MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

This is just off some guy's blog (unless he has the inside track.)

Let's see some corroboration.

I believe Apple. but it's mainly for all the poor, lost Winblows users out there.

"It's there more to eliminate the specter of junky 2-cent crapphones"

The "Made for iPod" program means that the manufacturer's product has been manufactured to iPod specs, and is certified by Apple to work on the iPod properly.

For this assistance and endorsement the manufacturer pays a stipend to Apple for each unit sold.

"Crapphones" starts with a cheap price, so obviously they won't pay the "Made for iPod" endorsement. But just because they don't pay the fee doesn't necessarily make them "crapphones". It just means they weighted the benefits and didn't find enough value in the program to pay the fee (which I believe is 50¢ per unit sold).

You need to use a proprietary Apple chip, which you can only buy from Apple. Thats DRM.

Remember your Reaganesque "Take," MDN, from a couple weeks ago when it was revealed that Obama wanted to charge higher user fees to wireless carriers?

"Any fees levied on any business will, as usual, be passed along to the end user."

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/obama_wants_more_cash_from_wireless_operators/

How quickly they forget.

I thought MDN consisted of free marketeers. Why do we need Apple to rescue us from the specter of "2 cent crapphones"? Can't I make the decision for myself as an informed shopper? Can't I return the earphones or headphones that I purchased if I didn't like them and try another pair?

Apple and their new extortion chip is an unnecessary barrier that will lead to higher production costs that manufacturers will pass onto the customer. Steve Jobs can take that chip and shove it up his ass.

Mar 16, 09 - 06:32 pm Comment from: Cubert

The Made For iPod tax has got to be a lot less than the Played For Sure tax.

Mar 16, 09 - 06:40 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ LTD

> Let's see some corroboration.

Corroboration which way? Where's the "corroboration" that it's a license authentication chip in the first place. Some third-party "source" sees an integrated chip on the logic board and assumes it's related to license authentication, instead of being a functional component of the control device (which would be the more logical conclusion). There are dozens of chips like that on an iPod's logic board. Oh my... Apple must be enforcing licensing on itself. Some of these blogger and their "sources" are such morons.

Your dislike of this Apple chip has nothing at all to do with "free market" principles and "free marketeers" are being perfectly consistent if they support it. Apple is free to sell, or not sell, whatever it wants (including limits on 3rd party manufacturers), and you are free to buy the product, or not.
More on point, I've read all the links and it just isn't clear at this point whether other manufacturers will be able to build compatible earphones without participating in the "Made for iPod" licensing system. Some claim that this chip will only prevent manufacturers from claiming their products are Made for iPod if they don't license, which should be completely noncontroversial. The facts are still in question.
Jake

Mar 16, 09 - 06:53 pm Comment from: Superior Being

After reading his pedantic tripe for quite some time now, it is wholly unsurprising that this "R2" exhibits no basic understanding of "Reaganesque" laissez-faire capitalism.

No, Potato, that is not DRM. DRM is Digital Rights Management. Gawd, your mom must be SO disappointed in you.

Mar 16, 09 - 06:57 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ Potato Potato

> You need to use a proprietary Apple chip, which you can only buy from Apple. Thats DRM.

First of all, you don't know what "DRM" means. Secondly, third parties can create their own chip that performs the same functions. IF they are using Apple's design (at this time) and paying for the right, it is to expedite the release of new products to exploit this niche that Apple has left open for them, before their competition does.

Apple's plan is working "as planned." So many short-sighted commenters were saying how stupid it was for Apple NOT to have an adapter cable ready at launch. Well, of course Apple could have provided the $19 solution when the new shuffle was released. But they intentionally did not, to provide an added incentive for the third-parties to create clever adapters and earbuds with the controls. It worked. And these new products will benefit ALL iPods and the iPhone.

Apple is thinking two steps ahead, as usual. Apple traded a few lost (or delayed) sales of shuffles in the near term for the long-term cross-product benefit of getting the third parties to add the controls to their accessories.

So what happens if you don't buy "…junky 2-cent crapphones" and fork out big dollars for some quality headphones that don't have the "made for ipod"? Will they work and can you use them for other units?

Them grapes tasting pretty sour, huh, R2?

Mar 16, 09 - 06:59 pm Comment from: LTD*

ken1w:

Agreed.

I just wouldn't mind seeing some more of this news. Much has been made about this mythical Shuffle DRM idea (mostly by Winblows users) and it would be nice to put the issue to rest once ad for all.

As usual, people jumped to a conclusion before all the facts were in.

