers for using copyrighted melodies. So far, they haven't sued each other in silent agreement because of MAD, but if the sales go down, they'll turn to that and start to attack every indie band site like bandcamp or reverb nation, as well as thousands of individual artists. They'll try to quench every last penny out of them. The problem is that in Rock/Pop Music practically every song / chorus has already been written. It's the same cords and rhythms over and over, and there is not much that can be done against that, because the majority of listeners like this music more than, say, complicated aleatoric twelve-tone music. The current copyright system even covers extremely generic things like a cowbell rhythm in the background, as the "blurred lines" lawsuit has shown.

Re:I can't hear you

[thegarbz]

Who said anything about not wanting to pay?

But I will naturally only pay to stuff I can listen to when I want to where I want to without the blessing of some digital circuit.

Re:I can't hear you

[thegarbz]

That's a nice theory, but only a very small percentage of people will do it.

Once bitten twice shy is much more prevalent on something that is as transformable as music. My own Apple worshiping sister gave up on Apple music early on when her early iphone broke and she found she couldn't magically listen to her music on her replacement Samsung. It wasn't until Apple removed DRM that she decided to give it another go, and even then only after I explained what DRM was and why she should try again.

Personally I hope everyone spends a lot of money and then gets royally screwed. Maybe if people suffer we can finally get the message across.

Re:I can't hear you

[swillden]

People bought the same music on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD and then MP3/AAC, and didn't do anything more than grumble about it.

Plus, increasingly, people are moving to subscription services like Spotify, Google Music All Access and Apple Music, so they never buy anything but just rent everything. I have to admit that I'm in that camp. I have a Google Music subscription and I can't imagine going back. I spend about the same amount on music as I ever did, but I get a lot more and it's insanely convenient.

I hear you, and in fact I also really, really hate DRM and wish it would die. I celebrated when the music industry gave up on it and expected the movie industry to follow suit... but they didn't, and in fact they've managed to get DRM more deeply embedded into everything and now it makes perfect sense that the music industry is going to leverage what the movie industry has done to go back to DRM. And people, by and large, aren't going to care unless the industry screws it up in some very large way, which they won't.

Re: I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

One might think with big numbers coming out, like youtube paying out 1B USD to the music industry, that the music industry is doing well. The music industry's global gross is 50% its 2000s level. Have you seen anything particularly revolutionary come out of the music industry recently or just regurgitation of things that have historically sold well? The licensing squeeze might be closer than you think.

Re: I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

This is naive. HDCP exists when DVI/HDMI are perfectly functional without it. Just because you could tap the lvds signals going to the display panel inside the output device does not make it reasonable to do so for most users. In the same way, it is reasonable to make it cost prohibitive to make good quality audio recordings from digital sources impractical by forcing users into discarding decades of accumulated analog audio gear for purportedly higher quality digital systems.

Re: I can't hear you

[djoghurt]

It gets better. You already kind of pointed at it, but if it's human recognizable, DRMing it is basically impossible. Even if they get rid of all digital interfaces - you can't DRM an audio signal. Even without WiFi, Bluetooth or USB, even if they manage to secure the digital part perfectly, the audio signal can not be encrypted if you want the speaker to output a proper sound. Hell, even if you managed that you can put a microphone to it and record it again. Same thing, though a bit more complicated, goes for video. DRM is nothing but an inconvenience for normal people, pirates will always find their way. This might actually lead to normal people getting their stuff directly from pirates to avoid that inconvenience DRM means. I personally download my music from SoundCloud, which is free in the first place.

Re:I can't hear you

[tepples]

In general, the owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right to authorize the preparation of derivative works based on that work. This is subject to statutory limits on copyright, such as fair use of a work, some types of private copying, and paid compulsory licenses. In many countries, such as the United States, there exists a paid compulsory license for cover versions of a nondramatic musical work, with a royalty on the order of 10 cents per track. But I'd be very surprised if ocremix.org were to use that as its primary defense because this royalty is far more than an advertiser is willing to pay per page view.

Re:I can't hear you

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't own your music, you simply have an EULA with a subscription service. And you pay a few every time you listen to a song.

If the media companies have their way, this is true for every format and type of content, and expanding into the world of physical goods by virtue of many things simply having a computer and software.

Ultimately DRM is about destroying property rights.

Re:I can't hear you

[thegarbz]

People bought the same music on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD and then MP3/AAC, and didn't do anything more than grumble about it.

And they still work. I still have some vinyls and I still listen to them. I also make the conscious decision to walk into a store and buy a CD which I then ripped into MP3 format because format shifting is a legal thing. No one in my family has ever bought an MP3/AAC that has existed on CD, or visa versa. This is a very different thing than someone deciding one day I shouldn't be allowed to listen to the music an more and coming into my house and simply taking back the CD.

Plus, increasingly, people are moving to subscription services like Spotify

Irrelevant. We used to listen to the radio too, that never had an affect on vinyl sales or what we did with vinyl. I too have a Spotify subscription. Different thing, different purpose. You say you can't imagine going back. Going back to what? Did your Spotify subscription completely replace any other form of media purchase? That would be quite impressive and a first from what I've heard. For me, it replaced radio nothing more.

Re:I can't hear you

[KozmoStevnNaut]

+1 for Bandcamp. It is by far the best site out there. Everything is available as high-quality MP3 or lossless, with sensible tagging, embedded cover art and a discovery-to-download process that is ridiculously easy.

I also greatly appreciate the fact that most of my money goes directly to the artists (minus a small cut for Bandcamp), and that the prices are much less inflated as a result. Especially for the genres I listen to (extreme metal, synthwave, that sort of thing), the selection is absolutely huge. I wish more artists would get on it, it would make everything so much easier for me, instead of having to buy CDs, wait for them to arrive, rip them and then throw them in a box somewhere.

Nuclear Blast's FLAC downloads from their site are a close second, but they obviously only feature their own artists.

Re:I can't hear you

[Yvan256]

If we're talking about music on iTunes, none would fit. There hasn't been DRM'ed music files on iTunes for a few years now.

Re:I can't hear you

[swillden]

Yes, my Google Music subscription replaced any other form of music purchase. Why would I need to buy albums or songs any more? I can listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, I can download it all (up to the capacity of my device) for offline listening. It's like owning all music. There's no reason to purchase music separately.

Re: I can't hear you

[Matthew Angel]

Problem solved. GOgroove BlueGATE RXT Wireless Bluetooth Receiver & Transmitter with 3.5mm Stereo Output & Included RCA Adapter http://www.walmart.com/ip/GOgr...

Re: I can't hear you

[cthulhu11]

Sure, if losing your connectivity and thousands of $ when DMCA suits are filed against you. This Cory twat should shut the fuck up and go back to sodomising Randall Munroe.

Re:I can't hear you

[BronsCon]

A standardized digital line out will solve that problem.

First of all, I find it amusing that you think we'll end up with a single standardized digital line out. We already have nearly a dozen (that I know of; there are probably more).

Further, an out-of spec cable will cause problems one way or the other; at least with analog you get to hear something and can trace the problem back to the cable. With digital, when the phone and your car won't talk to each other, is it the phone, the car, or the cable causing the problem?

Also, I'm not entirely sure WTF you're talking about. Yes, I'm aware of the functionality as it exists, and my phone (a Galaxy S7 Edge) certainly has it, yet I have no trouble with any of my cables (and some of them are nearly as old as me) with any of my devices; my desktop, 3 different laptops, a mixer panel, and my car all happily accept the input without skipping songs, regardless of which cable I've plugged in. And yes, more than a couple of them have had many repairs made to them over the years (when the wire's good and of good quality, they're worth saving) and at least a couple have some internal shorts I haven't tracked down and cut out yet. No, these are not all pristine and functionally perfect cables.

All of my digital transmission cables, on the other hand... I find that those go to shit if you look at them sideways.

Re:I can't hear you

[swalve]

Why let reality get in the way of a good story?

Re:I can't hear you

[swalve]

Digital watermarking. "Problem" solved. Legit sharing and fair use has no problem, and actual abusers get caught.

Re:I can't hear you

[Bert64]

And that has always been the case... Only a very small percentage of people perform their own copying, and a much larger percentage simply download a pirated copy which already has any drm or other crap removed which actually makes it a superior product to the original.

Re:I can't hear you

[swillden]

And that has always been the case... Only a very small percentage of people perform their own copying, and a much larger percentage simply download a pirated copy which already has any drm or other crap removed which actually makes it a superior product to the original.

Except the percentage downloading a pirated copy is also very small relative to the population as a whole. As long as it's reasonably convenient and not too expensive, most people just buy.

Re:I can't hear you

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In that case, what's the point of the quotes form the article in the summary? Or of debating alternatives in the case that DRM is actually what inconveniences the consumption of music through "mainstream" channels such as iTunes? It doesn't matter if those decision-influencing, inconveniently accessible materials are supplied by iTunes right now or merely will be in the future. The consumer reaction would always follow, not precede, their introduction.

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy an iPhone.

Re:Easy solution

[macs4all]

Don't buy an iPhone.

Or any other phone, starting next year.

Re:Easy solution

[tripleevenfall]

I've had 3 iphones in a row, going back to the first one.

If the next one doesn't have a headphone jack, and there's an Android phone out there that does, I'll switch. I don't think I'm alone, either.

There will be phones with headphone jacks out there because people want them. People want to be able to use any headset. People don't want to carry adapters around.

It's a cash grab that delivers no additional value to users.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately we have billions of phones on hand that aren't retarded.

Even assuming 99% are "old" the rest might get as far as a decade's bloat. Sales have been plateauing ever since processing power started firmly outpacing the demands of standard functionality.

Re:Easy solution

[fluffernutter]

For me the choice is to either get a phone with a headphone jack or replace the whole entertainment system in two vehicles. I'll be looking for a phone with a headphone jack.

Re:Easy solution

[swillden]

Don't buy an iPhone.

Or any other phone, starting next year.

I don't think the industry is going to move that fast.

That said, my current phone has a headphone jack that just collects dust. I use bluetooth everywhere.

Re:Easy solution

[tepples]

There will be phones with headphone jacks out there because people want them.

That's what they said about QWERTY keyboards on phones, and now look where we are.

Re:Easy solution

[KingMotley]

Or buy a $10 device that streams bluetooth to a headphone jack for both vehicles if your stereo isn't bluetooth capable.

Re:Easy solution

[jedidiah]

So then, your entertainment systems don't do bluetooth, which is another tech that fanboys like to crow about. That's very interesting. Just how OLD are these cars and their entertainment systems anyways?

Seriously, it's not 2003 any more.

Re:Easy solution

[Incadenza]

So then, your entertainment systems don't do bluetooth, which is another tech that fanboys like to crow about. That's very interesting. Just how OLD are these cars and their entertainment systems anyways?

Seriously, it's not 2003 any more.

I bought my primary set of headphones in 2002 for a considerable price. No chance in hell I'm going to chance it because of an ephemeral phone.

Re:Easy solution

[Dread_ed]

I am quite disappointed at the imagination of phone makers. A single headphone jack is one too few. How cool would it be to have two people listening to the same song/movie/video on a single device?

The commercials would write themselves:

Hipster girl on the train, headphones in, bobbing head to the beat, soundtrack playing her tune. Directly across, hipster guy headphones in, tapping his foot, soundtrack plays what he is hearing. Eyes meet, head inclines, eyebrow goes up, pointedly looking at device askance. One shows their screen to the other, the other follows suit. Guy comes and sits next to the girl, shows her the two plugs on his phone. Girl unplugs her headphones and plugs in to the guys phone with him. Shot from outside the train shows heads bobbing in sync, then leaning together, now head on shoulder. Soundtrack crescendos, train pulls off screen, phone company logo center screen. Print money.

Instead what we get is more control, less usability, isolating experiences, etc. It's like the whole idea of the modern mobile device is intentionally set up to separate people, rather than bring them together. For a communications device that is pretty ironic.

Re:Easy solution

[BradleyUffner]

My car is from 2012, it doesn't support bluetooth.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I am quite disappointed at the imagination of phone makers. A single headphone jack is one too few. .

12 obviously http://www.xkcd.com/1707/

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

SD card slot is a more appropriate analogy, and you can always find an Android phone with one, regardless of what the flagship brand/models try to do.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't need to buy new hands to use a touch keyboard though

Re:Easy solution

[unixisc]

Don't buy an iPhone.

Or don't use it to listen to music. Which is what I plan to do. I have a 5s, which I plan to upgrade to the 7 once it's out. Why? I'd like to have Apple Pay, and I was within the contract period when 6 was out, and didn't wish to shell out cash then. But that won't alter my usage. As it is, much of my iPhone memory gets eaten up by the WhatsApp messages I exchange w/ family, so I've chosen not to stage music there. I have a separate iPod and iPad, and not just that, I download from YouTube the music videos I like and then play them whenever I like. In the car, I have XM Radio, and I switch b/w that and the iPod.

Seriously, there is no way I could use my iPhone for music - just my family communications consumes a lot of it. All the pics and videos I have is approaching 5GB

Re:Easy solution

[fluffernutter]

I've never found one of those devices that didn't affect the sound in some way. The audio quality sourced from my phone through a cable seems to always sound better then the sound from bluetooth. I invested money in my phone with audio quality as part of that so I like to hear it.

Re:Easy solution

[fluffernutter]

Not that they should be ashamed, but it amazes me how Apple can turn its back on a large segment of device users. Why wouldn't I still have my sound system from 2006 if it still sounds good? I guess this is the part that Apple users don't necessarily understand; that some people don't switch as soon as the next shiny new thing if out and that is why Apple caters to the people who have that kind of money to spend on things.

Re:Easy solution

[thegarbz]

That's what they said about QWERTY keyboards on phones, and now look where we are.

Yeah let's look. LG have 3 current phones out with a QWERTY keyboard. Blackberry have a few as well.

All of them are selling like a vegan gluten free cake at a diary convention, because ultimately there was only 4 people who gave a crap about them, you and the 3 people who modded you up.

I couldn't care less either. It was a usability crapshoot from day one and I don't miss them. I'm inclined to think that the common headphone is something people are far more attached to.

Re:Easy solution

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Just get the next iPhone SE variant... not all phones need to be the same.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You've had three iphones in a row.

You bought one, then the next one and the next one, not because the previous one no longer worked, but because you *needed* the new one. Maybe you won't buy the next one, but history says you will. And if you don't, most will.

People will not and cannot give up their phones and the status that goes with it. They're not going to do it. They are going to buy the next one just like you have been doing and are likely to continue doing.

