Apple Uses "DRM" In Headphones For New Shuffle

[Vincent Ferrari]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/15/third-party-ipod-shuffle-headphones-will-require-apple-licensed/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/15/...apple-licensed/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Sigh, it looks like Apple's habit of squeezing iPod accessory manufacturers for license fees has now extended to freaking headphones -- iLounge is reporting that the new iPod shuffle can only be controlled by headphones with a special hardware authentication chip. That means that third parties will have to pay Apple for the privilege of making shuffle-compatible accessories, and you can bet they'll just pass that cost right on to consumers -- we wouldn't expect any cheap headphone adapters or inexpensive replacement headphones for this thing."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1237166372.usr18053.jpg" /></p><p>I'm so tired of the idiots making this uproar.&nbsp; Really. There's no requirement to buy a new Shuffle.&nbsp; If your old one works, fine.&nbsp; Enjoy it.&nbsp; If it doesn't, but an old one if you simply must use your $4,000 custom moulded headphones on a $79 music player.&nbsp; As usual, the "everything must be free" people forget to examine the obvious: <strong>these aren't regular headphones.</strong>&nbsp; They're the remote control for the player unit that sits in your pocket.&nbsp; They <strong>do more</strong> than just put the music into that cavernous void you call a skull; they actually <strong>are</strong> the controls for the device, so of course they aren't going to be standard buds, and of course Apple is going to put a chip in there to do its thing.</p><p>Has Apple "locked out" third parties?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; The same ones who proudly stamped that "Made for iPod" logo on their stuff can still make Shuffle headphones or adapters if they so choose.&nbsp; If you weren't in that program and just producing plain vanilla headphones, then your buds ain't gonna work here.&nbsp; Sorry.</p><p>Am I happy that Apple took the controls off the Shuffle itself?&nbsp; Not terribly, but the frothing seething outrage over this stupid little chip and the association of it with the most famous boogeyman of the modern era, DRM, is laughable to say the least.&nbsp; Get over it people and tell the guy next to you with a gun at your temple that you're an independent enough thinker to not buy a device you don't like.</p><p>End rant.</p>

[Dyvim]

While I don't really get all the uproar over the new shuffle and agree with your "If you don't like it, then don't buy it" mentality, I do think Apple has gone a little far with the chip thing. I understand that the controls are in the earbuds. I actually really like the remote controls on my iPhone earbuds (which lack the volume controls). But they didn't have to put in a requirement for an Apple authentication chip. Note that even my Apple-made iPhone earbuds with mic and remote won't work with the shuffle (sure they don't have volume but the action button should work for play\pause\prev\next\etc). This is different than what happened with the iPhone: headphone makers were required to produce adaptors or new headphones to include the iPhone mic\remote feature, but they didn't have to license an Apple chip to do so. This time apparently they will have to license this chip and said cost will be past on to consumers. I see no reason why relatively new headphones made last year for iPhone shouldn't work (minus volume control) with the shuffle- if they had an inline volume slider, then you'd have volume control too, but they won't. Anyway, on that level, it's hard to see this move as anything but yet another cash grab by Apple.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Anyway, on that level, it's hard to see this move as anything but yet another cash grab by Apple.

You're probably 100% right, but in the end, if no one buys into it, it'll be the last time. The truth is, as someone noted previously (either here or on Digital Home Thoughts) most people are perfectly happy with the included earbuds, so for a good chunk of the population, this discussion means nothing. If you already own $200 headphones, there's a good chance you won't be plugging them into a Shuffle anyway.

There is a target market for the Shuffle. If you don't like it or something about it, it may not be for you. That's how I look at all Apple products in general.

