# Apple puts DRM in the new iPod Shuffle product



## WolfoxOkamichan (Mar 17, 2009)

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/03/14/apple-puts-drm-on-new-ipod-shuffle-hardware

tl;dr version - you can't use non-Apple/Apple-registered earphones!


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 17, 2009)

Interesting.  But is it really digital rights management, or just a move towards a proprietary headphone design?  I could see a couple of reasons why a hardware vendor would want to force users to use headphones of theirs or certified designs only.  Impedance matching, volume limiting, quality control.

_"If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft 'authentication chips' in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."_

The irony of this statement is just too much. :razz:  Because there was a time back in the '80's when Microsoft and IBM did just this.  PC-DOS and MS FlightSim 1.0 wouldn't boot on so-called clone machines; unless they had the correct codes embedded in the BIOS.  I suspect the author of the article is to young to recall this heady time.


----------



## ToeClaws (Mar 17, 2009)

Well... not that I EVER planned on stooping low enough to buy an iPod product, but I'll add that to a long list of reasons as to why not to.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 17, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Well... not that I EVER planned on stooping low enough to buy an iPod product, but I'll add that to a long list of reasons as to why not to.



Well, hang on.  It might not be DRM.  Apple was dropping DRM from iTunes, so this seems more rumour or something else more nefarious being blamed on DRM.  Ya gotta hate'm for the right reason!


----------



## LizardKing (Mar 17, 2009)

It'll still sell by the million, but thanks for giving me yet another reason not to buy one.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 17, 2009)

That's interesting, because I distinctly remember reading on Slashdot last night that there is no DRM for the new iPod Shuffle. Not that I particularly care, but I figured I should mention it.

I'm not totally sure about the situation, but the chip seems to do nothing but translate controls from the inline remote; Why this allegedly locks out other headphones, I'm not sure, but lo and behold, all sources tend to say so (and rather insistently and sensationally, at that). From Macworld: "...Apple confirmed that third-party adapters will be available so you can use headphones other than the ones that come with the iPod."

Definitely not defending Apple, here, but people seem to be crying about the sky falling in this case. It's a poor design (the Shuffle always has been), but if adapters are available, there's really no reason to be in an uproar over it except that you'll probably need to buy a $20 controller cable to do with third party headphones what you'd normally do with the Apple-designed POS.


----------



## Armaetus (Mar 17, 2009)

Since I use third party headphones (Philips) which I prefer strongly over the shitty earbuds iPods come with, this is certainly turning me away from buying this from replacing the 1GB Shuffle that still works fine after a year.

If true, fuck you Apple and your controlling, proprietary bullshit ways!


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Mar 17, 2009)

Still, DRM or not, you are still required to have that adapter. Which is shitty! I prefer having universal earphones.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 17, 2009)

Can't beat my iRiver and sony headphones. \o/


----------



## Aden (Mar 17, 2009)

I read an article on this. Nobody knows what the chip _does_. So, obviously, it's Apple trying to control what headphones you use. _Obviously_.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> I read an article on this. Nobody knows what the chip _does_. So, obviously, it's Apple trying to control what headphones you use. _Obviously_.



MASS PANIC

FOX NEWS IS ON THE CASE


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 17, 2009)

Aden said:


> I read an article on this. Nobody knows what the chip _does_. So, obviously, it's Apple trying to control what headphones you use. _Obviously_.



Maybe.  The DRM angle is dodgy at best.  The real question is "why is Apple doing this?"


----------



## net-cat (Mar 17, 2009)

What is this, Slashdot?



			
				TFA said:
			
		

> Apparently *the device will still work and play music,* but you won't be able to change volume or tracks, unless, as mentioned, the headphones have the chip in them.



Okay. Looking at pictures of the new shuffle, it seems to have no actual buttons on it. So, it seems to me that Apple has decided to move these controls onto the headphones themselves. Okay, whatever. I can see where that would be nice, but you should still have controls on the device, too.

So, electrically speaking, headphones can't do that without some help. It's not exceedingly difficult to embed digital signals into an analog signal and still be backward compatible. So that's what they did.

This isn't DRM. It's just a really fucking stupid design.

(Although something like this could very easily turn into DRM. All they have to do is make it so "no chip=no playback." _Then_ it's DRM. Then people like me crack the "official" headphones open, pull the circuit board out and wire up our own shit. Then post pictures of it on the internet.)


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 17, 2009)

There was an article on heise.de this morning. According to _MacWorld_ the chip is for controlling the iPod via voice commandos. *shrugs*


----------



## SuperFurryBonzai (Mar 17, 2009)

thats crap i never liked apple anyways there ideas are great but they can be such buttholes


----------



## Shino (Mar 17, 2009)

Yet another reason why I will never buy an iPod.