Re:Easy solution

[tripleevenfall]

I like to upgrade and have a reasonably current device. iPhones have served me well. Taking away a headphone jack would constitute them ceasing to serve me well.

Re: Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

My car is from 2001. It doesn't have Bluetooth. I buy 6 year old cars and then run them till they can buy their own booze.

Re: Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

My 2008 Prius has no bluetooth

Re: Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone has 64GB of storage. It's 2 years old and cost 1/3 of the equivalent iPhone (while having 4 times the storage). Why does a premium device like an iPhone have so little storage capacity that 5GB of WhatsApp data is a significant fraction of it and leaves you nothing for your music?

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never found one of those devices that didn't affect the sound in some way.

In your car. Yeah, right.

Re:Easy solution

[shutdown -p now]

The nice thing about Android is that with USB OTG that most mid-to-high end phones have these days, there's an open interface to attach pretty much any kind of hardware. Including, say, a headphone jack receptacle.

Re:Easy solution

[rx7chick]

Bingo~

Re: Easy solution

[unixisc]

Oh, there are iPhones with 64GB, if not 128GB at the upper end. It's that the entry level phones are the ones w/ 16GB. Similarly, 5GB is the free storage that one gets on iCloud, but any more than that and it starts costing you.

I solved this issue by disabling iCloud for photos, and using my OneDrive instead, where I have 30GB due to my purchase of Office 365. To be honest, the only reason I have an iPhone is FaceTime. So there is one phone number that just my family has, so that we can FaceTime. Other than that, I have an Android phone that I use for work, and a Vonage number that I access from either of the phones.

Re:Easy solution

[toddestan]

The original Sony Walkman featured two headphone jacks. It didn't prove to be very popular and it wasn't carried forward. Of course, that was also 35 years ago.

Re:Easy solution

[kmbss]

There will be phones with headphone jacks out there because people want them.

That's what they said about QWERTY keyboards on phones, and now look where we are.

I'm confused by the keyboard comment. Where are we as I type on a qwerty keyboard on a Blackberry Q 10 running Android and has Blackberry World Amazon Apps and Google Play all functional with a few deeply dependent Google Apps that will not work. (Google Hangouts for one).

Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone who gets it.

Re:Finally...

[macs4all]

...someone who gets it.

Gets what, exactly?

Because Cory Doctorow doesn't "get" it at all.

Re:Finally...

[jeffmflanagan]

It's sad how people go off the deep end, and try to make everything about their personal crusade, like Cory has. People will be able to use headphone adapters, and even if that wasn't allowed, the signal can be intercepted at the earbuds.

Re:Finally...

[NatasRevol]

He's literally ignoring that Apple was the only company to ever fight against DRM in their products. Every other company just said, well they're they rights holders, they can do that.

http://www.computerworld.com/a...

Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman yesterday rejected in no uncertain terms Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs' suggestion earlier this week that the major music label companies should abandon digital tunes copy protection.

Re:Finally...

[macs4all]

...someone who gets it.

Gets what, exactly? Because Cory Doctorow doesn't "get" it at all.

So my comment was modded "Troll", but NOT the one I was REPLYING to?

Re:Finally...

[macs4all]

He's literally ignoring that Apple was the only company to ever fight against DRM in their products. Every other company just said, well they're they rights holders, they can do that.

Precisely!

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuh-uh

K.

Re:Finally...

[ArhcAngel]

Apple may not care about DRM one way or the other but they do care about people bypassing their cash generating MFi program and their proprietary lightning connector and using the "audio" jack as a data connection interface. I'm sure they're still trying to figure out how to make Square pay the fee.

Re:Finally...

[macs4all]

Apple may not care about DRM one way or the other but they do care about people bypassing their cash generating MFi program and their proprietary lightning connector and using the "audio" jack as a data connection interface. I'm sure they're still trying to figure out how to make Square pay the fee.

Bullshit.

Apple looks the other way on NON-MFI devices ALL the time.

Or do you really think all those $2.99 Lightning cables on Amazon are MFI-registered? Wait, you're probably stupid enough to actually think they are.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you wonder why you got moderated Troll!

Re:Finally...

[arocklegend]

Of course Apple pushed back against DRM. Why wouldn't they? It did nothing but limit their market. Piracy wasn't Apple's problem, and as a result of dropping DRM, music sales boomed, iPods became more popular than ever, and iTunes now makes them money hand over fist. How long do you think that'll last?

Back in the 90s and even into the turn of the century, Microsoft had a pretty laissez-faire attitude about piracy. Back then, they could afford to, and they knew every pirated application and OS strengthened their position in the market. But when they began to reach saturation and the quarterly reports weren't showing the same rate of growth, they got pretty serious about piracy with the hardware activation and criminal cases against pirates. And when that failed, well, that's why we have Office 365 and a free Windows OS with nightmare invasive telemetry that's nigh-impossible for most folks to remove.

Apple has now reported, what, two quarters of consecutive slowed growth? No big deal; it's the biggest company in the world, and profits are still rising. But you can bet the folks at the top are feeling the squeeze. I'm sure they've got plenty of stuff in the works. Maybe it'll do well. Maybe not. But we all know that Apple plays the long game. If they do drop the analog jack, it won't have been because they just wanted a slimmer phone. At least part of the reason - and in my opinion, the primary reason - will be because it gives them more control over their market. More control over the lucrative accessory sales (including adapters and third-party licensing), and another lever of control should those two quarters of slow growth turn into four or eight. They won't want to implement DRM, and I very much doubt they'll ever do it for standard MP3 sales. But streaming? New releases? Exclusives?

Again, they won't want to; it's hostile to the consumer, bad for their brand, and expensive on the tech support end. But after a period of slow growth, a few product stumbles, and a handful of high-profile restructures or executive departures, I think you can count on them to make those long-game bets start paying off.

Re:Finally...

[jedidiah]

Yes, they just fought so hard to have a monopoly handed to them.

Of course the DRM was only ever removed from their music. It still remains in ALL OF THEIR OTHER PRODUCTS. The only reason that the DRM in music got dropped is because the labels realized they had created a monster. The entire industry moved to mp3 when Apple managed to score it's "victory".

Fanboys are funny.

Re:Finally...

[jittles]

Apple may not care about DRM one way or the other but they do care about people bypassing their cash generating MFi program and their proprietary lightning connector and using the "audio" jack as a data connection interface. I'm sure they're still trying to figure out how to make Square pay the fee.

Bullshit. Apple looks the other way on NON-MFI devices ALL the time. Or do you really think all those $2.99 Lightning cables on Amazon are MFI-registered? Wait, you're probably stupid enough to actually think they are.

You can buy a spindle of the chips required to make a Lightning cable at less than $0.50 a chip at a quantity as low as 1000 units. The price obviously decreases with volume. Then it's another $10,000 to join the MFI program. So, yes, I bet you could ship a $2.99 lightning cable from China to the US if you have the right volume.

Re: Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

If fanboys ever bothered looking, there were several companies that necessarily could not have DRM on their stuff because it would be too problematic - they didn't make their own hardware.

Amazon launched their store sans DRM, then APL followed suit because Amazon offered a better product you could use anywhere for equal or cheaper.

Only then did they crusade against OnLy music DRM... Which as I recall, sold as an option for more $$$ for some time.

Re: Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

So companies that just straight sold their stuff online (Amazon, etc) used drm for devices they didn't have access to?

You'll notice the vast majority of media sellers (ayce / renters are actually using DRM correctly - it's not yours) that had used DRM also sold or were tightly partnered with the manufacturer of the player.

PlaysForSure, etc = Microsoft media player
Fair play(?) = APL devices

Re:Finally...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Precisely! I mean, imagine if Apple had actually created and implemented it's own DRM standard, then it would be just like every other company. Except that it controlled the DRM experience from beginning to end...

Re: Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the program allow anyone to buy the chips? Because I'm sure headphone jack converters using them wouldn't be allowed as a partner.

Re:Finally...

[NoKaOi]

He's literally ignoring that Apple was the only company to ever fight against DRM in their products. Every other company just said, well they're they rights holders, they can do that.

Yeah, "they" can't do it, well, unless it benefits Apple's bottom line. You're forgetting about the DRM build in to their charging cables.

Re:Finally...

[Lisias]

He's literally ignoring that Apple was the only company to ever fight against DRM in their products.

No. Steve Jobs did that. And Jobs is dead.

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mostly like Cory and agree with him on many things, however, at the end of the day, Cory runs a successful blog/zine/site and like many such sites, success frequently means click bait, fear mongering, and lowest common denominator pandering. I stop visiting Boing Boing years ago ... about the time they became a Walking Dead fan site (can't have enough of those...), but it's 'let's get some attention however we can' tendencies seem to carrying over to Cory's other journalistic endeavors.

Re:Finally...

[BronsCon]

Because his point is valid and valid pro-Apple points around here often get modded troll?

That said, ditching the audio jack that's been standard for literally over 100 years, that's used everywhere, that people have come to know and trust, and that is literally the de-facto standard headphone interface across the entirety of the audio industry (and, more importantly, the recording industry) would be an entirely braindead move and I absolutely do note believe for one moment that Apple would actually do it.

Then again, they've been steadily convincing me they've gone completely braindead for the past 5 years or so...

Re:Finally...

[NatasRevol]

Please enlighten me as to what DRM I have on my Mac?

I'll be waiting with baited breath over here.

Re:Finally...

[NatasRevol]

You're not very bright, are you?

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but wasn't it to further enhance the users of the Apple product, ergo for Apples beneficial profit lines? People were able to dump their entire collection of music from one ipod to the next, which was great for Apple.

Re:Finally...

[Rexdude]

He's not ignoring anything. Read his original essay on Boing rather than the Fastcompany summary. From his piece:

In 2007, Steve Jobs published his Thoughts on Music, in which he said, basically, that the record industry had forced Apple to put DRM in its ecosystem and he didn't like it..

Re:Finally...

[Lisias]

Brighter than you, as it appear.

Jobs had is own ideas about how Apple should do business. If you really used to use Apple products on the last 10 years, you should had noticed how things changed course slightly before his death.

Always an analog hole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they can beam the digital signal direct to your brain (cochlear implant, anyone?), at some point the signal is converted to actual sound waves to be heard by your ears. Or a microphone.

Re:Always an analog hole.

[macs4all]

Until they can beam the digital signal direct to your brain (cochlear implant, anyone?), at some point the signal is converted to actual sound waves to be heard by your ears. Or a microphone.

Exactly what I posted.

Re: Always an analog hole.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two wires to the speaker and two speakers for stereo. You know what to do.

What it means for consumers...

[__aaclcg7560]

Paying $29 for another dongle.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[macs4all]

Paying $29 for another dongle.

...or $3.99 on Amazon.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[NotAPK]

With a > 50% failure rate.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, $7.98 for most, with just one shipping charge if you buy them at the same time.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Made in China and secretly sending your data to China.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[rainmouse]

Paying $29 for another dongle.

...or $3.99 on Amazon.

And a patch that accidentally bricks your device when it's detected.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like them techy Vibrator on here a few days ago sending all your sexual vibrator preferences to the manufacturer in secret

Re:What it means for consumers...

[__aaclcg7560]

That's why you buy $30 worth to have spares on hand.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[gtall]

...for a Chinese knockoff worth about $.01.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[JaredOfEuropa]

And a significant fire hazard

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for a Chinese knockoff worth about $.01.

as opposed to the original china manufactured version worth about $.02

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying $29 for another dongle.

...or $3.99 on Amazon.

No, no, they are $1.50 on E-Bay, shipped to you from China.... But by the time you get it, Apple will have upgraded the firmware on your phone so it won't work. Good luck shipping it back for your "money back".

Re: What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

The $3.99 dongle on Amazon will mysteriously quit working after an iOS update.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[macs4all]

And a significant fire hazard

If your vibrator is a significant fire hazard, you need to add a little lube...

Re: What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

You hates them haters, don't you?

Quit soiling the Apple brand, trashboy.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[R3d M3rcury]

But they make the coolest adapters!

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's plenty of relatively cheap Apple accessories that this isn't true for. But you already knew that, you had to continue on a false narrative to feel better about what you carry in your pocket regardless of circumstances. Another goose stepping fucktard from a heap of consumer-level geek wanna bes.

Re:What it means for consumers...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, they did it once, who's to say they won't do it again?

Re:What it means for consumers...

[Lord Apathy]

Or just go Bluetooth and call it good.

Today it's easy

[thegarbz]

Today it's easy to record streamed music from the analog headphone jack on the phone, and even to convert the stream back to digital and transmit it in real time to someone else.

Unless they propose to beam music into my brain through a digital only chip then the analogue hole will ALWAYS exist on music. This isn't a monitor where the digital signal is the last easy point to intercept the signal. There aren't 2.3million individual points to accurately record and reproduce. There's just 2.

If you have a signal that can move two magnetic transducers, I can trivially pump that signal into a recording device after any DRM takes place.
But I won't, I'll simply copy the CD instead. Keep your locked down piece of crap.

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely that CD's will go away, and DRM-music will be the norm.

But that's fine, there's already enough music out there that I'm not jumping through DRM hoops. If the music industry wants to eat itself, more power to them.

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have CDs that do not conform to red-book standard, and are not playable on bog standard players. All media companies are gradually killing physical media for temporary access to the virtual equivalent. Music was first, games overtook thanks to Steam, and DVDs that are little more that keys for Steam. Video isn't far behind with many options that do not allow you to freely copy your "purchases" to other devices.

Fast forward a generation, what will we have then? No physical, always online DRM requirements before you can access your content? Games are doing it already, even disk based games on the PS4 (Dishonored) won't launch if the console is denied access to the mothership. blu-ray players refuse to play some titles unless you go online first and register the device. This is today. 20 years time will probably be mandated adverts on your purchases, regardless of media, and they'll interrupt your games, music and movies.

Re:Today it's easy

[macs4all]

DRM-music will be the norm.

Fortunately, Apple already stopped that years ago.

You're welcome.

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

My backlog of offline-friendly games will keep me occupied when that time comes.

The entertainment (not just video games) industry needs to crash again. I wouldn't be sad about it.

If enough consumers learn to say NO to anti-consumer practices, they will eventually win back corporate respect.

CAPTCHA: faraway

Re:Today it's easy

[hey!]

This is what I was thinking, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the analog hole will ALWAYS exist. It's conceivable that you could watermark the analog output in ways that are imperceptible to human hearing.