Please don't waste my time. Go back and re-read the article above, and don't just skim it. Then, read the linked articles. If you did, you would see that all the fuss about DRM and higher costs is a complete non-story.

This is a classic case of bloggers who think they know what they are talking about, but don't. They have no access to hard facts, nor are they experts in the subjects in which they are writing. They have not done their homework, never checked with expert sources, never verified facts, or followed the skeptical jurisprudence that would be the hallmark of good journalism. They rush to judgement and race to be the first to publish before verifying that anything of what they are saying is true.

Often, truth is the victim, as is the case here.

And once the rumors and published assumptions fly, so does the negative publicity. Then, Apple's enemies, competitors and short-sellers get a hold of the untruths, and weave big lies from them in an attempt to damage Apple. And the snowball begins.

This is why I am have little tolerance for self-annointed bloggers at sites like iLounge, Gizmodo, Engadget, C|Net Bryan Chen at Wired, and more. Ditto for the pundits. People like these should not be allowed to use knives and forks.

It's up to us to hold these frigtards accountable. And I lump in the same group many of you who quickly and foolishly rush to judgment. Folks, try not to be and act like lemmings. I'd like to think you're better than your Windows-loving brethren.

THINK!

Ouch, iLounge.

Totally agree. If manufacturers can still create headphones, but just without the made-for-ipod label, then I'm all for it... but it's all too easy for Apple to block out suppliers.

However, if all it does is simply flash up a warning that the attached accessory are not "Made for iPod" and MAY not work properly (but let's face it 99.9% of them WILL work properly) then I'm all for it.

Let consumers choose whether they want to pay the Apple Tax.

WTF is wrong with people? The shuffle needs to distinguish three different buttons, while playing stereo sound, over a four-pin connector. HOW ELSE than with intelligent electronics (i.e., a chip) are you able to do that? And it has been established that the shuffle will put out sound over the standard three-pin connection -- just not controllable. There's no way this is a DRM issue -- just technical problems. And of course Apple needs to protect the connection; the 4-pin jack does even more. Like charging. Which is a potentially dangerous procedure. What happens if a shuffle overheats during charging with a non-licensed charger? Or a crappy controller that short-circuits the battery?

Morons.

Anyone wonder why ilounge didn't check with Apple before making their claims?

I'm a bit itchy.

Mar 16, 09 - 08:12 pm Comment from: disposableidentity

So the chip is totally, functionally necessary for transmitting from the control to the iPod. I don't know how I missed that.

Any way you slice it, designing & fabricating a custom chip would be more expensive for one of these 3rd party accessory manufacturers than just buying them from Apple.

Realistically Apple may be the only company with the Shuffle volume to get these down to a reasonable unit-cost.

"We contend that the chip, is there more to eliminate the specter of junky 2-cent crapphones"

I doubt the chip is there to elimintate anything, rather it is there to make it **WORK*.

"Any way you slice it, designing & fabricating a custom chip would be more expensive for one of these 3rd party accessory manufacturers than just buying them from Apple."

Maybe, but never underestimate the ingenuity of Chinese cloners.

"MacDailyNews Take: Again, Apple simply wants to ensure that third-party products designed to be used with their products actually work."

Why not write: "Again, Apple simply wants to ensure to earn its share on third-party products designed to be used with their products"

I have nothing against Apple's business interest, but sometimes the MDN-takes are a bit over the top.

"I doubt the chip is there to elimintate anything, rather it is there to make it **WORK*"

Headphones are basically a couple of electromagnets on the end of a piece of wire. Their fundamental theory of operation design has not changed in over a hundred years. There's not too much to mess up. There's no need for a "Designed for iPod" logo on 100 year old analog technology. Adding a control chip just adds needless complexity. Also putting something else in the signal path has to have an effect on sound quality.

"Any way you slice it, designing & fabricating a custom chip would be more expensive for one of these 3rd party accessory manufacturers than just buying them from Apple."

Assuming Apple sells them for anywhere near their true cost. What's the chance of that when Apple is the sole supplier and owner of the design?

"HOW ELSE than with intelligent electronics (i.e., a chip) are you able to do that"

Easily. You might remember a device which used a switch acting on a line to indicate a number selected. It's called the pulse dialed telephone, also a very old and established technology.

Personally I couldn't care if Apple taxes every headphone ever made. But be aware this will give you less choice, many companies simply won't be bothered to produce two models of headphone one for the shuffle and one for every other headphone application. And when they do, because they're addressing a much smaller market the headphones will cost more even if it costs only a little more to design and produce. Your other choice is going to be to buy a generic adapter. These are bound to cost around $30 and negate any benefit of the small size and remoteness of the shuffle.