I have a Windows Mobile phone with Windows Media Player and a 8GB MicroSD card. What would I want an overpriced locked-down Apple product for?


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Mar 17, 2009)

Good thing I avoid Apple completely.  That way I won't have to worry about stupid things Jobs does.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 17, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> There was an article on heise.de this morning. According to _MacWorld_ the chip is for controlling the iPod via voice commandos. *shrugs*



That could be problematic, voice activated on a noise generating device :razz: .

"volume down"

"volume down, please?"

"VOLUME DOWN DAMNIT!"


----------



## Aden (Mar 18, 2009)

SuperFurryBonzai said:


> thats crap i never liked apple anyways there ideas are great but they can be such buttholes





Shino said:


> Yet another reason why I will never buy an iPod.





LotsOfNothing said:


> Good thing I avoid Apple completely.  That way I won't have to worry about stupid things Jobs does.



And my point goes ignored. This is how these dumbass rumors perpetuate.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Mar 18, 2009)

I was just pointing out that I don't purchase Apple products and that Jobs is stupid.  Don't need to get on _my _case, meanie.  :<


----------



## Aurali (Mar 18, 2009)

Aden said:


> And my point goes ignored. This is how these dumbass rumors perpetuate.



Aden. You know people don't know how to read.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 18, 2009)

This isn't even DRM related _at all._  Does anyone notice that unsightly bulge on the headphone cable?  I don't own an iAnything, but combining my $.02 with
...


> Apparently the device will still work and play music, but you won't be able to change volume or tracks, unless, as mentioned, the headphones have the chip in them.


...
Looks like they've moved the control buttons off the unit itself and onto the headphone cable.  They've just added a lockdown chip between the player and headphones, just like what Nintendo did back in the '80s.

So an ordinary headphone will still work (it's just a pair of dumb speakders after all), but it won't be able to send and receive commands with the player because it doesn't have the circuitry for it.  (And an analog volume control on the headphone cable isn't anything special either, just an everyday adjustable potentiometer.)


----------



## Aden (Mar 18, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> I was just pointing out that I don't purchase Apple products and that Jobs is stupid.  Don't need to get on _my _case, *meanie*.  :<





LotsOfNothing said:


> *meanie*



D:

D: D:


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 18, 2009)

And here I am, using an UNBRANDED MP3 mini player with 2GB storage, that cost me â‚¬20 (for the record, that's $19.000) 2 years back.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Mar 18, 2009)

Aden said:


> D:
> 
> D: D:




YEAH, EXACTLY.   ;~;


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 18, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> That could be problematic, voice activated on a noise generating device :razz: .
> 
> "volume down"
> 
> ...


Hey, nobody said that it was supposed to work outside the test lab. ;-)


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 18, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Hey, nobody said that it was supposed to work outside the test lab. ;-)



_Nothing _works outside the lab....

(and I suspect TC is going to love your new avatar!  )


----------



## Takun (Mar 18, 2009)

Who cares?  It's a fucking shuffle.  =\


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Mar 18, 2009)

But...but Apple is so murry. I helps me photoshit moar dog cocks 10000000x faster than P(C)rap


----------



## Aurali (Mar 18, 2009)

Kitstaa (S.L.A.B) said:


> But...but Apple is so murry. I helps me photoshit moar dog cocks 10000000x faster than P(C)rap



I'm gonna say this once.. the macs at my school are POS.. I ran Photoshop.. drew two lines.. SPINNY COLOR THING OF DEATH!!!

It's all in the specs.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 18, 2009)

Kitstaa (S.L.A.B) said:


> But...but Apple is so murry. I helps me photoshit moar dog cocks 10000000x faster than P(C)rap


Thanks a lot, now you owe me a new irony detector, the last one just exploded xD


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Mar 18, 2009)

Eli said:


> I'm gonna say this once.. the macs at my school are POS.. I ran Photoshop.. drew two lines.. SPINNY COLOR THING OF DEATH!!!
> 
> It's all in the specs.



TYPICAL PC USER MACS NEVAR FAIL


----------



## Aurali (Mar 18, 2009)

Kitstaa (S.L.A.B) said:


> TYPICAL PC USER MACS NEVAR FAIL



FUCK YOU I'M A PENGUIN!