But clearly THIS decision is driven by form factor considerations. An analog jack makes no difference one way or the other whether or not you can close the analog hole.

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

In 20 years, it'll be interesting to see what OS's let you run programs like VLC and game emulators. They will want to lock down everything.

Re:Today it's easy

[Sir_Eptishous]

If enough consumers learn to say NO to anti-consumer practices, they will eventually win back corporate respect.
CAPTCHA: faraway

How hard should I laugh at this?
CAPTCHA: pretty fucking hard.

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they propose to beam music into my brain through a digital only chip then the analogue hole will ALWAYS exist on music.

Shhhhh. Don't give them ideas...

Re: Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

And then it will be the year of Linux on the desktop.

Re:Today it's easy

[JesseMcDonald]

It's conceivable that you could watermark the analog output in ways that are imperceptible to human hearing.

If any signal "imperceptible to human hearing" can survive lossy compression, the compression algorithm has some room for improvement. There are watermarks that can survive certain compression algorithms in common use today, but you can't count on it remaining that way forever.

Even if you did have an erasure-proof watermark, it wouldn't make for effective DRM so long as people can record the analogue signals and play them back through their own equipment which doesn't care about the watermark (meaning just about anything with a bit of storage and a cheap ADC).

Re:Today it's easy

[gnasher719]

You don't even need the analogue hole (for an iPhone). Use Airplay, which transmits everything with lossless encoding, and for 20 pound you get an Airplay receiver with digital USB audio and analog audio (plus works as a network extender).

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that with DRM if someone decides to reproduce they'll have to have the right key. Now you might say, so what, they'll never find out who made the copy. This is where steganography comes in. The identity code of whoever made the copy will be embedded in the recording. Think this is far fetched? Your printer has been embedding information in your printed documents using steganography for quite some time now. What was missing was that it didn't need your personal key to print. Yet. When that will happen they will not only know the device from which a copy was made, they will also know who the person making the copy was too.

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

We already looked into that option, and decided that it has too many drawbacks - Difficult to upgrade or replace, very limited power, and it doesn't prevent our customers from using unauthorized devices to listen to downgraded or bootleg recordings.

Instead, we're planning on having active auditory augmentation devices placed inside every ear in America: All of your music in one easilly accessible device. No licensing and payment worries - if someone who doesn't have a public performance permit is trying to have you listen to something you havn't purchased, our device will either auto-purchase it for you or apply noise cancellation.

Re:Today it's easy

[thegarbz]

It's conceivable that you could watermark the analog output in ways that are imperceptible to human hearing.

And do what with it? This technique requires recording devices which give a crap. It didn't work for macrovision VHS tapes, why would it work for audio?

Re:Today it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more fortunately, it's impossible for a company to ever reverse a decision in any way!

Re: Today it's easy

[BronsCon]

If we can still install it.

Re:Today it's easy

[BronsCon]

Buy the same song on two or more accounts, record each, average the results. Yes, it takes a little bit of work to align them correctly, but that can easily be automated in software. Normalize, match peaks (applying time-stretching where necessary), average, done. The more inputs, the better quality, at that.

It doesn't even need to be the same person doing all the buying; a release group could set up a server to automate the process, automatically triggering a release after certain quality and security parameters are met (e.g. enough members have uploaded their copies that any recording quality issues and watermarks have been thoroughly averaged out). As it is, the larger groups already have several members buy and rip the same CD and average the results because different drives will (oddly, since it's digital) rip the same disc differently.

Idiotic Argument

[macs4all]

So, I guess Cory Doctorow has never heard of a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC), eh? Once a signal is converted back to analog (which it still has to be to be amplified and heard by us non-digitally-enabled humans), it is once more free for the taking.

And unlike video, where you can play all sorts of games with resolution, etc, you can't decimate audio data nearly as much.

Also, if this happens, there will be about 5,000 adapters to use analog earbuds/headphones with the data stream; and again, there's that pesky DAC... So, in reality, this is nothing more than a tempest in a DRM-free teapot.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[richieb]

You missed the point of DRM. The stream of bits coming out of the iPhone can be encrypted and must be decrypted before the DAC can take place. The decryption keys will only exist in approved devices (speakers or headphones).

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Those Devices will need wires going to the part that makes sound, that part is the point you can install what ever you want to capture the signal. Its like pointing a cam at a movie screen sure, but its better.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh! Apple's devices will not have output transducers available. He's saying you may require Apple branded DRM devices before you'll be able to access your purchased media. What are you going to do, stick a mic up against their fucking terrible earbud? That's that fucking problem, dipshit.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Howitzer86]

...which we can purchase, open, and connect the two wires that run to the speakers to a headphone jack instead. Then some poor SOB will upload a How-To video and end up a felon serving hard time for it. Not that it would stop anyone.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[macs4all]

You missed the point of DRM. The stream of bits coming out of the iPhone can be encrypted and must be decrypted before the DAC can take place. The decryption keys will only exist in approved devices (speakers or headphones).

I'm sorry you don't understand how electronics works; but in a word, "No".

Re:Idiotic Argument

[infosinger]

Ultimately it needs to be converted to analog so that it can instantiate some sort of speaker element. This can then easily be recorded with the right impedance match. This was impractical for video due to the complexity of the signal, but two simple analog signals are very easy to record and reproduce. Of course going from the analog to digital to digital compression (I will assume encryption/decryption is lossless), transmit over lossy Bluetooth and back to analog degrades the music to the point of "why bother". I listen to streaming services to shop around for songs or to play music I am really not listening to(background). Anything over Bluetooth, frankly, sounds bad for certain kinds of music.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[macs4all]

Whoosh! Apple's devices will not have output transducers available. He's saying you may require Apple branded DRM devices before you'll be able to access your purchased media. What are you going to do, stick a mic up against their fucking terrible earbud? That's that fucking problem, dipshit.

No.

The fucking problem is that you don't understand electronics. Even if the only way to capture the analog signal would be from the earbuds themselves, no microphone would be needed.

And Apple actually makes some fairly decent earbuds; just not the ones that get included for free with your iPhone/iPod (just like with everyone else).

Re:Idiotic Argument

[richieb]

Yes of course. I can put a microphone in front of the speaker too. But a speaker with a digital input will be sealed, and when you open it you will be "bypassing DRM" and therefore breaking the law.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[richieb]

Sigh. I know how electronics work. When the speaker/headphone that accepts digital input only is sealed by the manufacturer, opening it up to connect to the analog input is not allowed - you are bypassing DRM, which is not legal under today's law. That's the point.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[chispito]

You missed the point of DRM. The stream of bits coming out of the iPhone can be encrypted and must be decrypted before the DAC can take place. The decryption keys will only exist in approved devices (speakers or headphones).

This is too expensive of a solution and too easy to circumvent, like most DRM. There is a wire with an analog signal going to a speaker. Cut that wire and route it back into your recording device.

The genie is long out of the bottle on music DRM and the record companies will never get their CD profits back.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[FlyHelicopters]

Sigh. I know how electronics work. When the speaker/headphone that accepts digital input only is sealed by the manufacturer, opening it up to connect to the analog input is not allowed - you are bypassing DRM, which is not legal under today's law. That's the point.

Yea, but what you don't know is that no one but lawyers give a shit if that is legal or not...

DMCA's rules about DRM are stupid and most normal people don't care...

Re:Idiotic Argument

[tepples]

When the speaker/headphone that accepts digital input only is sealed by the manufacturer

Which manufacturer has announced plans to manufacture such a sealed speaker/headphone?

Re:Idiotic Argument

[richieb]

DMCA's rules about DRM are stupid and most normal people don't care...

At least we agree here. Most people don't care until lawyers come after them. Remember DeCSS?

Re:Idiotic Argument

[macs4all]

DMCA's rules about DRM are stupid and most normal people don't care...

At least we agree here. Most people don't care until lawyers come after them. Remember DeCSS?

Yes, I remember that people even wrote songs about it, and people to this day have the Decryption Key in their Sigs.

In fact, the only way "out" for the MAFIAA was to create Blu-Ray with entirely different encryption (which also got broken, IIRC).

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Idiotic Argument

[mattyj]

Correction: _licensed_ media, not purchased. People have this notion that they own the music they buy, which has never been true.

Not saying I like DRM or anything, but Apple has a pretty good track record of being anti-DRM. I'm not sure why people think they'll suddenly change their attitude.

Why can't it be that analog headphone jacks are half a century old and they just simply don't belong on a phone in 2016?

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. and I still have my shirt. :)

Re:Idiotic Argument

[lgw]

Sure, if you don't mind a lossy copy. And presumably you don't if you're the sort to buy iTunes-standard low bitrate MP3s and listen to them through Beats headphones, then, sure, no problem at all.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[jedidiah]

> Correction: _licensed_ media, not purchased. People have this notion that they own the music they buy, which has never been true.

It's time to extract yourself from the RIAA's cock.

Personal property is still personal property. A physical copy still comes with certain rights. The fact that you are so eager to give my rights to some corporation is entirely irrelevant.

Contracts require certain elements. These are principles older than our republic that you don't get to change to suit your agenda du jour. This is well settled law that hasn't been overturned yet.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[tsqr]

Why can't it be that analog headphone jacks are half a century old and they just simply don't belong on a phone in 2016?

If you get rid of things just because they're old, you're going to have a problem trying to use that new phone that has neither a microphone or a speaker (both well over 100 years old).

Re:Idiotic Argument

[kheldan]

See, that's what makes me believe that all these media industry goons are as technologically incompetent as your average politician, government official, or law enforcement: In order to be heard by the human ear, ALL digital audio must, at some point, be converted back to a baseband analog audio signal, in order to be reproduced by an electrical-to-sound pressure transducer (aka 'a speaker') of some sort, so that the sound-pressure-to-neural impulse transducers in the human body (aka 'your ears') can PERCEIVE IT. There's literally no way around it. Even if, in some totally dystopian future, where you can ONLY use 'approved' digital-input-only speakers and headphones (that of course they put anti-tampering in, so if you open or attempt to modify them, they self-destruct) it still has to produce sound waves in the air so you can hear it! What else would they do? Digital-only DRM microphones, that communicate ultrasonically with digital-only DRM speakers, and turn themselves off if you're attempting to record from a DRM source? Bull-fucking-shit. Audio professionals would never stand for it, there would be pro-level equipment with no such restrictions. Also there would always be some South Asian company making adapters to get around it, or hackers making their own, or 'illegal' software to strip DRM from audio files.. it would be a never-ending game of whack-a-mole, everything would cost orders of magnitude more than it does now -- and nobody would stand for it, and everyone would go bankrupt. It's all utter madness, and it's not going to happen.

Bottom line:
o There will always be baseband analog audio in one form or another.
o You can't 100% prevent someone from recording or otherwise converting DRM'd audio, and it's madness to even TRY.
o People are going to share things whether you want them to or not
o Trying to PREVENT them from doing so is a negative-sum game; don't even try.
o Overly-draconic DRM and copyright schemes just piss people off and make them want to spend LESS money, not MORE.
o Go get your Bluetooth-to-headphone adapter or USB-to-headphone adapter and stop complaining, it's all good.
o Look at it this way: you have an opportunity to get a better DAC this way.
o You're probably better off this way anyway, so many of you manage to break your headphone jacks, this way the replacement is quick and easy.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital speakers exist in niche markets (they have a voicecoil per bit). Of course that can be tapped just as easy.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet that these devices will brick themselves the moment they detect an electric resistance below or above a pre approved range.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point of DRM. The stream of bits coming out of the iPhone can be encrypted and must be decrypted before the DAC can take place. The decryption keys will only exist in approved devices (speakers or headphones).

What you describe is technically possible, but it is impossible from a marketplace point of view. Will never happen. No one will buy speakers like that. Headphones, maybe — if they come with the phone — but not speakers.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

transmit over lossy Bluetooth

Bluetooth is not lossy, friend.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[FlyHelicopters]

At least we agree here. Most people don't care until lawyers come after them. Remember DeCSS?

Yes, and it still exists, and didn't affect normal people one bit...

What is the RIAA and MPAA going to do, sue everyone on Earth? They tried that once and it started to backfire on them...

EULAs don't mean crap to normal people. Normal people get that randomly sharing copies with millions of people is a problem. Normal people think that if you paid money for it, you should be able to listen to/watch it anywhere anytime that you want.

The laws need to be updated to reflect that if you paid for a digital copy, you OWN that digital copy and can do whatever you want with it, including reselling it, watch it anywhere you want, etc... You just can't give away "copies" of it, which is reasonable...

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you missed the point that whatever the approved device is will have to move an analog wave to my ear. Or I won't hear it. And there is this new tech called "microphone" which will capture that wave. And then it's mine.

If you want DRM to work, you need to make it work in analog. With my ear. Good luck on that.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[harrkev]

The genie is long out of the bottle on music DRM and the record companies will never get their CD profits back.

I don't think that "DRM" and no "CD profits" go hand-in-hand. Simply stated, I think that most people are relatively honest. If the customer does not feel like they are getting screwed, they are happy to support their favorite bands. I remember back to 8-track days, so I was around at the rise of Napster, but I did not do that because I would rather support my favorite bands. I have a couple of bands right now that I would happily pay double what they ask if it meant that I would get new albums more often.

Of course, that depends on the "not getting screwed" part. If the listener feels like the label/artist is trying hard to prevent the customer/listener from enjoying the music, then things can get nasty. Does anybody remember paying $1 for a song, and $3 for a 20 seconds ringtone of the same song? Yeah, pay three times as much for one tenth of the song.

There are some who will download every track that they can find, but those people are not actually customers.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

opening it up to connect to the analog input is not allowed - you are bypassing DRM, which is not legal under today's law. That's the point.

Haha, you're cute. Like that's going to stop anyone who is determined to extract the content. Keep dreaming, boy!

Re:Idiotic Argument

[unrtst]

..which we can purchase, open, and connect the two wires that run to the speakers to a headphone jack instead.

That's part of the point of this. I don't think anyone said this would make anything impossible. It's about what it turns this very simple task into for the average person.

Then some poor SOB will upload a How-To video and end up a felon serving hard time for it.

Exactly. And anyone selling a device that goes from their interface to audio out would also be doing so illegally (unless they get permission first, etc) as they would be creating an circumvention device. Just giving instructions on how to create one would be illegal. How is that not a horrible thing? Not the end of the world, but it's awful.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[cdrudge]

But a speaker with a digital input will be sealed

Can you please provide an example of one of these sealed speakers with only a digital input?

Re:Idiotic Argument

[lsllll]

Cut that wire and route it back into your recording device.