For those reasons I think Apple might just have pushed the majority of it's Shuffle buying market towards $29.95 players which have superior features and don't require an expensive adapter cables to do all the common things you want to do with an mp3 player like connect it to your home stereo or to your car.

This decision results in less choice, lower performance and more expensive peripherals. But lets face it: Apple Fanboys have been able to mentally justify that particular tradeoff for decades. But will the average customer?

Mar 16, 09 - 09:52 pm Comment from: NormM

As people have pointed out, if Apple included a headphone adapter it would discourage the appearance of integrated headphones. Moreover, the controls (and for some ipods the microphone) need to be near the headphone end to be most useful, not stuck at the jack end.

I would have also expected rational people to notice that the new iPod uses the four-wire headphone jack for everything, including syncing and charging. Why is it then surprising that there is some logic embedded in the headphone controls?

Mar 16, 09 - 10:41 pm Comment from: TheConfuzed1

These are not the droids you're looking for.

Mar 16, 09 - 11:00 pm Comment from: Derek in Milan

You know, this is a $70 shuffle we are talking about. If you dont like the product, Apple has a ton of other iPods you can buy.

Or buy the older shuffle - its still for sale on the Apple site.

It would be something if all this righteous indignation was focussed on, oh I dont know - the obvious 911 scam/the way the banks are stealing your money/Bush and Cheney being recognised as liars and war criminals/the erosion of the US constitution?

Shuffle those around a bit - might get your brains working and stop your lips flapping.

The Shuffle - its just a music player.

"Easily. You might remember a device which used a switch acting on a line to indicate a number selected. It's called the pulse dialed telephone, also a very old and established technology."

Do it with just three switches on the line (ONE line). No additional hardware. (Do you remember how much hardware there was in an old mechanic pulse telephone? Until it was integrated into ICs. Guess what we have in the controller of the shuffle :rolleyes:)

"Easily. You might remember a device which used a switch acting on a line to indicate a number selected. It's called the pulse dialed telephone, also a very old and established technology."

Because the other three lines are busy carrying an analog stereo sound signal you don't want to disturb.

Besides, what do you think this chip is beside exactly what you want???

Mar 16, 09 - 11:24 pm Comment from: Mel Gross

Well, at least the DRM part isn't true.

But from looking at the pictures, I'm not sure that the chip couldn't have been incorporated into the iPod itself.

To my knowledge, there has never been a device with a port that could be used for input & output, but also for USB syncing. Maybe the chip converts all the headphone stuff to USB. Or at least somehow allows the single port to do dual functions depending on which cord is plugged into it.

I've been reading about this so-called DRM, or authentication chip, on the internet. The stories prove just how stupid these rumor/conspiracy mongers are.

There is a chip within the new iPod Shuffle and its use is to enable the new remote equipped headset.

It works like this:
Previous models used 4 conductor wiring (left channel audio, right channel audio, microphone and ground). The remote control headset requires a channel for feature signaling. I'm not aware of anyone manufacturing a 5 wire cable of the size used by headset manufacturers. What Apple did to overcome wiring limitations was first introduced commercially by Mitel, Inc. (a Canadian PBX type telephone system manufacturer) in 1985.

Until 1985 featured telephones used 2 pair, 3 pair and 4 pair wiring to support the additional functions/features of electronic PBX telephones. All of that cabling required a Main Distribution Frame (MDF) between the telephones and the PBX. The more pairs required by the telephones the larger the MDF, and the thicker the cable to the telephone, all of which added expense to the final, installed product.

Mitel, Inc. used what was named Control Over Voice digital signaling over an analog voice channel to control the features of the telephone. That digital signaling was transmitted at a frequency well beyond human hearing capabilities. The analog and digital signals could not mix making the sending of two distinct signals over a single pair. Mitel's feature telephone, the Superset 4, used a single wire pair. Therefore, using the most common wire on the market (2 pair) an installer could connect two Superset 4s to the PBX telephone system, while competitors required 4 pair (minimum) to connect a single featured telephone. Mitel's Control Over Voice made the Superset 4 smaller (taking up less desk top space) and more elegant looking (thin, two pair wire). It also made several telephone equipment providers very rich.