XD


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 18, 2009)

Another thread devolves into a frenzy of Mac vs. Mic fanboyism. *le sigh*


----------



## Masakuni (Mar 18, 2009)

It sure will make some pretty fun times when those headphones give out or you try to replace them with better headphones. Doesn't mean you can't listen to music, just can't fiddle with volume controls. Still lame either way you look at it.

Good thing I don't care that much about any iPods!


----------



## Runefox (Mar 18, 2009)

Hooray for reading the first post and missing the entire rest of the thread that bypasses and dispels the sensationalist journalism that's been floating around the internet and this thread.

Still, I fully support any excuse to make Apple's stock drop.  I can't say I didn't try to dispel the FUD.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Mar 19, 2009)

Again, DRM or not, I still find it stupid that they REQUIRE the latest model to have an adapter for 3rd party (read: cheaper and better) earphones.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 19, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Hooray for reading the first post and missing the entire rest of the thread that bypasses and dispels the sensationalist journalism that's been floating around the internet and this thread.
> 
> Still, I fully support any excuse to make Apple's stock drop.  I can't say I didn't try to dispel the FUD.



Yeah my thoughts exactly.

The controls are in the headset, so you need one made by them with the controls. They basically made it so you need their permission to start making these headsets 3rd party.
I know it's still a clear excuse on their part to get more money, but it's not as serious as it sounds; what Apple SHOULD HAVE DONE is created the ipod with controls and wireless earbuds with the transmitter built into the ipod, meaning the device would have been slightly larger but it would of allowed them to get away with charging for earphones without causing so much bullshit.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 19, 2009)

net-cat said:


> This isn't DRM. It's just a really fucking stupid design.


I didn't see that post of yours, net-cat, and I wager nobody else did either.

Headphones have had optional volume controls on their cables for years, right?


----------



## Corto (Mar 19, 2009)

But not "change track" controls. Besides, if the volume on the player itself is really low, you still won't hear much with your maxed-out headphones.

Meh, I simply won't buy this the same way I haven't bought any iPods by now. The list not to get one, at least for me, is long enough already: I don't like the volume, hate iTunes, don't like the need for a special USB cable and simply don't like the design. I can get better and cheaper players anyway.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 19, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> I didn't see that post of yours, net-cat, and I wager nobody else did either.



No, I saw it.  I just discounted it. 

It was clearly never DRM right from the get go.  Its only "bad design" if its a retrograde move that disregards existing standards and in this case, it appears that there isn't one.  Arguably Apple is trying to define or set the standard for in-band/in-line wired device control.  Its still unclear as to whether Apple will license/patent this or try an open-source approach.  Its premature to call it bad design, time and the market will dictate that soon enough.



> Headphones have had optional volume controls on their cables for years, right?



Correct, but they tend not to override the master volume; just an in-line potentiometer.  In this case, it appears to be the only volume control (other than the software-based limiter on the device itself) so it is the master volume.  And track, scan, cue etc.



NewfDraggie said:


> what Apple SHOULD HAVE DONE is created the ipod with controls and wireless earbuds with the transmitter built into the ipod, meaning the device would have been slightly larger but it would of allowed them to get away with charging for earphones without causing so much bullshit.



Its probably Apple's obsession with battery life/endurance that is keeping integrated bluetooth or bt-like functionality out of the device.    Sure you can snap on a 3rd party wireless FM or BT device, but if it reduces battery endurance, that's not Apples fault.  And they'd have less warranty repair issues to deal with.


----------



## net-cat (Mar 19, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Its only "bad design" if its a retrograde move that disregards existing standards and in this case, it appears that there isn't one.  Arguably Apple is trying to define or set the standard for in-band/in-line wired device control.  Its still unclear as to whether Apple will license/patent this or try an open-source approach.  Its premature to call it bad design, time and the market will dictate that soon enough.


I'm sure it's fine, electrically speaking. The problem I have with it is mechanical. Headphones are dropped, tugged, pulled and generally treated very roughly. Congratulations to Apple for introducing at least two more points of failure into an already very abused mechanical system. (Note: I have this complaint for all in-line volume controls. That's why I don't get headphones that have them.)

This is a problem you often see in consumer-grade EE/CS shops, actually. They assume all materials are invincible in all environments.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 19, 2009)

net-cat said:


> I'm sure it's fine, electrically speaking. The problem I have with it is mechanical. Headphones are dropped, tugged, pulled and generally treated very roughly. Congratulations to Apple for introducing at least two more points of failure into an already very abused mechanical system. (Note: I have this complaint for all in-line volume controls. That's why I don't get headphones that have them.)



I concede that point.  Simplistic, simple, clean designs, by their nature have fewer single points of failure.   You can overcome that with better material science (and risk raising the price point) or just go cheap by design.  Who cares if it breaks if it costs $10.00 every two years?