It occurred to me, what if they use a special speaker which will provide an encrypted signal back to the circuit before the amp, via a third wire, and if the signal to +/- is tampered with (cut, sees difference impedance, etc) then it sends the message to stop playing?

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Ormy]

You missed the point of DRM. The stream of bits coming out of the iPhone can be encrypted and must be decrypted before the DAC can take place. The decryption keys will only exist in approved devices (speakers or headphones).

No YOU missed the point, one can 'simply' capture the audio after the device's DAC (in the analogue domain) with some dissassembly and a soldering iron. Yes the quality of the recording depends on the quality of one's equipment but it only takes one person with a steady hand and studio-quality audio gear to 'rip' (capture then convert back to the digital domain DRM-free) and upload the songs to tomorrow's equivalent of TPB. Job done. Your post was only modded up because you have a 4-figure UID, which you obviously don't deserve. Hand it over.

Re: Idiotic Argument

[technosaurus]

If Apple uses this to be able to totally lock down the device by removing all external connectors so that it can be sealed using an ultrasonic weld, then it totally fits with their product strategy. I don't see ifixit recommending users take a dremel tool to their devices in order to replace a battery. This will enforce using professional services from Apple (possibly others eventually) to get any repairs done. Intentionally omitting any ability to upgrade the storage capacity (microsd, usb-otg,...) will help them sell the most expensive models or subscriptions to cloud based storage. I hate it but the millennials seem to buy into this model at an alarming rate, and their boomer grandparents tend to follow their lead, so this could be a brilliant move from a pure revenue perspective.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[chispito]

See prev comment re:

This is too expensive of a solution

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Obfuscant]

See, that's what makes me believe that all these media industry goons are as technologically incompetent as your average politician, government official, or law enforcement:

And people who say that kind of thing are ignoring the simple fact that there is NO perfect security system. All of them are a tradeoff between cost, complexity, and benefit. And the "media industry goons" all know that.

Most people have locks on their front doors that are pickable by anyone who puts in a little effort. Those locks cost about $30 or so. Is the homeowner a technological moron for using such a low cost, easily bypassed security system? Of course not. They've simply done the cost/benefit analysis (either explicitly or implicitly) and realized that a $10,000 security system isn't worth the cost. What they have to protect isn't that expensive, is covered by insurance, and all they really need to do is make their front door hard enough to break into that a burglar will go next door instead.

Many years ago I had a cable box with a built-in descrambler for the premium content. It had a five pin connector between the button box and the decoding electronics. A standard five pin DIN. One of those five wires was pulled low to enable the descrambler. Easy peasy to hack that system. (And made even easier because the cable company would simply throw broken boxes out into their unlocked dumpster, so anyone who wanted to could look at how the system worked.) Were they stupid enough to think that this system would stop all pirating? Of course not.

Some years later I got a Dish Network system. It had a PCMCIA card that was the decryption engine. Potted chips. No easy spot to tack into the control and tell it to decrypt stuff. Did Dish think this system was 100% perfect? Of course not. There were people who posted info online about exactly where to drill into the card to get to the control lines. It just was very much harder than the old five pin DIN connector hack, and it stopped a lot of people. That was the goal.

So, the "bottom line" really is, the content producers aren't trying to stop 100% of the copying, they're only trying to stop the people for whom it isn't worth the effort anymore. Those who go to the effort of ripping and distributing stuff are still going to do so, and they will still be targets for enforcement. It's just that Joe Sixpack won't be doing it to give stuff to his friends.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

They bought TVs that did exactly that.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a stopped clock is correct, every so often.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[kheldan]

No, see, I'm sorry but you're wrong, and your comment had little to do with my own comment. The recording industry clearly does want to stop ALL piracy of ALL kinds. They'd love nothing better than to go back in time, and make all consumer-class recording devices (reel-to-reel, cassette, the VCR) illegal, until they could come up with versions that they could 100% control, so everyone would have to pay, pay, pay through the nose, ad infinitum. They make that clear with every decision they make now that attempts to limit what people can do with the content they purchase, and I maintain that if they had their way, they'd find a way to monetize your ears so you can't even hear content unless you pay them. Do you remember DivX? No, not just the video compression algorithm, but the whole DivX system? You buy a DVD, but it's a DivX DVD, which takes a special player, which has to be connected to a phone line, and you pay a rental fee every time you want to play the disc; the disc itself was cheap (a few dollars) but the point was you'd have to pay every time you wanted to see it. Few remember that now because it was a total failure; nobody fell for it, especially the video rental stores at the time, for whom it would have put them out of business. Then there's the infamous Sony rootkit fiasco; let's install a rootkit DRM system on people's computers without their express permission, and hide the fact from them. Both examples of how far the media industry will go to limit what people can do with the content they purchase. Regardless of further extreme examples or the lack thereof, the desire to go that far, or farther, still exists, and given the means and opportunity believe you me that they'd find a way to disable your ears and make you pay a rental fee on being able to hear anything if they thought they could get away with it.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Doesn't that law only cover DRM (Digital Rights Management) on digital storage and connections?

Re: Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Sealed in the sense that you will need to open the case or strip the insulation on the speaker cables to get to the analog signal, thus deliberately circumventing a copy protection measure and making yourself into a criminal thanks to the DMCA.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Chrontius]

Palo Alto's "Cubik" series is a good example. I use them because they're beautiful, well-designed, and sound _very_ good for what I paid for them. They hide the screws as part of a mid century modern aesthetic, and because they don't want to pay to fix speakers that you fucked up. Relying on USB-only audio devices is a questionable decision, but my headset is like that, too - a Logitech G35. Unlike newer modules, the DAC isn't even in the cord, it's inside the tamper-evident screws. Why? Because after passing through the rat's nest of cable behind my desk, analog audio sounds like crap. With digital signaling, either there's enough signal, or there isn't, and I can imagine no circumstances where, with this cable length, the audio won't be bit-perfect when it hits the speakers.

These replaced the very-much-analog Klipsch speakers which were fiddly, fragile, and prone to loose connections because "clip a wire to it" has some downsides to match its advantages.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[thyrial]

So, I guess Cory Doctorow has never heard of a Digital to Analog Converter (DAC), eh? Also, if this happens, there will be about 5,000 adapters to use analog earbuds/headphones with the data stream; and again, there's that pesky DAC... So, in reality, this is nothing more than a tempest in a DRM-free teapot.

I'm imagining this as a 'WarGames' era Acoustic Coupler....which ,while being totally impractical , I would actually love.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point of DRM. The stream of bits coming out of the iPhone can be encrypted and must be decrypted before the DAC can take place. The decryption keys will only exist in approved devices (speakers or headphones).

Ahh, so for this to work, all already existing Lightning headphones (you know, the ones selling for over a year now) would have to be replaced. Gee, the evil conspiracy is so obvious now.

Re:Idiotic Argument

[Obfuscant]

No, see, I'm sorry but you're wrong,

Hardly.

The recording industry clearly does want to stop ALL piracy of ALL kinds.

What they would like to happen and what they know they can accomplish are two very different things. You are talking about what they think they can do when you claim they are technologically ignorant. And YOU are wrong. My descriptions of cost/benefit analysis when applying security measures are quite accurate and apply to this situation. They KNOW they won't stop 100% of piracy by making it harder to copy, because they know it is only making it harder, not impossible. They understand the technology a lot better than you do, it seems.

the desire to go that far, or farther, still exists,

Desire and belief that it can be accomplished are two different things. Rant about their desire, but you were wrong when you talk about what they think they can actually accomplish.

Bluetooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Bluetooth already "DRM capable"? I'm not a huge audiophile, so mid range earbuds already do the job for my mobile music needs and I haven't sunk hundreds of dollars into headphones. I prefer the common jack, but if I was suddenly asked to use a dongle for it I'd switch to Bluetooth headphones immediately. I'd be doing it primarily for personal convenience, but it'd be nice to not enable unnecessary DRM hassles.

Re:Bluetooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in fact Bluetooth audio doesn't have any DRM on it at all, and you can easily buy a square-inch circuit board that picks it up and spits out SCL/SDA and grab a perfect digital copy.

Re:Bluetooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun with that god awful latency and random drops. BT isn't ready for prime time at all. I've got a Nexus 6P and the signal routinely fails to transmit in my car, and heaven help me if I get a phone call. Also don't try to watch video on anything other than low latency BT, because it's a noticeable delay without the low latency, which is, of course, more expensive and not perfect.

Re:Bluetooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, i listen to music from my andoid phone phone to my BT headphones for hours at a time without a single drop.
Iv'e replaced the phone a few times (same headphones) and have never had an issue.

Re:Bluetooth?

[macs4all]

Have fun with that god awful latency and random drops. BT isn't ready for prime time at all. I've got a Nexus 6P and the signal routinely fails to transmit in my car, and heaven help me if I get a phone call. Also don't try to watch video on anything other than low latency BT, because it's a noticeable delay without the low latency, which is, of course, more expensive and not perfect.

Stupid fuck.

First, who cares about "latency" (do you even know what that means) when there is nothing to compare the delayed-signal to? If we're talking about music, the audio could have 30 MINUTES of latency, and you wouldn't know it.

As for random drops? Get a decent headset/phone.

I don't have bluetooth in my car; but I used my old iPhone 4s with a rental car with Bluetooth (a Kia Elantra?), and in a week of use, experienced zero dropouts or other idiocy; so now what?

And according to rumor, Apple is using low-latency BT. So, no problems with video-sync.... NEXT!

Apple knows that this is going to be a controversial feature; so I am completely sure they will get it right.

Re:Bluetooth?

[KlomDark]

No you are.

Ever watch a video with BT lag? It's unbearable.

That's the problem we're talking about here, troll.

Re: Bluetooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a LOT of anger issues. What with your username acting like a badge to indicate you are a steadfast Apple advocate, your rude posture is actually tainting the Apple brand.

It might be a good idea to calm down and quit attacking others in the discussion with expletives. If I was an Apple brand manager I'd certainly want to squelch you.

Re:Bluetooth?

[tepples]

Ever watch a video with BT lag? It's unbearable.

Even if the (noninteractive) video is delayed by exactly the number of frames to compensate for a particular Bluetooth audio device's lag? That'd affect pause and seek controls, but not the majority of playback.

Re:Bluetooth?

[macs4all]

Ever watch a video with BT lag? It's unbearable.

Even if the (noninteractive) video is delayed by exactly the number of frames to compensate for a particular Bluetooth audio device's lag? That'd affect pause and seek controls, but not the majority of playback.

And how much "latency" are we talking about, here? Yes, even a hundred milliseconds is very noticeable with video/audio sync; but less than about 50 ms. and most people wouldn't even notice. Less than 20ms and almost no one notices.

Then there's low-latency Bluetooth...

Re:Bluetooth?

[mattyj]

Sounds like your Nexus 6P is garbage. Should have sprung for a real phone.

I listen to to music through BT with my iPhone 10-15 feet away and it's always rock solid. Headphones, Big Jambox, little Jambox, no problem. It's not the technology itself but the cheap, crappy implementations of it on inferior phones that's the problem.

Re: Bluetooth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, ho ho! macs4all (973270) is all proud of himself despite having a micro penis because he registered a username on a website that requires absolutely no proof of identity, allows multiple accounts, and allows anyone else to do the same. He's so awesome!

By the way, rimlicker, some of us have been using Slashdot since day 1 and never registered a username because we don't feel the need. You, on the other hand, are a narcissistic hipster who felt that pushing the Apple brand was so important that you needed to choose a username to do so. In that light, you're far worse than the anonymous commenters you think you're superior to.

Are these people stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can make the signal from the phone to the earpiece digital, but it still has to be converted to analog before the electrical signals can be output to the actual speaker. It can easily be intercepted there if one chooses. Why can they not figure out that if I can hear it, I can record it? There's no way around that basic fact.

What it will really mean

[Kohath]

- You need a small adapter for your regular headphones. This can get lost. So don't lose it.
- They can fit a slightly bigger battery in the phone, so it will last slightly longer
- The phone can be thinner.
- Headphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways. It will no longer get plugged up with pocket lint.
- You can get noise cancelling headphones that are powered by your phone instead of a separate battery
- Charging while listening remains a question? How can you do it? Wireless charging built in? Y-adapter?
- Apple will sell bluetooth earbuds

- People who want attention will complain and make up stories about DRM
- Other people who want attention will complain and make up stories about headphone lock-in (even though there's an adapter for traditional headphones)
- Other people who want attention will complain about the horror of paying $12 of an adapter when they just bought a $600 phone
- Other people who want attention will complain because it's Apple and everything they do is bad
- Other people will defend because it's Apple and everything they do is awesome

- Next year, no one with any practicality will care that much because there's a $12 adapter for regular headphones.

Re:What it will really mean

[NotAPK]

"It will no longer get plugged up with pocket lint."

NotAPK's First Law of Pocket Lint: All openings in an object with a depth-to-width aspect ratio great than 1, if stored in a pocket, will fill up with pocket lint.

Re:What it will really mean

[JasterBobaMereel]

They can fit a slightly bigger battery in the phone, so it will last slightly longer - But the DAC and extra circutry will make this die faster
the Phone can be thinner - so it can more easily bend, and have a slimmer battery so it will die quicker
Headphone port will still break if you yank the cord sideways. It will still get plugged up with pocket lint. - and will cost more to replace
Your headphoens will now drain your battery faster ...
You can't charge and listen

So less convenient, for no gain except for a phone that is even thinner! (Because thinner is better ....?)

Re:What it will really mean

[geek]

Not sure where you get 12$ for an adapter. I don't think Apple has ever sold an adapter that wasn't 29$. Plus, it's a fucking adapter. One more thing to carry/get lost/deal with.

Apple is always bitching about simplification. One button mice, as few cords as possible, thinner etc etc. Then to use their shit you have to buy a gym bag full of fucking adapters for it to work with anything else. It's ridiculous.

That said, those who don't like it can simply buy something else. For me though the problem is that I hate Google more than Apple and refuse to be either companies bitch. I really miss my old feature phone.