[Dyvim]

You're probably 100% right, but in the end, if no one buys into it, it'll be the last time.
I bet these things sell like hotcakes despite all the outrage in the blogosphere.
The truth is, as someone noted previously (either here or on Digital Home Thoughts) most people are perfectly happy with the included earbuds, so for a good chunk of the population, this discussion means nothing. If you already own $200 headphones, there's a good chance you won't be plugging them into a Shuffle anyway.
I'm more of a $15 headphone guy than a $200 headphone guy. My issue is that I never really liked earbuds at all- I've always preferred the old Walkman style headphones with an arc that rests on top of your head. I'm using the included earbuds with my iPhone when I'm out and about despite my gripes about the earbud fit solely because I find the remote so handy. But that's a no go in the gym because the earbuds definitely won't stay in then. I might consider this shuffle if there were cheap alternate headsets available, but they probably never will be. I suppose I could use an adapter but then the convenient (for me) placement of the remote is lost since the adaptor will either be right next to where it plugs into the shuffle or else you'll have a cable management problem (too much cord) if the adaptor is made long. The advent of the authentication chip pretty much rules out cheap 3rd party alternatives. Oh well.

People will be really pissed in a year or two when Apple releases the next shuffle where the earbuds ARE the shuffle.:rolleyes:

[crimsonsky]

If you already own $200 headphones, there's a good chance you won't be plugging them into a Shuffle anyway.

Exactly. I'm not going to plug my $400 M-Audio IE-40s into a Shuffle. If I were to buy a Shuffle (and I'm not), I'd probably just stick with the earbuds.

[Janak Parekh]

On cue, iLounge posts a new editorial on the subject with some salacious details (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/editorial-ilounges-editor-on-apple-authentication-and-punishment/). I don't care about the shuffle itself (in fact, comment 9 in the thread suggests it is not DRM), but this "don't discuss" stuff does bother me a bit. Not that I'd expect differently, but I can still be bothered a little. ;)

Update: a nice non-hysteric discussion (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/third-party-headphones-do-require-apple-supplied-chip.ars) on Ars' apple blog.

--janak

[Vincent Ferrari]

On cue, iLounge posts a new editorial on the subject with some salacious details (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/editorial-ilounges-editor-on-apple-authentication-and-punishment/). I don't care about the shuffle itself (in fact, comment 9 in the thread suggests it is not DRM), but this "don't discuss" stuff does bother me a bit. Not that I'd expect differently, but I can still be bothered a little. ;)

--janak

All these critics would have a point IF and ONLY IF the Shuffle used standard headphones and wouldn't work with anything but Apple's buds. The people bitching about the first gen iPhone had a much stronger case than the people complaining about the Shuffle because that was just ludicrous. Even Apple realized it and changed it!

This whole Shuffle thing is, in my opinion, just an excuse for Apple bashers to get their rocks off and for the interminably oppressed to be oppressed even further.

[Janak Parekh]

All these critics would have a point IF and ONLY IF the Shuffle used standard headphones and wouldn't work with anything but Apple's buds. The people bitching about the first gen iPhone had a much stronger case than the people complaining about the Shuffle because that was just ludicrous. Even Apple realized it and changed it! Yeah, that's a specific example why I do believe that it's not a DRM mechanism. The Ars article I just linked to suggested the authentication is there for sanity checking's sake. But people like to get excited over stuff, and Apple manages to polarize like no other. ;)

I personally won't be buying the Shuffle, because I like to use my earbuds. But that's too reasoned a response to talk about...

--janak

[Vincent Ferrari]

I personally won't be buying the Shuffle, because I like to use my earbuds. But that's too reasoned a response to talk about...

--janak

I got it because for what I use it for (the exercise bike / treadmill and house cleaning) it's absolutely perfect. In honesty, it'll probably rarely ever leave my house; that's what I have my iPhone for!

That's why I said that Apple makes things targeted at specific markets / niches. If you don't like a product it's probably because it wasn't intended for you in the first place!

But you're right; that's all way too reasoned.