Apple uses a common ground for the iPod Shuffle's audio and microphone channels, and is sending control signals over the microphone channel, just as Mitel, Inc. did back in 1985. I sold the Mitel system from 1984 through 1988 for one such telephone company, then brokered surplus/used Mitel equipment through my own firm from 1988 through 2004.

Without Apple's implementation of Control Over Voice, the headset wiring would require another conductor: a 5 wire cable.

No conspiracy here, just a bunch of hit mongering idiots publishing about something they know nothing about

"Easily. You might remember a device which used a switch acting on a line to indicate a number selected. It's called the pulse dialed telephone, also a very old and established technology."

Yah, and in this day and age, what is the cheapest way to generate a consistent pulse? Yup, Apple could have put a rotary dial on your headphone cable, but maybe creating a pulse was easier with a tiny and cheap integrated circuit. Do ya think?

"Do it with just three switches on the line (ONE line)"

Duh, Send 1 pulse for switch 1, 2 for switch2 and 3 for switch 3. You don't need a proprietary IC to do that. In short the signaling part of an old telephone that handles this is just a single switch. Since when did they stop teaching Thinking in school elgarak? You might as well stupidly ask how the one switch in a pulse dial telephone can be used to dial any of the millions of phone numbers in the US.

"Besides, what do you think this chip is beside exactly what you want???"

It seems you have no choice, want it or not you have to have it to make headphones for the shuffle. It's something you have to buy from Apple and pay a license for, adding at least about $10 to the retail price of every product that uses it.

If they published an open spec and left it up to you whether to pay their royalty and buy their chip, that would be a different matter.

But until then, lets not pretend its about anything but control and extra revenue for Apple. And as I said, I'm fine with that, after all that is just business. But lets not pretend that there is something going on here that is necessary or being done for the benefit of consumers.

Mar 17, 09 - 01:58 am Comment from: docmeat

good God, this thread has done me in....endless obsessive bitching and monosyllabic retorts from people who simply need to save their $79 frickin' bucks and go get a Zune...just because Apple ships a product does not mean it will always work for, por be right for you. Grow up peeps.

Mar 17, 09 - 02:27 am Comment from: Mac Daddy

Good God. Relax.

Mar 17, 09 - 02:44 am Comment from: almux

Oh! what can scared competitors not invent by trying to get back some sales!?!?!?!

quote ...........

"There is no encryption or authentication on the chip, so clones could conceivably be made, just not with 'Made for iPod' official certification," Johnson reports.

.... end quote

I suppose Fred von Lohman will be apologizing now for making false alegations against Apple - yet again. Actually, I don't - it seems being the EFF means never having to say you're sorry.

Yes it's not fair when we praise Apple and slam other vendors.

The reason is, Apple makes superior products at a fair price (which means we get value for what we pay).

Thus, we want to continue encouraging companies like Apple to thrive, and try to beat down competitors who hawk inferior products and services that make life more difficult for us (such as having to run Windows at work, although that is getting fixed these days).

Mar 17, 09 - 05:25 am Comment from: mike_in_helsinki

Never seen so many barking asshat clowns in my life over this issue. Looks like a lot of folks have been hit over the head wit the dumbass stick.

Whining, cry babies that have been watching too many conspiracy movies. Same crowd that steals music and movies over the net, now cries like babies with shit in their diapers over fake DRM-in-chip stories. Never grew the fuck up.

Apple Tax: Duh, Send 1 pulse for switch 1, 2 for switch2 and 3 for switch 3. You don't need a proprietary IC to do that.

Yes, that is exactly what you need for that!

Pretty much the only possible purely passive alternative would be resistor encoding (each button producing a different resistance) and an A/D converter in the device distinguishing between them, but that has its own drawbacks, especially in combination with a microphone operating on the same line.

Apple Tax: In short the signaling part of an old telephone that handles this is just a single switch.

No. The old phones had two switches coupled to the mechanical equivalent of a simple sequencer which produced the pulses, which would require - tada! - a chip to emulate digitally. Which is exactly what Apple apparently does.

Given Apple's answer quoted above, it's probably a simple modulator, sending a non-audible frequency over the microphone line, which could be emulated by anybody.

Mar 17, 09 - 06:49 am Comment from: SKY LARK

"Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless." - Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes


Meanwhile ... Excuse me Mel, may I remind you of your comments from yesterday ...

"This is an aspect of Apple we should all protest, even the crazies who run this site. I would have some respect for the writers, and site owners here if they stopped supporting every dastardly deed Apple does.'

"Apple puts this chip in for one reason, to preserve its licensing royalties. That's it. Pure and simple."