Re:What it will really mean

[Kohath]

I pulled the number out of my ass. But you'll obviously be able to get a cheap third-party adapter within a few months.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

- You need a small adapter for your regular headphones. This can get lost. So don't lose it.
- They can fit a slightly bigger battery in the phone, so it will last slightly longer
- The phone can be thinner.
- Headphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways. It will no longer get plugged up with pocket lint.
- You can get noise cancelling headphones that are powered by your phone instead of a separate battery
- Charging while listening remains a question? How can you do it? Wireless charging built in? Y-adapter?
- Apple will sell bluetooth earbuds

- People who want attention will complain and make up stories about DRM
- Other people who want attention will complain and make up stories about headphone lock-in (even though there's an adapter for traditional headphones)
- Other people who want attention will complain about the horror of paying $12 of an adapter when they just bought a $600 phone
- Other people who want attention will complain because it's Apple and everything they do is bad
- Other people will defend because it's Apple and everything they do is awesome

- Next year, no one with any practicality will care that much because there's a $12 adapter for regular headphones.

Great, so one more adapter to buy. I'm being nickel and dime to death. Yeah, it's only $12, but $12 here and $12 there and now I'm broke! I have nothing for that money. Absolutely nothing new I didn't have before for free. Don't lose it? Easier said than done. I just had to buy a new wireless mouse for my laptop because I left it sitting on a chair...had that mouse for a long time, but a momentary brain fart while someone was talking to me as I was standing up and *poof*, it's gone. Even people who are careful lose things, accidents happen!
eadphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways? I fail to see how this will change due to a different connector type...Apple will sell bluetooth earbuds? Probably, but it will suck...bluetooth by it's nature has lag, making it useless for some applications.

overall it's lose lose. It complicates something that is currently simple and high quality with minor benefits and major losses. That doesn't even take into account the potential abuses as described in the article.

Re:What it will really mean

[Kohath]

Why do you think they'll need a DAC now versus before? What did they use before? Magic? Rastlin's Law: Magic drains batteries twice as fast as circuitry.

Re:What it will really mean

[MightyMartian]

Where in your post did you actually deal with what Doctorow was saying?

Re:What it will really mean

[geek]

I pulled the number out of my ass. But you'll obviously be able to get a cheap third-party adapter within a few months.

You think so? Apple has to license anything thats Lightning capable. Do you really think Apple will allow someone to sell a cheaper adapter then their own? Maybe, but unlikely, and especially not in the first few months.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you naive child.

- The battery is going to be thinner, so it will provide LESS charge time.
- The adapters will be expensive.
- The phone is thinner....which provides NO DAMNED BENEFIT at this point except to make it less rugged.
- Except that there is still a thunderbolt port this can happen at
- And you won't be able to use them for very long defeating the point, remember there is less battery life because it's *THINNER*...
- Charging, so now you need an adapter for the headphones that plugs into another adapter for charging...and you were complaining about the 3.5 plug breaking. It's a stupid idea.
- Bluetooth is garbage currently. It wasn't originally intended to do what it's being asked to do and can barely do audio. Bluetooth doesn't work well at all for video. Also you've apparently never tried to use two bluetooth headsets at once to split signal for two people. In short, BT is vastly inferior at this point AND requires it's own batteries, remember how you were talking about using the phone for that? You've literally contradicted yourself.

People ALWAYS care about having to spend more.

Re:What it will really mean

[Kohath]

Nowhere. Music DRM stopped being a topic 10 years ago. It's not coming back.

Re:What it will really mean

[TheDarkMaster]

Good luck finding one adapter with a good DAC which is not expensive.

Re:What it will really mean

[macs4all]

- Next year, no one with any practicality will care that much because there's a $12 adapter for regular headphones.

And you forgot the most important one:

Next year, no one will care because every other phone will copy the iPhone (again/still) and remove the headphone jack as well. (In fact, Apple already isn't the first doing this).

Re:What it will really mean

[macs4all]

So less convenient, for no gain except for a phone that is even thinner! (Because thinner is better ....?)

Considering we started with Bag Phones, yes.

Re:What it will really mean

[TheCastro1689]

All the third party cheap chargers on Amazon are full of shit reviews.

Re:What it will really mean

[Kohath]

For me though the problem is that I hate Google more than Apple and refuse to be either companies bitch.

Is that attitude making you happy? Has it ever?

Consider the pros and cons of just not caring about WTF-ever and just having a nice shiny pocket computer. I like mine.

Re:What it will really mean

[freeze128]

In reality, your $12 adapter will cost $39. There are always licensing fees for proprietary connectors, and the manufacturer has to make money. If it were just a lightning connector on one end, a headphone jack on the other, and just wire in between, it might cost $12. If there is any sort of active component required in between those connectors, expect at least $39.

Re:What it will really mean

[NormalVisual]

You think so? Apple has to license anything thats Lightning capable. Do you really think Apple will allow someone to sell a cheaper adapter then their own?

Unless Apple gets the entire U.S. Customs Service on board with it, there's not much they're going to be able to do, practically. Licensing has not been a particularly big concern for Chinese counterfeiters, nor has the Customs Service.

Re: What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung tried copying Apple by omitting the SD card slot on one of their recent flagship models. The SD card slot is back on the current flagship model. Many of us find this an encouraging development.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me add something to your list:

- People are annoyed about having to have an awkward adapter in their pocket

From first hand experience. I had to use a passive volume control with my HTC One, because the lowest volume was way too loud. It was a high quality Shure part, and it lasted for a reasonable amount of time, still works. But I was so happy when I got to ditch the One and the attenuator with it, and got a different phone. People should really try using another pice of wire and plugs in their pocket before they accept this future.

Re:What it will really mean

[mattyj]

You just spent $700 for a phone, I'm sure another $12 won't break you.

You can already get bluetooth earbuds and the like for a pretty reasonable price. I think everyone should just maybe start using technology that was invented in this century.

Re:What it will really mean

[KingMotley]

Here you go. $7.99: https://www.amazon.com/Bluetoo...

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, god damn zealot! Macs for all? Nearly as bad as saying "Islam for all." You can shove that overpriced, obsolete shit right up your gaping ass.

Like not including an SD card, not having a user accessible file system, or still shipping phones with a puny battery, this is yet another feature that will NOT be "copied." Many of Apple's so-called "features and innovation" are actually ploys to restrict and rape consumers stupid enough to bow down to Apple. Stupid, cock sucking faggots like you will readily bend over an accept anything Tim Cook shoves in, but for the rest of us don't swing that way.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I could up-vote for the Raistlin's Law mention. Instead I can just say well done.

Re:What it will really mean

[jez9999]

Apple is always bitching about simplification. One button mice, as few cords as possible, thinner etc etc.

Thinner isn't simplification, it's just thinner. When we already have stupidly thin phones. Apple has digital anorexia. I wonder whether their roadmap is to get their phones down to 1 Planck length wide?

Re:What it will really mean

[dgatwood]

- You need a small adapter for your regular headphones. This can get lost. So don't lose it.

Losing it isn't the problem. Not having it with you when you need it is the problem. If you only have one pair of headphones, that's fine. It's an unholy level of obnoxious if you think, "Oh, I'll plug my iPhone into my friend's stereo system to listen to a song," and your friend uses an Android phone and doesn't have the specialized adapter, because odds are approximately 100% that you won't have it with you.

- They can fit a slightly bigger battery in the phone, so it will last slightly longer

About two or three minutes, by my math. The headphone jack isn't very big, and doesn't stick that much farther into the device than a lightning port.

- Headphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways. It will no longer get plugged up with pocket lint.

Lightning jacks get clogged at least as badly. And now, if you yank the cord sideways, not only will you break the port, but also you'll be unable to charge your phone. Oh, were you thinking about Bluetooth? Hope you like losing five seconds of audio every time you pause playback and restart it.

- You can get noise cancelling headphones that are powered by your phone instead of a separate battery

You can do that now. Nothing prevents headphone companies from building headphones with a Lightning connector. And they'll work all the way back to the iPhone 5.

- Charging while listening remains a question? How can you do it? Wireless charging built in? Y-adapter?

Two Lightning ports, I hope. Otherwise, this design is a disaster rivaled in the entire history of computing only by the current single-port MacBook.

- Apple will sell bluetooth earbuds

Which will suck because there's not enough space inside an earbud for a battery that will last longer than an hour or two under the best of circumstances. Apple will then insist that you need to grow bigger ears.

Re:What it will really mean

[lgw]

You don't need to have any Google presence on your Android phone if you don't want the Google store. Heck, if they still sell Fire phones, those were good build quality - people didn't like them because the Google part was missing.

Re:What it will really mean

[lgw]

He's talking about streaming services, which the industry really doesn't like.

Re:What it will really mean

[citylivin]

For me though the problem is that I hate Google more than Apple and refuse to be either companies bitch.

Is that attitude making you happy? Has it ever?

Yup! Feature phones rock.

Pros:
- not a zombie
- not being tracked everywhere i go via passive bluetooth, "applications", wireless, or simply IMEI
- having a week of standby battery time at least
- phone boots in 30 seconds max
- can say to people "oh sorry my phone doesn't text!" and then not have to be pulled into asinine one word per message SMS conversations
- never tempted to text and drive or view social media while driving
- don't feel listless and depressed when the battery runs low (which as i understand it, happens daily)
- not a brainwashed zombie who can't sit and think for 2 minutes without getting bored and whipping out their phone

Cons:
- Don't have the ability to work when not at work. (hey wait a minute, thats not a con!)
- eventually the networks will not support my phone any longer, which makes me sad.
- have to plan what I'm doing outside the house BEFORE i go outside. (seeing as i have been doing that for 30 years prior to celphones arrival, its not really a problem for me)

Re:What it will really mean

[swb]

I thought the deal with lightning accessories, including the 30 pin-lightning adapter was the magic Apple chip inside the adapter containing some cryptographic signature that let Apple validate it was "Made for iPhone" and allowed them to collect their licensing fee.

When the lightning port was added to iPhones, it was MONTHS before there were many third party accessories, even charging-only accessories. Maybe the Chinese figured out how to make charging-only cables or how to fake the chip to make the phone accept something not made by Apple.

But I would expect an audio accessory that depends on more than a low voltage DC handshake to activate charging and likely has to have more intelligence will be harder to fake and harder to avoid sending 25% to Apple for each one.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can see Mac users are pretty used to carrying a fist-full of adapters everywhere these days anyway.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Headphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways. It will no longer get plugged up with pocket lint.

Um what? I can break a lightning cord by pulling on it sideways.

People who want attention will complain and make up stories about DRM

Um what? Because never before in the history of DRM has there ever been overreach or abuse.

Other people who want attention will complain and make up stories about headphone lock-in (even though there's an adapter for traditional headphones)

Having to buy an adapter IS lock in. Either you pay Apple for the adapter and they get their $$ or you pay a third party and they pay Apple licensing $$

Next year, no one with any practicality will care that much because there's a $12 adapter for regular headphones.

Except for pragmatic people that realize it's a $12 tax they didn't have to pay before...

Re:What it will really mean

[dgatwood]

There's a huge difference between Mac users and iPhone users. A Mac user, on average, carries the laptop around in a bag that has room for carrying a few random adapters without thinking about it. An iPhone user, on average carries a phone around in his or her back pocket.

Re:What it will really mean

[LynnwoodRooster]

The DAC in the phone runs off of already-regulated voltage rails. For an MFi DAC, you get power (up to 100 mA, mind you - no more) from the phone that is unregulated, then need to do local regulation - as well as maintain additional digital handshaking. So there will be more power lost with the external DAC. Plus the fussiness of having Yet Another Thing To Carry...

Re:What it will really mean

[LynnwoodRooster]

Good luck buying an MFi chip without getting prior Apple approval (of your company AND the product, ensuring it meets all Apple requirements such as single interfaces, etc.) via registering with Apple, then submitting your MFi Certification results. You can't buy the chips without doing that. Sure, you can get some grey market chips, but that market is spotty as Apple tends to shut down folks reselling MFi authentication chips.

Re:What it will really mean

[mjwx]

- Headphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways.

Was this really an issue with Iphones?

I've owned all manner of Android phones, MP3 devices and Walkmans and never had this happen. I got my first CD Walkman in 1997 back in Australia... You meant to tell me an Iphone not but 15 years later than my CD Walkman is far more fragile?

In ever 3.5mm port I've ever owned, the headphone has been the first thing to break.

Re:What it will really mean

[thegarbz]

- Headphone port will no longer break if you yank the cord sideways.

What the heck are you doing with your phone? Practising hammer throw?

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect any battery benefit from getting rid of the jack will be lost by making the phone thinner at the same time. Our phones are substantially handicapped by their quest to be thinner, especially in battery life.

Re:What it will really mean

[Kohath]

Um what? I can break a lightning cord by pulling on it sideways.

I don't think you can break the lightning port in the phone. The cable will just unplug before the phone can be damaged.

Re:What it will really mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Well before I had a "smart" phone I used to have a feature phone and a dedicated music player. I've returned to that and there is a decent market for them. Fiio, iBasso, Onkyo, Cowon, etc. People will say carrying a dongle is less hassle or get wireless... however I'm enjoying portable music now more than I ever have in the last 8 years I've lived with the iPhone 3,4,5,6,etc... So now iTunes for me stores podcasts where I hear people talk... If I want to enjoy music I'll use my "real" solution.

Re:What it will really mean

[ThatsMyNick]

Looks like you really have a lot of things to get off your chest. Glad you got the chance to do so.

Re:What it will really mean

[Rexdude]

You can get noise cancelling headphones that are powered by your phone instead of a separate battery

Newsflash, Sony already provides such headphones as accessories for its Xperia range of smartphones, which still have analog jacks.

Screw DRM

[p51d007]

I don't have an apple product, most of the music I listen to today, comes from spotify/pandora, which has to be compressed I'm sure to make it not suck up a ton of data, and it's usually played through bluetooth into the shaker sound system in my Mustang. That, and my hearing pretty much rolls off around 13k, if that! So, I'm NOT "pixel peeping" for sound. And, the music I listen to is old school rock, blues, country from the 70's. All originally recorded in analog. Now, given that, if they start invoking DRM into what I listen to, I'll just put a ton of MP3's back on my phone.

not what i expect

[eyenot]

When I heard that the iPhone was "missing" the headphone jack, my first thought was "good call".

Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."

Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts.

I guess you could get all crazy in your head about DRM and shit but as someone else points out, at the end of the day however the sound is delivered it must end up being converted into a signal that can be used by standard speakers or headphones.

The only way around that is if Apple plans on making it so you have only two options:
* play the sound directly through the iPhone's built-in speaker
* send the sound via some Apple-proprietary encrypted cousin of bluetooth to one of Apple's own special speaker systems that if they get large enough to entertain a party probably cost many thousands of dollars

If that's the direction they're going to go I'd like to imagine it's going to be a complete failure because people don't have the money or wherewithal to spend on special speakers from Apple (the computer company, not the music company).