Now that I've thought about it, the really bad design will be the adaptor for non-apple headphones/earbuds.  That adapter is going to add mass and inertia to the 3mm stereo plug and barrel; and stick out too.  Bettcha the lateral shearing forces will exceed the spec and people will start snapping them off.  



> This is a problem you often see in consumer-grade EE/CS shops, actually. They assume all materials are invincible in all environments.



Er......there's a bit of "planned obsolescence" in there too.  Things that don't break don't tend to get replaced.  I can regale you with RIM testing horror stories.  Our TD guys are pretty rough on their new toys.


----------



## Runefox (Mar 19, 2009)

> Yeah my thoughts exactly.
> 
> The controls are in the headset, so you need one made by them with the controls.


... *facepalm* You didn't read, either.



> Arguably Apple is trying to define or set the standard for in-band/in-line wired device control.


So when Apple does something completely ridiculous like literally taking all control from its media player and forcing in-line controls (which are not in any way standardized and use proprietary Apple hardware), they're setting a standard? Man, the bar's really low nowadays.

If they were trying to create a _standard method_ to pass such controls to a player, and opening those specifications, then yes, they'd be setting a standard, boldly going where no other company has bothered to go. Since it's all Apple-proprietary technology that requires the purchase of said Apple-proprietary technology (either in the form of an adaptor cable or in-line chips like the Apple products) in order to incorporate, it's just a cash grab. While you say that they may be trying to open this up, announcements of selling the chips and providing adaptor cables discount that. Besides, when has Apple ever done something and then open-sourced it, especially where it could directly make them money?


----------



## net-cat (Mar 19, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I concede that point.  Simplistic, simple, clean designs, by their nature have fewer single points of failure.   You can overcome that with better material science (and risk raising the price point) or just go cheap by design.  Who cares if it breaks if it costs $10.00 every two years?


I'd wager dollars to donuts that they didn't risk raising the price point. 



Irreverent said:


> Now that I've thought about it, the really bad design will be the adaptor for non-apple headphones/earbuds.  That adapter is going to add mass and inertia to the 3mm stereo plug and barrel; and stick out too.  Bettcha the lateral shearing forces will exceed the spec and people will start snapping them off.


Heh. Of course. That will be so they can say "oh well you should use the ear buds then."





Irreverent said:


> Er......there's a bit of "planned obsolescence" in there too.  Things that don't break don't tend to get replaced.


Ideally, yes. But Hanlon's Razor applies here, too. "Never assume malice what is adequately explained by stupidity."



Irreverent said:


> I can regale you with RIM testing horror stories.  Our TD guys are pretty rough on their new toys.


There's a saying about making something idiot-proof that I could post here, but I've already used my quota of misanthropic quotations for this post.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 19, 2009)

Runefox said:


> So when Apple does something completely ridiculous like literally taking all control from its media player and forcing in-line controls (which are not in any way standardized and use proprietary Apple hardware), they're setting a standard? Man, the bar's really low nowadays.


Can I make a loose comparison to videogame consoles?  Nobody ever seems to complain about being unable to use, say, a PS2 controller on their Xbox....  (But of course, the videogame market has been like that since day one.)

And come to think of it, I don't see much ruckus over having to use Adobe's own reader to view proprietary PDF's, either.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 19, 2009)

Runefox said:


> So when Apple does something completely ridiculous like literally taking all control from its media player and forcing in-line controls (which are not in any way standardized and use proprietary Apple hardware), they're setting a standard? Man, the bar's really low nowadays.



Sure.  We're not talking about ITEF/RCF peer reviewed standards here, more like a dominate market leader setting a defacto standard.  That bar has alway been really low.



> Besides, when has Apple ever done something and then open-sourced it, especially where it could directly make them money?



Cynically, i agree with you.  But there's always a first time.



net-cat said:


> There's a saying about making something idiot-proof that I could post here, but I've already used my quota of misanthropic quotations for this post.



Its not the idiots you have to worry about, its the semi-skilled techys and other savants that are dangerous.  :razz:  Our TD guys actually use a "four year old protocol" when testings RIMS.....they give it to a four year old for the day and send him to day care.  It comes back a little scuffed, but it always works.  Same said RIM almost never makes it out of marketing alive.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 20, 2009)

I hate it when people get so stuck up their own asses as to create compatibily issues for people who don't have that much money to buy their own over-priced variations of something that *is* the same damn thing!