[Janak Parekh]

I got it because for what I use it for (the exercise bike / treadmill and house cleaning) it's absolutely perfect. In honesty, it'll probably rarely ever leave my house; that's what I have my iPhone for! I'd get it for exercise, but I like more clip-on-style earbuds for that. I'm sure those will be available at some time, and then I'll evaluate it for my workouts, especially now that it has playlist selection (the one major omission from the old units).

--janak

[doogald]

If the problem with the existing Shuffle was the inability to know what was playing, and the inability to have more than one playlist, and the inability to use remote controls, Apple could have added these features - voiceover, playlists, added storage, Lossless support, and support for the remote control earphones that Apple already sells - to the existing Shuffle (which had no other usability problems) rather than this stupid thing, that's for sure.

But Apple's alleged treatment of what they consider unfriendly journalists is frankly Nixonian. They deserve that censure.

[Janak Parekh]

If the problem with the existing Shuffle was the inability to know what was playing, and the inability to have more than one playlist, and the inability to use remote controls, Apple could have added these features - voiceover, playlists, added storage, Lossless support, and support for the remote control earphones that Apple already sells - to the existing Shuffle (which had no other usability problems) rather than this stupid thing, that's for sure. Well, you have to admit that Apple got a lot of free press for doing the crazy thing that they did by making the Shuffle button-free.

But Apple's alleged treatment of what they consider unfriendly journalists is frankly Nixonian. They deserve that censure. Ironically, I think that will get lost in the "whoah DRM592%*@#(!" noise.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

...but the frothing seething outrage over this stupid little chip and the association of it with the most famous boogeyman of the modern era, DRM, is laughable to say the least.

I'll be really interested to see if you have the same attitude when Apple does this across their entire iPod line, iPhone included.

[Vincent Ferrari]

I'll be really interested to see if you have the same attitude when Apple does this across their entire iPod line, iPhone included.

Then you'd have a point, wouldn't you? I mean, then you'd be talking about standard headphones needing a chip to work in which case you're damn right I'd be pissed. That isn't what's happening here, though.

[Jason Dunn]

On cue, iLounge posts a new editorial on the subject...

I'm impressed with the personal integrity shown by the iLounge team - Apple's attitude and treatment of journalists/bloggers is nothing short of deplorable.

[Janak Parekh]

I'm impressed with the personal integrity shown by the iLounge team - Apple's attitude and treatment of journalists/bloggers is nothing short of deplorable. Part of the reason is that iLounge has reached the status that they can do this. Most smaller bloggers can't. :( Jeremy Horwitz deserves praise for his stubborn, increasing independence over the years.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

Then you'd have a point, wouldn't you? I mean, then you'd be talking about standard headphones needing a chip to work in which case you're damn right I'd be pissed. That isn't what's happening here, though.

I guess we'll see what happens in the coming months. :) My prediction is that Apple will slowly but surely implement this same technology across their other devices, regardless of whether or not they need to have the controls (every other iPod beyond this new Shuffle has physical or touch-based controls), with Apple's goal being to make money off every pair of headphones that get plugged into every new iPod. And if you don't pay Apple, you can't use their iPod - that's what I think they're moving toward.

Kind of makes me wonder what the solution is for people who use iPods in their car connected to a 3.5mm jack - not every car has a build-in iPod-specific solution. I bet they'll be a 3.5mm cable that will have the authentication built in, but it's not like there's any advantage there for the consumer - it's basically a tax they'll have to pay to use their iPod in their car.

It's not enough for Apple to own the MP3 player market, and make money off every accessory that plugs into the bottom of an iPod; they want to make money off the headphones too. It's very Napoleon-esque - very Jobsian. Sometimes Apple's control-freak nature is great - it helps them make highly focused, reliable products. Other times, like this, it's just an out of control "we want to rule the world" ego-trip.