But then again you only have to know a handful of Apple users to understand that they would do exactly that, and would be glad to go broke doing it.

Re:not what i expect

[Berkyjay]

Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."

I highly doubt this is the #1 complaint. I doubt it's the #100 complaint.

Re:not what i expect

[Kohath]

The #1 complaint is "I saved $86 getting an Android phone instead, so Apple sucks balls".

Re:not what i expect

[eyenot]

Heh. Maybe you just haven't done enough phone repair. The entire world of tech doesn't fit inside a review blog, you know.

http://www.alphr.com/apple-iph...

Re:not what i expect

[JasterBobaMereel]

There are devices with a headphone socket that is sealed and waterproof ... this is not usually the entry point for water on most devices ...

Re:not what i expect

[cpotoso]

Because it is so technically difficult to make the headphone jack be water proof? Of course it is not. Stop making stupid arguments to defend Apple, fan boy.

Re:not what i expect

[arth1]

There are devices with a headphone socket that is sealed and waterproof ... this is not usually the entry point for water on most devices ...

Indeed. Sony had a waterproof Walkman or two back in the 80s, so the technology isn't exactly new.
The mic and speaker are bigger concerns for humidity getting in.

Re:not what i expect

[Berkyjay]

I used to sell Jeep's when I was younger. From my perspective everyone I met at work wanted to buy a Jeep. So I guess I should extrapolate that out to assume that everyone everywhere wanted a Jeep right?

Re:not what i expect

[avandesande]

It's very easy to engineer a waterproof headphone jack and I believe this has been used on Galaxy S4/S5.

Re:not what i expect

[avandesande]

How about $286

Re:not what i expect

[MightyMartian]

How much longer before Android devices start appearing without the jack? How much longer, as Doctorow suggests, before the music industry starts insisting on getting rid of analog ports entirely, and DRM is put in place so that even with a dongle, you're still faced with the limitations that DRM put in place? Then, of course, it will carry on to computer manufacturers, and you'll be using USB speakers and headphones on them, and the music industry will get the end-to-end DRM on music just like they're getting with video.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not like waterproofing requires a lot of high-end materials or is otherwise prohibitively expensive/difficult.

Heck I've been using a $40 waterproof Walmart android burner for the past 6 months and have been pretty pleased with it (Kyocera Hydro Air). Kind of crazy that these $600+ flagships even have a market when it's clearly possible to build and sell a phone with all the features 99% of people care about for well under $100.

Re:not what i expect

[tlhIngan]

How much longer before Android devices start appearing without the jack? How much longer, as Doctorow suggests, before the music industry starts insisting on getting rid of analog ports entirely, and DRM is put in place so that even with a dongle, you're still faced with the limitations that DRM put in place? Then, of course, it will carry on to computer manufacturers, and you'll be using USB speakers and headphones on them, and the music industry will get the end-to-end DRM on music just like they're getting with video.

Android phones without headphone jacks are shipping RIGHT NOW. Apple's been out-innovated here - their musings of getting rid of the jack has lead to LeEco (a high-end Chinese manufacturer) to do it on their entire line of phones. And one of the latest Motorola phones lacks it as well.

As for "analog hole" - don't worry. You will need to realize that you cannot process digital data. USB headphones and speakers exist, and many people use and prefer them because of the cleaner audio path (instead of putting a DAC and sensitive analog electronics right next to noisy digital devices, you move it out of the case). Or if you're fancy, you use HDMI to do it.

If you subscribe to the audio theory of keeping it in the digital domain until you're at the power amplifier, you're using digital interconnects everywhere.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

My Sony Xperia has a headphone jack and is waterproof. Apple could leave it and still make the phone waterproof. Clearly they want to remove it for some other reason.

Re:not what i expect

[macs4all]

If that's the direction they're going to go I'd like to imagine it's going to be a complete failure because people don't have the money or wherewithal to spend on special speakers from Apple (the computer company, not the music company).

Not to mention the fact that Apple actually tried to sell a set of amplified speakers back in the heyday of the iPod, and it was a dismal failure. Not because they sucked (they didn't); but because it just wasn't the right product for Apple.

Re:not what i expect

[macs4all]

Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."

I highly doubt this is the #1 complaint. I doubt it's the #100 complaint.

Outside of the Apple-Hating walls of this site, you'd be wrong. Very wrong.

Re:not what i expect

[macs4all]

The #1 complaint is "I saved $86 getting an Android phone instead, so Apple sucks balls".

You mean "All I saved was a paltry $86 getting an Android phone instead, and it has 10 vulnerabilities that will never get fixed, and now one Russian and three Chinese Servers have all my personal information..."

Re:not what i expect

[macs4all]

There are devices with a headphone socket that is sealed and waterproof ... this is not usually the entry point for water on most devices ...

You mean like the not-so-water-resistant-after-all Galaxy S7?

Re:not what i expect

[macs4all]

Because it is so technically difficult to make the headphone jack be water proof? Of course it is not. Stop making stupid arguments to defend Apple, fan boy.

Apparently, Samsung is finding that it is, indeed...

Re:not what i expect

[danbob999]

many Android phones are doing just fine with both IP67 certification (underwater) and a 3.5mm jack.

Re:not what i expect

[chispito]

It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."

Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole

That's not a difficult entry point to seal off. The speaker and mic are, I believe, much more difficult.

Re:not what i expect

[Berkyjay]

Sorry, but I don't reside in these so-called "Apple-Hating walls". I in fact own many Apple devices and I live and work around many MANY people who use said devices themselves. Not once have I ever heard or read any complaints about the iPhone not being waterproof. So I have serious doubts about your claims and will require some sort of proof as to their validity.

Re:not what i expect

[tepples]

How much longer before Android devices start appearing without the jack?

For the near future, the royalty for a sound card with a USB C plug will probably be far less than the royalty for a sound card with a Lightning plug.

Re: not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't the kind of product Apple could mark up the price to the profit point they expect.

Re:not what i expect

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts

Waterproofing a headphone jack is trivial. I've done it myself to a variety of consumer gear- there's nothing to it, really.

Yes, water may get inside the jack itself, but if the jack is sealed properly there's nowhere for the water to go. Shake it out or blow it out and you're back in business. In most cases residual water in the jack won't even affect the connectivity once a plug is inserted. The metal-to-metal contact area forces water out of the way and the connection works just fine.

Re:not what i expect

[macs4all]

Sorry, but I don't reside in these so-called "Apple-Hating walls". I in fact own many Apple devices and I live and work around many MANY people who use said devices themselves. Not once have I ever heard or read any complaints about the iPhone not being waterproof. So I have serious doubts about your claims and will require some sort of proof as to their validity.

Sorry to lump you into the Apple-Hater camp. There is just so much of it on this site it gets hard to distinguish.

I would say that, back when no one claimed water-resistance on their smartphones, you would have been right; but now that Samsung has lied about the water resistance of some of their phones (but, full disclosure, I have a friend that has an S4 that he claims to have taken some in-the-pool underwater shots with), there is increasing pressure on Apple to add this capability.

Re: not what i expect

[macs4all]

It wasn't the kind of product Apple could mark up the price to the profit point they expect.

More like it wasn't the kind of product people would look to Apple for.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about google also having it all as well.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Battery life seems much more common to me. Maybe how easy the screens crack a distant 10th. Water damage, never heard anyone complain about that. If you drop a phone in water you generally blame yourself not the phone.

Re:not what i expect

[Berkyjay]

Sorry to lump you into the Apple-Hater camp.

It's all good. I can definitely see the desire for a water resistant phone.....I'm thinking of all the dog ears people will put on fishes in their Snapchat feed. I just don't think it's the #1 desire (complaint) however. It certainly doesn't trump losing the headphone jack IMO. Given my limited sample of the world, I hear a lot of complaints about the pending loss of the headphone jack.

Re:not what i expect

[SuseLover]

When I heard that the iPhone was "missing" the headphone jack, my first thought was "good call".

Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."

Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts.

I guess you could get all crazy in your head about DRM and shit but as someone else points out, at the end of the day however the sound is delivered it must end up being converted into a signal that can be used by standard speakers or headphones.

The only way around that is if Apple plans on making it so you have only two options: * play the sound directly through the iPhone's built-in speaker * send the sound via some Apple-proprietary encrypted cousin of bluetooth to one of Apple's own special speaker systems that if they get large enough to entertain a party probably cost many thousands of dollars

If that's the direction they're going to go I'd like to imagine it's going to be a complete failure because people don't have the money or wherewithal to spend on special speakers from Apple (the computer company, not the music company).

But then again you only have to know a handful of Apple users to understand that they would do exactly that, and would be glad to go broke doing it.

A waterproof receptacle IS possible to design, all this digital bullshit is unnecessary - it only has to work up to about 22KHz. Why add even more unnecessary digital circuitry to do what used to take all of one or two transistors to do? Every connection in the audio path introduces more noise.

Re:not what i expect

[Straif]

You're own link points to the fact that 2 of the 3 S7 models (the S7 and S7 Edge) passed Consumer reports water resistant test; only the Active failed (oddly enough) but was fully covered by warranty. How many iPhones 6's have the same level water resistance (5 feet for 30 minutes)?

Re:not what i expect

[Sir_Eptishous]

Since you appear to be one of the many Apple apologists on the site, you may find the following interesting:
I never listen to music on my Android phone. Never.
I don't get why people do that.
I want my phone to be for everything else. Browsing, apps, email, text, etc

When I want a device to listen to music when I'm on public transit, riding my bike, etc I use only one of several iPods I own.
I have always just converted anything to mp3 and then put it on my iPods.
So to me this whole discussion is interesting from my viewpoint.

If Apple ever decides the iPod gives me DRM problems(won't allow me to put mp3s on their device) I will find something else to use.
My iPods are my only Apple products.

Re:not what i expect

[gnasher719]

You're own link points to the fact that 2 of the 3 S7 models (the S7 and S7 Edge) passed Consumer reports water resistant test; only the Active failed (oddly enough) but was fully covered by warranty. How many iPhones 6's have the same level water resistance (5 feet for 30 minutes)?

The iPhone 6 and 6s are as water resistant as Apple promises. Samsung makes promises for the Active that are apparently just lies.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Not waterproof but holds well against submersion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GHIEoVplvw
USB and headphones ports are open. Display does not function well under water, but resumes normal functionality once dried out. Same for mic and speakers.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a twat. Very few people drop their fucking phones in fucking water. It's not a commoon thing, depsite what you seem to belive.

Re:not what i expect

[jittles]

When I heard that the iPhone was "missing" the headphone jack, my first thought was "good call".

Here you have this insanely popular electronic device that people have with them at all times, and what's the number one complaint about it? No, no, /. friends, no, it's not planned obsolescence. It's "this thing dies if it so much as looks at water."

Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts.

I guess you could get all crazy in your head about DRM and shit but as someone else points out, at the end of the day however the sound is delivered it must end up being converted into a signal that can be used by standard speakers or headphones.

The only way around that is if Apple plans on making it so you have only two options: * play the sound directly through the iPhone's built-in speaker * send the sound via some Apple-proprietary encrypted cousin of bluetooth to one of Apple's own special speaker systems that if they get large enough to entertain a party probably cost many thousands of dollars

If that's the direction they're going to go I'd like to imagine it's going to be a complete failure because people don't have the money or wherewithal to spend on special speakers from Apple (the computer company, not the music company).

But then again you only have to know a handful of Apple users to understand that they would do exactly that, and would be glad to go broke doing it.

They aren't getting right of the big giant hole for the lightning connector. You know that, right? So there were still be a gaping hole on the bottom and I expect its far more dangerous to have water in your lightning plug than your mini stereo jack receptacle.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

There are devices with a headphone socket that is sealed and waterproof ... this is not usually the entry point for water on most devices ...

You mean like the not-so-water-resistant-after-all [consumerreports.org] Galaxy S7?

More like the Moto G 2015 (video), which runs $400 less.

Not bulletproof, but if the back cover is properly fastened, it's rated for IPX7. So it isn't likely to survive pressurized water, but it should survive a dunking.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least Apple does not get to decide what you can and cannot do with your phone and you don't have to deal with the iPhone's user interface.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The article doesn't say it was the headphone jack that failed.
2) Their other lines of phones worked as advertised.

You're not helping your case as much as you think you are.

Re:not what i expect

[coolsnowmen]

Water prood iPod's w/ headphone jacks exist. My friend uses it when she swims. Something like this: http://www.underwateraudio.com...

Re:not what i expect

[coolsnowmen]

In fact, as I think about it. If you phone->speaker underwater, you need a cord. Bluetooth can't make it through even pool water.

Re:not what i expect

[thegarbz]

Well if you're going to try to take care of that problem one thing you might go for right away is getting rid of that crazy big hole in the top that by its very nature of design is all about exposed metal contacts.

Or just ... you know .... replace it with a water proof one like one of the many thousands which have existed since the 80s.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

I saved about $500 buying an Android phone.

Re:not what i expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo! We have a winner!

Re:not what i expect

[shutdown -p now]

Now you're switching goalposts - "top cause of repairs" is very, very different from "top complaint".

I know quite a lot of people who use smartphones - not techies, just your regular casual users. Do you know how many of them have ever complained about their phone dying due to exposure to water? Zero. But they do complain about plenty of other stuff, mostly software.

Re:not what i expect

[eyenot]

Who's moving goalposts?

You're the one talking like you socialize with a large enough group of people to warrant taking a sample of what some of them sometimes say and extrapolating it to the extent of "number one causes of".

Re:not what i expect

[eyenot]

Maybe I didn't stress enough how very little exposure to water is needed to break the Apple mobile/pocket products.

But whatevs, the discussion is dead now.

I'm waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

For the digital speaker, I guess it would require brain implants of some kind.

Audio has to be analog to be heard you imbecile.

Phones did not always have regular headphone jacks

[Anonymous Coward]

So how is this news? Just because Apple will no longer have a standard headphone jack? Other manufacturers such as Motorola, Samsung, LG have used miniUSB and other custom connections for headphones and this did not make anyone unhappy? They've all since changed over to the standard 1/8 inch headphone jack with no problems and no fanfare. Apple is the bad guy here?

Slippery Slope

[jwymanm]

All it takes is one popular vendor to cater to media groups and then it will only be a matter of time until all devices of the same class have to be compliant with no analog outputs for XYZ media app to run. Of course this is what starts to happen when companies begin to profit from media instead of/in addition to their own products. It's like some huge force coming in with a wrecking ball.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

MFI program is Apple 'drm'. Apple can dictate the capabilities and the headphones that connect directly to the port. Think about Apple owning beats.