"We see Apple's same stance for their App Store, but they don't make sure that programs work well, they just want to collect the 30%, and limit anything that may compete with their own."

"Unfortunately, MDN is mindless. I think you'll find it's about 10 to 1 in agreement over that. The site is a laughingstock even in other Mac rumors sites."

"But to force them to do so through a chip that will keep them out if they don't pay, is another thing altogether. This is blackmail. Pay up or else."

"It's as though a car company charged fees to every tire company selling tires for their machines."
-------
So Mel, MDN were right and yet you asked me to "cool it!" because I challenged your obtrusive banging on about how evil Apple and MDN seem to you, furthermore, I reiterate, your rebuke to @Mel Gross WAS crude, disproportionate, insolent and showing a lack of respect for the prevailing praxis here at MDN.

I know how long you have been commenting here Mel, regardless of that I think that you were / are wrong to assert that many more agreed with your views than disagreed with them, besides, running with the pack is certainly not analogous to being correct, unless you subscribe to mob rule.

However; you are correct that the rascally scamps at MDN have been asked by numerous people to be a bit more solicitous in their comments, nevertheless in spite of these trite requests - MDN, it would seem, Will not lie down. Will not roll over. Will not play dead. Extolling Apple is their raison d’être, I say good on 'em.

Consistent with my comment yesterday, I have not employed a single word here incorrectly ... besides the odd typo or three. That I am "edumacated" and tend towards a pleonastic / articulate style, should not be an issue.

I am so confused.

1. iPod shuffle has ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers.

2. iPod shuffle does not have ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers.

I want to think correctly.
I know Apple has chosen the best alternative for me.
But which one is it?
I want to lock my unbiased opinion already, so that I can explain to myself and numerous others why the chosen alternative is the best. Can I do it already?

The current product is the best: 1. iPod shuffle has ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers.

2. iPod shuffle does not have ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers.

Neither. There is no "authentication chip". Just an encoder chip which transmits the button activation over the microphone line without blocking the microphone.

i believe the chip is actually there specifically to cause a big stir on the internets. it's steve job's masterful plan to get free marketing! everyone is talking about it! ... but it actually does nothing at all except sell ipods!!

FTW!

"it's steve job's masterful plan to get free marketing!"
No news travels faster than bad news

Actually, it's iLounge that's been getting a ton of hits, too, I'd bet!

"1. iPod shuffle has ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers.

2. iPod shuffle does not have ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers."

What we established is that MDN believes that had Apple put DRM in it would be a good thing and had they not put DRM in it would have been a good thing, and if Steve were to reappear and announce that his cancer free diet required him to eat one boiled baby each day that MDN would be advocating that new diet too.

"Pretty much the only possible purely passive alternative would be resistor encoding"

Or DTMF like tones or a train of pulses of varying frequency for each switch, or any of a number of different ways, none of which need a chip. Just think a bit wider, you'll come up with at least half a dozen simple solutions which don't need a chip.

"No. The old phones had two switches"

Sorry buddy, one switch for the dialing part, no chips.

But my main point is "so what"? If Apple opens up the spec of the interface and lets anyone build headphones without a royalty, then we'll know it's not about revenue. If they don't, we'll know it is.

As I said, I don't really care if Apple taxes every headphone but lets at least be self aware enough to know why they've gone the route of a proprietary chip.

Mar 17, 09 - 09:28 am Comment from: ElderNorm

@Apple Tax
"Headphones are basically a couple of electromagnets on the end of a piece of wire."
Well, ah yes.... and a no. That comment makes me think that you do not really have a grasp of reality today or that you are lining up comments to make your own oddball point.

Ear buds today use everything from piezo crystals to ultra mini wire transmission to microphones and circuits that phase swap and delay an outside signal then feed that signal (active noise reduction) back into the ear buds along with the signal.

OH yea and I forgot... drm chips....
PS. you do work for free... right. Just like Apple should. ???

Just a thought.

en

Apple Tax: Or DTMF like tones or a train of pulses of varying frequency for each switch, or any of a number of different ways, none of which need a chip.

All of them involve a chip or a cost- and space-prohibitive number of discrete transistors once you actually try to design such an adapter and don't just fantasize about it.

Apple Tax: Sorry buddy, one switch for the dialing part, no chips.

The ones I've dissected used two switches (one for dial enable and one to generate the pulses) and more importantly a mechanical sequencer which is impossible to replace electronically without active components, under the circumstances leaving no alternative but a chip.

Sorry, but you obviously have never actually designed anything like this.