Who the Hell wants to waste $30 on a tiny pair of earbuds _that'll deteriorate themselves in sic months anyway!_



Irreverent said:


> Interesting.  But is it really digital rights management, or just a move towards a proprietary headphone design?  I could see a couple of reasons why a hardware vendor would want to force users to use headphones of theirs or certified designs only.  Impedance matching, volume limiting, quality control.
> 
> _"If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft 'authentication chips' in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."_
> 
> The irony of this statement is just too much. :razz:  Because there was a time back in the '80's when Microsoft and IBM did just this.  PC-DOS and MS FlightSim 1.0 wouldn't boot on so-called clone machines; unless they had the correct codes embedded in the BIOS.  I suspect the author of the article is to young to recall this heady time.



Wow... You must be *old* then. 



ToeClaws said:


> Well... not that I EVER planned on stooping low enough to buy an iPod product, but I'll add that to a long list of reasons as to why not to.



What if you got for free then? =D


----------



## Runefox (Mar 20, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Can I make a loose comparison to videogame consoles?  Nobody ever seems to complain about being unable to use, say, a PS2 controller on their Xbox....  (But of course, the videogame market has been like that since day one.)


There's a very big difference here, though (aside from the fact that a controller's layout or design can make large differences in playability and general experience, versus headphones are headphones, varying only in quality of production and sound); Audio equipment has used several standards for connections over the years, usually electrically compatible with each other, not to mention a standard method for connecting speakers (headphones) to devices for over a century in the form of TRS connectors (phono plugs). This design has been the standard for headphones since forever, and hence any set of headphones conforming to this standard will work with any audio device that supports it. What Apple is doing is using another line on the TRS plug to transmit data to the iPod. While this isn't especially evil, the point is that without an adaptor or an Apple-sanctioned pair of headphones, _the device, itself, is useless_. It's probably closest in terms of absolute blunder to the Sony MiniDisc players that existed for a while in that nobody, anywhere, used the MD but Sony, and it was required for the player. So, you had to buy specialized media at a premium (during a time when others started shipping with flash memory or hard drives) in order to make use of the hardware, and said media was slow, low-capacity, and generally trash. The same can be said of Apple's headsets - Uncomfortable, poor quality sound, and easily destroyed.

Long story short, it's very different. They're breaking away from the industry standard in an effort to make more money by forcing lock-in upon its customer base. It's a dirty, underhanded tactic that's as blatant as can be, and yet at least one person in this thread heralded it as a defining step in the direction of a new standard. That is, perhaps, correct, but not in the way you might think.



> And come to think of it, I don't see much ruckus over having to use Adobe's own reader to view proprietary PDF's, either.


You don't have to, actually. There are other readers available, like Foxit (which is far superior), and several available for Linux. The same is true here, too - You don't have to buy the Shuffle, or any Apple product, and I'd recommend against it to begin with. Hell, I'd have done so before, but now it's a definite stay the fuck away if you value your money.

I guess it goes to show - once again - that people are willing to buy anything that Apple can come up with, no matter how poorly-designed.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 20, 2009)

Adelio Altomar said:


> Wow... You must be *old* then.



I drink Scotch that is older than half the fandom_......(damn whippersnappers)_


----------



## DJ BassLion (Mar 21, 2009)

fuck ipod, my sony ericsson does the job just as good


----------



## Runefox (Mar 21, 2009)

DJ BassLion said:


> fuck ipod, my sony ericsson does the job just as good



Heh, music phones. I did that for a while with my LG 8100, but the sound quality was compressed and quite bad. My PSP has taken over; Its audio outputs are much more refined, second only to my PC's soundcard in terms of what I've listened to so far.


----------



## Carenath (Mar 22, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> _"If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft 'authentication chips' in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it."_


Im pretty sure Microsoft would have tried this if they could, but for the most part they have already gotten away with 'convincing' others to do things their way, as such they have assured themselves a virtual monopoly on PC systems to the degree where most people and companies assume PCs = Microsoft.
Case in point: Name any major company that DOESNT use windows servers, windows Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange and such in their day-to-day operations.

Apple might be stepping a line too far with this, but its hardly new for a company that used to make it impossible to run any other OS on their hardware but their own, and goes out of its way to prevent their OS running on non-apple hardware. A company that charged iPod touch owners for updates that it gave away free to older iPod users, and iPhone users.


----------



## Irreverent (Mar 22, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Im pretty sure Microsoft would have tried this if they could,



MS already did this, you missed the second part of my post.  Back in the 80's MS/IBM forced people to use their hardware and software instead of clones by manipulating code checks against BIOS locations..  What's old is new again I guess.


----------