Re:Bullshit

[macs4all]

MFI program is Apple 'drm'. Apple can dictate the capabilities and the headphones that connect directly to the port. Think about Apple owning beats.

Bluetooth audio has no DRM. And they certainly allow a bunch of NON-MFI-Approved cables and adapters already.

Apple understands that this is going to be a sensitive feature, marketing-wise; so I doubt seriously, in their position as marketshare underdog in the phone market, whether they would even begin to think they could get away with a dickish move like requiring DRMed earbuds/headphones, even if they wanted to (which I honestly don't believe they do).

Re:Bullshit

[LynnwoodRooster]

MFI program is Apple 'drm'. Apple can dictate the capabilities and the headphones that connect directly to the port. Think about Apple owning beats.

Bluetooth audio has no DRM. And they certainly allow a bunch of NON-MFI-Approved cables and adapters already.

Really? What cables and adapters? Because other sources say otherwise, and - since I have developed MFi products before - I know you must have an actual MFi authentication chip in order to negotiate with iOS to enable basically anything. Getting the chips requires enrolling in the MFi program, providing Apple with full details of what you want to make (and it better be compliant with the 1000+ page spec updated every 2 months), show that it passes all MFi certification testing, and then you can buy your MFi authentication chips (rather, your manufacturer can - you, the brand or designer, cannot - it is bought only by the manufacturer).

Now, you can get grey market chips (buy out overstock units) but that's a dicey market to deal in because it's not a steady supply. So you choice is play ball with Apple or don't play at all.

The elephant in the room is Bluetooth

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already capture a flawless digital audio stream with any capable Bluetooth receiver. There's no DRM on Bluetooth audio. So why would anyone use the headphone jack for this anyway?

speakers will always be analog

[kimvette]

Speakers will always be analog so the easy workaround would be to source "digital speakers" that utilise a single high quality full-range driver, snip the leads to the driver and hook up a LOC and record the analog level coming out of the LOC. There will always be an "analog hole" which can be used to bypass any and all DRM.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[richieb]

"Approved" speakers will take in digital input and decrypt just before playing the sound. What you are proposing is bypassing DRM, which currently is not legal...

Re:speakers will always be analog

[kimvette]

Your point?

Re:speakers will always be analog

[Howitzer86]

Yes. You will become a felon, face heavy fines, and prison time for plugging two wires into where your speaker used to be. But they could threaten the death penalty and people will still do it.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[Anonymous Coward]

You like using your favorite headphones or PC speakers or whatever? Too bad, bitch. Buy the Apple-approved kind. You can choose from 2 whole styles! (speakers or earbuds) ...or you can buy a cheap unapproved adapter from some shady Chinese manufacturer and hope that Apple doesn't play DRM whack-a-mole.

(sure, you can do either and capture the analog sound after it decrypts the stream to create a DRM-free version)

Oh, and if the new DRM-capable connector takes off, expect the same on other new phones and things that currently have headphone jacks.
Oh, and if that happens, expect companies to phase out headphone jacks altogether when the masses stop buying them.
Oh, and if you want to play your purchased (not owned - owned is so passe) music on another device, expect to BUY IT AGAIN.
Oh, and if that happens, don't expect your new speakers to play your DRM-stripped recordings at all.
Oh, and if (existing) song-identification software is used to identify DRM-stripped recordings, don't expect to keep the files for long.

Apple wouldn't go and delete your music now, would they?

Hope you have backups stored on old machines that don't do any of this crap.
And a stockpile of old speakers and headphones that can connect to it.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are proposing is bypassing DRM, which currently is not legal...

Arguing that you bypassed DRM by sampling the voltages off of an analog circuit with no digital processing is going to be an interesting thing to see. You might as well argue that recording the sound from the speakers with a microphone is bypassing DRM as well.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[stealth_finger]

Even so, microphone in front of the speaker and it's all for nothing.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - isn't that how HDMI audio works? Even the cable has to be "compliant", right?

RO

Re: speakers will always be analog

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple already has an established history of deleting music files off their customers hardware.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[ArtemaOne]

No, you're clearly not bypassing the DRM. There is no DRM at that point to bypass. It's a pure analog audio signal. No DRM.

Re:speakers will always be analog

[thegarbz]

decrypt just before playing the sound

You missed the point. The only reason this worked on monitors is because there's 2.3 million analogue signals to record after the DRM process. With speakers there's only 2. If you can make stereo sound, we can record it in damn excellent quality.

The music 'industry' has it all wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Record labels screw artists
Record labels screw the consumer
  -insights piracy, which also screws the artist

Its time for the consumers and artists to screw the labels.

Re:The music 'industry' has it all wrong.

[Falos]

incites*

A few weeks ago...

[QuietLagoon]

The media content industry wants to get rid of all analogue output jacks because an analogue jack cannot be locked down. .

The media content industry has already done away with analogue video output jacks. Now they are focusing on audio.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetooth

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In which a a stereo bluetooth speaker is paired with a pair of bluetooth microphones, encased in a soundproof case. To make DRM music non-DRM, simply play it to the bluetooth speaker and record to MP3 from the bluetooth microphones.

Interesting article

[campuscodi]

A very interesting article. But people fail to understand that there are other phone vendors besides Apple. Unless all of them remove the jack, then we have no problem. Apple has a problem. No user in his right mind would consider buying a jack-less iPhone. I bought my first phone just because of the integrated MP3/radio player, not the ability to make calls. That was secondary. I never heard anyone say anything good about Bluetooth transmissions. So let's see if Apple pulls it off, but I doubt it.

Re:Interesting article

[macs4all]

A very interesting article. But people fail to understand that there are other phone vendors besides Apple. Unless all of them remove the jack, then we have no problem. Apple has a problem. No user in his right mind would consider buying a jack-less iPhone. I bought my first phone just because of the integrated MP3/radio player, not the ability to make calls. That was secondary. I never heard anyone say anything good about Bluetooth transmissions. So let's see if Apple pulls it off, but I doubt it.

Better begin to like (or at least accept) "jackless" phones. Apple already isn't the first, and if history is any predictor, if Apple does away with the headphone jack, you won't be able to find 5 phones with one by next year, and zero in two more years.

Re:Interesting article

[Straif]

... if history is any predictor, if Apple does away with the headphone jack, you won't be able to find 5 phones with one by next year, and zero in two more years.

Is that why it's so hard to find a smartphone with SD expansion .. oh wait.

Re: Interesting article

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung tried to remove SD a generation back. They put it back in on their current generation.

Mostly it's just Google and Apple who don't like the SD slot on moble devices.

Re:Interesting article

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's also why phones don't have styli available, nor removeable batteries, too!

Re:Interesting article

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has a problem. No user in his right mind would consider buying a jack-less iPhone.

You do realize this is Apple customers we are talking about?

Joe Six-Pack Won't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe Six-Pack doesn't care, as long as "the approved interface" let's him hear the music.
He'll happily pay, and pay, and pay again, if that's what it takes to hear his top 40 tunes.
That's what the **IAAs are counting on.

Re:Joe Six-Pack Won't care

[macs4all]

Joe Six-Pack doesn't care, as long as "the approved interface" let's him hear the music. He'll happily pay, and pay, and pay again, if that's what it takes to hear his top 40 tunes. That's what the **IAAs are counting on.

And so, the ONLY company who has EVER gone up against the **IAAs to REMOVE DRM (and won, to EVERYONE's BENEFIT!!!), is now going to reverse that stance and partner with them to ADD DRM to the EXACT thing they argued against having DRM?

You Haters sure are a stupid lot.

Re:Joe Six-Pack Won't care

[Anonymous Coward]

That was when someone else held the reins. Glorious Leader has gone on to a better place, leaving mere mortals in charge.

Sure, logically based on past behaviour there is no way Apple would go out of their way like this to add DRM. But as they say in finance, past performance does not guarantee future results. What they will do is uncertain at best, and you're just as stupid as the "haters" for your blind faith.

Apple did the world a great service by getting the industry to drop DRM on music. Maybe they will continue to do right. Maybe not. Some scepticism isn't unwarranted.

Re:Joe Six-Pack Won't care

[Anonymous Coward]

How are we stupid?
It's apple who's stupid for going against their old stance.

Re:Joe Six-Pack Won't care

[nitehawk214]

"Joe Six-Pack" would be fine with going back to cassettes if it came to that. What are the going to do make a DRM tape player?

Re:Joe Six-Pack Won't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, like a lot of companies they gave away free shit to gain market share. I guess they now think they have enough and it's now time to gouge you all even more.

So long my dear iPhone, it's been good but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they drop the audio jack I won't (partly on principle, partly because I have devices that still have a line in) be upgrading my iPhone. So looks like the one I have now will be the last iPhone I ever own. I'll look back fondly on using it, but for this one consumer out of billions Apple have just pushed their Appleness too far and alienated me as a customer.

Put a mike to the speakers

[sjbe]

If Apple creates a circumstance where the only way to get audio off its products is through an interface that is DRM-capable...

Idiotic statement. There is ALWAYS a bulletproof way to get audio off any device that can play it. It won't be a perfect copy but until they can outlaw speakers we can always just do what we did when I was growing up and record it by putting a mic up to the speakers. Works just fine unless you are a snob about it.

Re:Put a mike to the speakers

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just outlaw speakers that can't process DRM. Then try playing your non-DRM music.

DRM NOT DETECTED - FILE DELETED

Nothing good comes to those who are complacent.

Headphone Jacks are useful for other things

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of other uses for headphone Jacks that are used in diy projects. At one point I wanted to use an android tablet at a touch screen interface to a photo booth that I put together which running on an old laptop. I was struggling getting bluetooth to connect and didn't want to rely on wifi, but I did find some code that would perform spectrum analysis on audio and retrieve touch tone phone sounds. I was then able to throw together an android app that would generate different phone tones when different touchscreen buttons were pressed. Then I wired this tablet from the audio out jack to the mic jack of the computer and I was able to detect 4 different buttons (start, print current photo, flip forwards, and flip backwards). I have also encountered other projects that used the audio jack for more interesting things.

Obligatory Malda

[drfishy]

No removable storage. Less headphone jack than a Galaxy. Lame.

Re:Phones did not always have regular headphone ja

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. My HTC G1 had a USB audio jack and needed an adapter to play audio on release.

It was more than one Android update, I think, before Bluetooth was working. Then I was freed again.

FWIW, I've used Bluetooth from the beginning, the Jabra ugly thing and all, on my Sony T637. First stereo set was a Altec Backbeat 906. Never looked back.

I welcome our wireless audio overlords. DRM is futile.

Mitigation is NOT THE POINT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mitigation is NOT THE POINT.

Re:Mitigation is NOT THE POINT!

[HelpTheNewOverlord]

How do you think the sound is played today? It comes in digital format, and then it is converted just before putting it in the headphone jack.

Now they will do it on the ear bud side, but it is still the SAME process.

It is not mitigation, it is the same signal! But some inches away sure...

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[Anonymous Coward]

With a generation and DAC/ADC loss. BT also isn't a true hi-fi protocol either, as it does less than CD quality. For someone listening to Coldplay on a bus to the coffee ship, that is fine. For someone listening to tracks on a decent stereo system... fail.

Company that spends billions to acquire headphone

[Rinikusu]

company... removes headphone jack.

Seems legit.

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[Anonymous Coward]

In which a a stereo bluetooth speaker is paired with a pair of bluetooth microphones, encased in a soundproof case. To make DRM music non-DRM, simply play it to the bluetooth speaker and record to MP3 from the bluetooth microphones.

Try to photocopy a dollar bill.

Get off their dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off their dick.

Re:Get off their dick.

[macs4all]

Get off their dick.

How is what I said untrue?

Re:Get off their dick.

[jedidiah]

Apple didn't do anything. The industry decided to undermine the monopoly they handed Apple on a silver platter.

Meanwhile, ALL of Apple's other content is still quite DRM infested.

It's like you are all trapped in 2003 and music is all that there is.

Re:Get off their dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple didn't do anything. The industry decided to undermine the monopoly they handed Apple on a silver platter.

Yeah, they undermined Apple's "monopoly" by doing what Apple had told them to do from the start. Over and over, publicly.

Meanwhile, ALL of Apple's other content is still quite DRM infested.

It's like you are all trapped in 2003 and music is all that there is.

Yeah, just like on Google Play and Amazon. Apart from Apps - and that's why piracy is the norm on Android. Someone sure is trapped.

Bluetooth Audio?

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, so Apple is going to not only ditch the analog TRS connector, but also going to get rid of the DRM-less Bluetooth A2DP standard we've all been using for years, because they want to throw their entire music strategy in reverse and go BACK to DRM, inviting useability hassles and customer complaints, and instantly making their devices incompatible with 100% of all playback devices on the market today?

Seems like a legit strategy. Or a lot of paranoid hand waving.

Re:and nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: Refugees already exceed 0.56% and it hasn't even hit.

heartbreakingly naive

[PMuse]

they'd be heartbreakingly naive in assuming that this wouldn't give rise to demands for DRM,

No, they'd be lying. Does anyone believe that they have not already received demands for such DRM? Surely, they've been receiving such demands for years.

Just buy a bluetooth audio receiver

[Anonymous Coward]

I already have this already and I plug my earphones into it with a regular 3,5mm jack. The thing even supports APT-X and lets me control playback without getting my phone out of my pocket.
It also contains a microphone which allows it to be used as a headset. Problem solved.

Re:Just buy a bluetooth audio receiver

[danbob999]

which drains the battery even faster and requires a second battery (for the bluetooth receiver). All this for no benefit.

Apple Arrogant, but not Stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

By removing the analog audio jack from the iphone, it gets rid of the D/A converting in the iphone used for music. This is interesting because Apple has to make a choice that can now be an option, just how good should the D/A converter be. By removing it, Apple no longer has to make a compromise choice that fits in their build budget. End Users can then make the choice of just how good they want the D/A converter to be by choosing the appropriately priced headphones. Someone might by $400 dollar headphones with state of the art D/A conversion and someone else might choose $20 dollar headphones with a basic D/A converter.

Of course, if they include some sort of DRM in the headphone, it will be DOA. Apple isn't stupid, arrogant maybe, but not stupid.

Re:Apple Arrogant, but not Stupid...

[Straif]

Apple isn't stupid, arrogant maybe, but not stupid.