If, 24 months from now Apple han't implemented this technology on any of their other products, I'll recant my remarks. :)

[Janak Parekh]

I guess we'll see what happens in the coming months. :) My prediction is that Apple will slowly but surely implement this same technology across their other devices, regardless of whether or not they need to have the controls (every other iPod beyond this new Shuffle has physical or touch-based controls), with Apple's goal being to make money off every pair of headphones that get plugged into every new iPod. And if you don't pay Apple, you can't use their iPod - that's what I think they're moving toward. But, you can use the Shuffle with random headphones - you just can't control it. You're implying that they'll remove on-screen controls off the nano, touch, classic, and iPhone -- or that they'll go further and deny access to regular headphones.

Is it impossible? No. Do I think it's going to happen? No way.

If, 24 months from now Apple han't implemented this technology on any of their other products, I'll recant my remarks. :) Let's be precise -- Apple has added support for the same chip-based inline volume control on the 4th gen nano and the 2nd gen touch -- it's just optional.

--janak

[Dyvim]

Let's be precise -- Apple has added support for the same chip-based inline volume control on the 4th gen nano and the 2nd gen touch -- it's just optional.
And the 120GB iPod Classic as well. Really on all models released since about September 2008.

Edit: not to mention the new late 2008 MacBooks.

[Jason Dunn]

But, you can use the Shuffle with random headphones - you just can't control it.

Having zero control over an MP3 player hardly seems like you're really using it. :confused:

You're implying that they'll remove on-screen controls off the nano, touch, classic, and iPhone

I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote, but no, that's not what I meant. I'm sure physical controls will remain on the other iPods.

...or that they'll go further and deny access to regular headphones. Is it impossible? No. Do I think it's going to happen? No way.

Yes, that's what I believe will happen. I believe that Apple wants to only allow headphones that they make a profit off of to function properly in their iPods. Doing this on the Shuffle was a way to test the waters.

Let's be precise -- Apple has added support for the same chip-based inline volume control on the 4th gen nano and the 2nd gen touch -- it's just optional.

I wonder if that chip technology has the ability to not send any audio out the headphone jack if the chip isn't detected? I bet it does. We'll see what Apple does with that. :)

[Janak Parekh]

Having zero control over an MP3 player hardly seems like you're really using it. :confused: Well, it's not the same as digitally encrypting (or refusing) the music stream, right? ;)

Yes, that's what I believe will happen. I believe that Apple wants to only allow headphones that they make a profit off of to function properly in their iPods. Doing this on the Shuffle was a way to test the waters. Okay. Time will tell. :)

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

Well, it's not the same as digitally encrypting (or refusing) the music stream, right?

Yes, that's correct. But I think it plays at 100% volume, doesn't it? That seems like a non-solution to me.

[Vincent Ferrari]

I'm impressed with the personal integrity shown by the iLounge team - Apple's attitude and treatment of journalists/bloggers is nothing short of deplorable.

Frankly, I'm not. The iLounge team is full of crap.

When Apple introduced the "Made for iPod" program, they were all for it and endorsed the hell out of it. Now their position is "how can anyone not notice this stuff?"

I read that editorial also, and their position is, at best, inconsistent. Horwitz calls out everyone in the blogosphere and puts himself up on a pedestal and at the same time his site, among many others he's criticizing, we're A O K with the program when it started. In fact, he himself backed the very program he's railing on (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/made-for-ipod-central-information-hub).

"What does iLounge think about “Made for iPod?” Though iLounge is an independent resource of iPod information not affiliated with Apple Computer, we editorially support the Made for iPod program to the extent that it provides a guarantee of safety and proper testing of electronic iPod accessories for consumers, and will advise our readers of the Made for iPod status of new iPod accessories we review."

I noticed he never even mentions that he, in his official capacity, endorsed the program in iLounge's name 4 years ago. And don't try to couch it with his stupid caveat. It applies here because these aren't standard headphones. He's turned his back on his earlier opinion without even acknowledging it, and then opened up the shotguns on anyone who hasn't done the same.

If that's integrity, then my view of the word is seriously distorted.