But in many instances arrogance can lead to stupidity. Puck Mouse anyone? Metal cased phones that ground out the cellular antenna if you 'hold them wrong'? Phablets that bend at unexceptionably low pressure values?

Apple make a lot of nice things but that doesn't prevent them from doing some very stupid things. They usually get their act together at some point but that has sometimes meant abandoning the path they were on and going back to what worked.

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[MachineShedFred]

It depends on the transport being used for the Bluetooth audio. If you're using the ass-old first generation SBC codecs in the A2DP profile, yeah it's terrible. If you're using the new aptX stuff in Bluetooth 4.0, it's better.

The point is, every consumer pays

[netsavior]

Every person who buys an iPhone with no headphone jack will end up paying an extra amount of money for some shitty dongle or even shittier iPhone Beats by Dr Drm.

Consumers will be the losers in a war with no win condition. As many people have mentioned, it will simply be ripped after the port instead of at the port. Meaning all of this industry re-tooling will do nothing against imaginary pirates, and plenty of measurable harm for poor sods who pay for the things they want to license.

Re:The point is, every consumer pays

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question, do people actually use headphones for phones?
I've never done that ever.
What's the point? To look like a douchebag talking to himself in the street?
To get run over because you didn't hear traffic?
They can get rid of the head phone jack and nothing of value will be lost.

Re:The point is, every consumer pays

[netsavior]

I think everybody? I don't know where you live, but it is rare to see someone with a 6 inch screen plastered against their face around here. Nearly everybody uses a hands-free of some kind, wired seem more common than bluetooth because they work better.

[Restricted Comment]

[wardrich86]

This comment is only viewable with an OmniTronic MegaView Monitor running the latest software. Please upgrade your monitor to view this comment.

The analog hole is alive and well even with that

[gweihir]

May just require some tools. If they think they can lock down music completely, then they are mistaken.

This alarmism makes it almost sound like....

[jkg2]

...all 1/8" stereo jacks are being removed from ALL devices EVERYWHERE BECAUSE DRM AND EVIL RECORD COMPANIES!! Now, i am certainly no supporter of DRM or fanatical rights holders, but at the same time there is more in the world than just iPhones and Apple crap you know...

Finally!

[DrPeper]

Apple has in NO way EVER been a technology leader. They have never invented any of the technology that is used in their products, and never will. It was only a matter of time time until they screwed up so completely that they removed themselves from the technology equation completely.

There's always a way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1. Get the Lightning earbuds.
Step 2. Strip out the little speakers.
Step 3. Take the Leads going to the speakers and solder them to the terminals of a microphone jack on a device.
Step 4. play your music in the iPhone and hit record on your device.

I may be oversimplifying a little, you may have to measure the driving current and such to ensure you don't blow out the recording device, but that's simple enough.

Speakers, especially really tiny ones like for earbuds are usually analog anyway. There's always going to be a vuln in the chain. Somewhere.

Hell you can still take a recorder and put it up to the phone speaker or the earbuds themselves...

Re:and nothing of value was lost

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint for you: 99.44% was a joke, and refers to the advertised purity of Ivory Soap.

Beats by Tim

[tepples]

Apple actually tried to sell a set of amplified speakers back in the heyday of the iPod, and it was a dismal failure. Not because they sucked (they didn't); but because it just wasn't the right product for Apple.

Apple has since bought Beats. What does that change?

play, record

[holophrastic]

It was 1985. I was 5. I got my first boombox -- i.e. ghetto-blaster. It ran either through mains or via 12 D-cell batteries. It had detachable speakers -- each the size of twenty iphones. It had dual-cassette players. It had am/fm radio.

It had a record button.

Push the record button, and it recorded whatever what playing -- cassette or radio.

It had high-speed dubbing.

DRM exists within the audio player, good for it. Your desktop speakers have no such intelligence. Between the two, is your sound card. Any decent $20 sound card, and just about every on-board sound device, has no trouble recording whatever it's putting out.

Play anything you like in Windows. Grab any recording software, and hit record. Choose the source as the "output mix" from your sound card.

This ain't new. Thirty years ago, I recorded live radio. Since then we've had napster, altervista, ftp, bbs, and torrents. You can take it all away with DRM if you like. Play anything you want off of youtube, and hit record. It's not difficult.

And it all comes down to the very same thing. It's not your music when you use my equipment to play it. It's that simple.
.

Re:play, record

[JustNiz]

> Play anything you like in Windows. Grab any recording software, and hit record. Choose the source as the "output mix" from your sound card.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft decided to actively prevent Windows users from using the sound output as an input recording source quite a while back, for exactly that reason.
You can obviously still do it in Linux.

Re:play, record

[holophrastic]

I've no evidence of that, but I'm still on vista primarily. But even if "windows" removed the sound output source, your sound card has its own.

Music Industry and game streamers

[Joe_Dragon]

Music Industry and game streamers

What about them? the Music Industry says they don't have the rights to rebroadcast that music in the game be them doing on there own or even as part of the people who are making the game.

Also they are forcing bars to pay Jukebox fees for pinball games that are playing their music.

Missed the mark by 3 inches.

[Hylandr]

With a digital stream it might not be nearly so easy, or risk-free.

The earpieces are still Analog voice coils. Splice into the line 3 inches past the 'drm / digital block' and solder the positive side into the 3.5 mm jack and leave the ground disconnected to prevent ground loop hum.

You were saying?

DRM companies should pay for the collateral damage

[Anonymous Coward]

As we saw with video, piracy has turned out to be a nearly perfect solution to DRM. Nearly. There's a collateral damage issue which needs to be addressed, though.

If you're no longer allowed to play what you buy, then you stop buying it. This results in the DRM people getting what they want (reduced revenue) and the users getting what they want (the content). Everyone wins.

I still buy CDs, but if they stop selling CDs and places like bandcamp go DRM, then I guess I'll start getting music for free. I don't understand why music people would want to go non-commercial, but maybe it's some hippie "artistic integrity" thing and I'm not going to argue with them too hard, if it ends up saving me lots of money. When we went through all this with video, Hollywood taught us: if someone wants you to keep your money, don't fight it.

And while it felt "weird" at first, now it feels normal. I think when music goes DRM, we'll all adjust to piracy much faster than how the video transition went. The video industry conditioned us to see piracy as not only acceptable, but even required (if you're not pirating yet, your friends see you as being "part of the problem" and will always be trying to help you get your system setup). And then music also has much smaller filesizes. The upshot is that I think the DRM agenda should be able to move very quickly on getting people to stop paying. It'll happen overnight.

BUT.

My concern is that not all musicians necessarily want to stop getting paid. This isn't a homogenous group; it's a mixture of different types of people. What we saw with TV and movies, is that once former-customers set up piracy systems and structures (both social and technical) to handle the companies that didn't want to get paid (the ones who use DRM), those systems tended to automatically also harvest files for the ones who are were still trying to run businesses. When you tell your system, "go get me X" it doesn't look up to see if X's copyright holders are serious or not, and your tools don't say "Wait, there's actually a DRM-free version for sale." Instead, it just gets done and you've got the files, ready to use.

I think DRM usage should have something kind of like the "media tax" that other countries have. If you publish works that are DRMed, you should be forced to pay into a pool to subsidize the people who aren't using DRM, to compensate them for the lost sales that your DRM caused by encouraging piracy.

What do you think? Would this work?

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you go to play that non-DRM recording on some other device that also doesn't have a headphone jack, because it's a bright new post-3.5mm future.

"Attention listener, we regret to inform you that this audio recording has been found to be lacking DRM encyrption. The audio recording has been identified as [SONG] from [ALBUM] by [ARTIST] on [LABEL]. Serious fines and criminal charges can be laid on those who attempt to play illegally obtained music. The file has been deleted for your safety and convenience."

"Attention listener, we regret to inform you that this audio recording has been found to be lacking DRM encyrption. The audio recording could not be identified. Serious fines and criminal charges can be laid on those who attempt to play illegally obtained music. The file has been deleted for your safety and convenience."

"Attention listener, we regret to inform you that this audio recording has been found to be lacking DRM encyrption. This is your third offense. A drone has been dispatched to your current GPS location."

CAPTCHA: kidnaps

Don't look at me.

[PopeRatzo]

I still play vinyl records. You can have the music I purchased when you wrest it from my cold, dead ears.

Re:Don't look at me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I still play a GUITAR.

DRM *that*, motherfuckers.

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is already ahead of that: next year's DRM-enabled speakers will only play when placed in a sealed vacuum.
To listen to music, you'll have to buy an iBreathe(r) air-filled helmet. It'll be perfectly spherical, white, carry an Apple logo, and sell for $399.

There'll be a line around the block at the Apple Store when it's introduced.

Video is just as vulnerable, if you have $$$

[davidwr]

It's "technically" trivial to use the analog hole for video at any commonly-used-in-TV resolution.

It's just very expensive. But you only have to do it once. Or, more precisely, someone has to do it once, then distribute the results.

A very expensive way that is all but guaranteed to work is to put the video through a very large display (projection-TV anyone?) then sample every pixel with a good-enough, fast-enough (and small-enough) sampler.

Now, "good-enough, fast-enough, and small-enough" translates into very expensive, at least right now. But the principle of the thing is so simple that even the DRM-industry executives should be able to understand it.

Now, this method won't work for copying non-video data, but if they are worried about lost sales of movies and songs (vs. books, games and other software) then it's probably the video and audio that they are worried about protecting the most.

The only thing killing the jack means to me is

[JustNiz]

to completely eliminate me from ever being a potential iPhone customer.

This reminds me this Napster article ...

[dougmc]

This development reminds me of the things predicted this article from 2001. The article itself was written about Napster, but it's written in the vein of all the bad things that could happen *in the future* after Napster is gotten rid of, and the banning of analog inputs/outputs was a large part of it.

Now, his timeline was obviously way too fast, but moving analog headphone jacks would fit into his vision -- he does talk about the "hoarding of analog speakers", after all. (Which is kind of ridiculous, as ultimately, even a set of speakers with a digital interface ultimately has an analog speaker making the actual sound, but whatever.) If analog sound outputs do go the way of the dodo (Apple's move certainly doesn't take us there, but it could be the first step in a several decade process that does) ... then a complete DRM path like we're seeing with a lot of HD video now might actually happen.

In a similar vein, RMS The Right to Read dystopian short story (written about software and reading freedom rather than sound countent, but still similar) may actually be coming closer to reality, though he set his time frame further ahead -- 2096, 100 years in the future -- so we can't really say he predicted it or not yet.

I bet most pirates don't need true HD quality

[JosephDoeden]

They will still pirate lower quality films and music. DRM is useless. You can always just record the output and with the proliferation of higher end audio and video recording it seems DRM would loss more sales than it would gain and not stop piracy at all. It also costs money to implement and maintain. Perhaps most important is that people tend to hate it.

How exactly do you "cement a possibility"?

[sjonke]

Is that like guaranteeing that it might be true?

Good news for hoarders !

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like my large collection of antique Walkman style cassette players and boxes of cheap MP3 players could be worth quite a bit on ebay in the future !

And my psychiatrist says I'm a compulsive hoarder. No just a wise investor !!!

HAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Steve Jobs famously convinced the record industry to remove the DRM from music on iTunes"
This was only after everyone else drop the DRM from MP3.

So what's the problem?

[Karlt1]

The usual argument is that with DRM you don't own the media. Well when I buy a song from iTunes it doesn't have DRM -- I own the media. When I pay for a subscription service. I pay for it knowing in advance that when I stop subscribing. I no longer have the right to listen to it.

Re:Company that spends billions to acquire headpho

[nitehawk214]

To make people rebuy those expensive headphones? You're goddamn right.

Analog Hole

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is having a wet dream over this.

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[LynnwoodRooster]

And it's still lags behind CD quality...

other things to gradualy take away (in order)

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the cameras, the screen, then all physical buttons, then all ports, then the circuit boards, and finaly the battery and sell it as an overpriced slab of non functional plastic and metal

At this point, I am sure there will still be iDiots that would pay
  hundreds for this new pretend phone.

But Apple killed DRM in music

[jader3rd]

When iTunes first came out, nearly all of the music was DRM'd. And then to compete with Amazon Music, they killed it. Why do these people fear that Apple is trying really hard to reintroduce it?

Apple is the new Sony.

[Anonymous Coward]

Making hardware products and owning music distribution. Yeah, that'll totally work out... NOT!

By now, seeing what has and is happening to Sony, Apple should be a lot wiser.

Why not push a Jobs one and market world music from other places with no DRM? That would be cool and cool is exactly what Apple needs now.

Apple naive? No, Cory is naive

[Dahamma]

As Joe Rogan once said on News Radio: "this is the Internet. You can't take the pee out of the pool."

The record labels lost the DRM war over 6 years ago, when Apple abandoned all DRM for iTunes music. Apple still has almost 65% of the purchase & download music market, so they basically get to dictate the terms to the studios.

In fact, that's why the movie studios have been so unwavering in their demands for DRM on video content (as well as the fairly absurd pricing model). They are doing everything they can to prevent the same thing happening to them that happened to the music industry...

Touch typing

[tepples]

You didn't need to buy new hands to use a touch keyboard though

Are you sure about that? My hands can't tell whether or not the thumbs are centered over the keys of an on-screen keyboard. With a physical keyboard, I could touch-type while keeping my eyes on the text I'm writing rather than the keys. It's ironic that a "touch" screen doesn't allow "touch" typing.

Apple is GAY anyway who would buy one?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want wired they want everything over the air. Anything over the air can be snooped.

Never buy Apple anything, you will regret it later.

Re:This just makes me want to invent AirGapBluetoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Better, but still not as good as two pieces of wire.

Reality

[radarskiy]

Every iPhone for sale right now comes with a headphone jack.
Some Android phones for sale right now do not come with a headphone jack.

Yet somehow it is Apple that is at fault for removing headphone jacks.

Nope

[allo]

It just leads to the top selling product of the digital to analog converter. And as long as this exists (and it will exist for a long time, because most headphones are analog) there is no DRM on this.

BlueTooth

[Metal Cutter]

What are you doing? I haven't used a 1/8 mechanical plug in years. Why does this even matter?

Re:Company that spends billions to acquire headpho

[dizdar]

Correction .... Company that spends billions to acquire headphone company which sells it's wireless headphones at a $100 premium .... removes headphone jack.

The same people that buy iPhones b/c they are made by Apple are the same people who buy Beats by Dre b/c of all the hype behind them. It's a brilliant business move. Will definitely sell more wireless Beats once this phone comes out.