MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

That's bull. We're talking about headphones, fer crying out loud! We've had open headphone standards since the days of transistor radios, and we've gotten along just fine. This is Apple "fixing" what ain't broke so they can squeeze a few extra dollars out of consumers and third party headphone makers. They're practically running an extortion racket here.

Listen, Apple makes some great products, but this ain't one of them. It's proprietary nonsense and it's gone too far. I hope this thing flops so they learn a lesson, consumers don't want to be tied down to only using Apple branded or approved products.

Think about it, isn't one of the biggest myths about Macs that they only work with Apple products? I know a lot of PC users that have been kinda shocked when I mention that Macs work fine with pretty much any USB keyboard or mouse, or printer or scanner for that matter. Choice of peripherals is a SELLING POINT.

You could make the case that, with the iPod charger, there's a safety issue, although certainly the iPods could have been constructed to conform to open standards from the beginning, and the, say USB or Firewire standards consortium could have acted as the arbiters of safety. But it's probably too late at this point. Still, it's disheartening to see them moving in the direction of being a MORE closed system.

If you don't like it, then don't buy it. go back to your zune or your walkman. I have some old cassettes you can have too, dummy

This is the most retarded thing on earth - What the hell are you doing Apple! I'm capable of deciding what headphones I want to use.

Mar 14, 09 - 10:54 am Comment from: Zune Tang®

Hey MAC lemmings, are you tired of MAC taking away choice? This is yet another example of how MAC uses proprietary means to eliminate competition. Microsoft is all about choice for the consumer. Zune is a free and open system and Microsoft doesn't regulate consumer options through sinister anti-free market methods like cowardly MAC. I'm using my Walkman headphones from 1985 with my Zune right now.

Your potential. Our passion.™

Mar 14, 09 - 10:57 am Comment from: Swing Geezer

It could be that because the headphones for the shuffle are more than just headphones and need to give instructions to the i-pod, then it seems advantageous to only buy stuff you know will work!!

"I'm using my Walkman headphones from 1985 with my Zune right now"


Hey everyone, look at that dork walking down the street. LOL

Who cares. Like, really.

I still feel that it's stupid to have a $79 device that requires an optional $50 headphones to even make it work, in case their headphones are not suitable.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:04 am Comment from: MacSmiley

Apple has SOLD OUT to BOTH the recording industry and the movie industry but taking the DRM off the files, but adding it back on to the hardware. That includes stopping you from playing movies on a non-Apple display!

http://www.endofcontrol.com/2008/11/apple-bends-to.html

The first time I heard about Apple being compared to Seinfeld's Soup Nazi, I laughed. NOW it's not so funny!

Make sure accessories work? LOL. I don't know about you guys but I was getting by just fine with my accessories before Apple decided to "help" me with their authentication chips.

cmac is right. This is an extortionary method for Apple to control the iPod accessories market. All the MDN spin in the world won't cover it up.

Isn't it strange that MDN, with their rightwing rants about federal government interference, are so quick to fall in line when Apple demonstrates the same behavior?

Mar 14, 09 - 11:11 am Comment from: MacBill

It's ridiculous how the children at MacDailyNews blindly support Apple, even when Apple is doing stuff to TAKE AWAY CONSUMER'S RIGHTS. No, MacDailyNews, Apple isn't doing this to make sure that headphones work properly with their iPods -- they're doing this to receive their 10% KICKBACK $$ from accessory makers who want to create iPod accessories. The developers are required to give Apple 10% of their sales if they want the "Made for iPod" logo, and if they want their accessories to work with the iPod. It's really rather draconian of Apple to do this.

MDN has an Apple authentication chip in every comment it adds to a story. MDN: Apple is always right; the customer is always wrong.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:22 am Comment from: madgunde

Sony does it for their PSP batteries. There's big money in licensing your tech to others. If other companies want to make money off the back of Apple's success, then Apple is entitled to their fair share.

If you don't like that concept, then don't buy the new iPod shuffle. Simple as that. It's not like there aren't a thousand other music players you could buy.

So what happens when Apple eventually builds the iPod INTO the headphones? Are people still going to be screaming that they can't use third party headphones with it? You know it's coming, it's the next logical evolution of the shuffle.

Also, MDN, you continue your attack on Jeremy Horowitz and iLounge by pointing out their support for the "Made for iPod" program.

However, in 2005 when the program was first rolled out, details were scant. iLounge made numerous mentions of this fact in the article you linked to:

"Details have been scarce since the program was rolled out, and program participants are no longer talking specifics."

"As of June, 2005, Apple has posted a small amount of information on Made for iPod"

There were no details in 2005, MDN, about AUTHENTICATION CHIPS BEING USED IN iPODS TO FORCE ACCESSORY MAKERS INTO THE PROGRAM. iLounge was voicing support for something they thought would serve an entirely different purpose and have a right to change their opinion.

I don't think that compatible headphones won't be able to work with the iPod shuffle, and what Apple wants to say is probably: "If your uncertified headphones don't work, it's not our fault" and: "If you want to ADVERTISE your headphones as an iPod shuffle controller, pay us the fee"

This shuffle is a big misstep for Apple. Too small, proprietary headphones, and a pain in the butt to control. I'm glad I have my last-gen shuffle for working out!

Once again, the children writing MDN come out screaming and crying!! Is the MDN writer in 8th grade? Maybe high school?

Mar 14, 09 - 11:38 am Comment from: Mel Gross

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

While companies can't be prevented from making headphones for any jack that will accept them, Apple will pout over them not paying for a "Works With iPod" license, and so attempts to force them to pay it.

I think this is wrong. Never before have manufacturers had to pay a license to allow their speakers or headphones to work with some component.

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.

But, I suppose that supporting Apple no matter what, is the creed of this place.

All this does for us is to raise prices on these accessories, without making sure they are better.

" They're practically running an extortion racket here. "

Oh quit your crying, they aren't forcing you to buy ANYTHING!

The headline of this article -- "because Apple cares about its customers" -- is so touching! Ah, get me a Kleenex. Apple is such a caring company. Ah, how cute!

Mar 14, 09 - 11:39 am Comment from: theloniousMac

Ok, even I can see this is not an attempt at some kind of hardware DRM.

What a mindlessly controversial little toy.

I had no intention of buying one. Now I think I'll buy two just because of the whining.

There are things in this world to actually be concerned about. Yeesh.

For those, like Fred von Lohmann, you all miss the point.

This is hardware and a business.

If you don't like the way Apple does business then don't buy the product. Its a free country and you can buy some other product.

The only problem to those like Fred von Lohmann, is that the fact products make by Apple are GREAT and whether you want to admit it or not, you want it.

Well tough! Next you'll be saying its your legal right to demand Apple produce the product based on your spec's.

Its not like a music player isn't available from other manufactures or its a matter of life or death that you have to have an iPod.

My 2 cents.

Doesn't the shuffle already come with the controller headphones? If you're only using this for "working out" why are you complaining?

I like the new shuffle by the way. I think its great they moved the buttons to the earphones. It's what I always wanted. I've always hated trying to find the damn buttons on the old shuffle to change tracks while running or working out, or even walking around the city. does it suck i can't uses my favorite headphones now. ABSOLUTELY!! But i guess its a sacrifice I make for getting the buttons moved. It's the name of the game. You're always gonna piss off people with new products and gain new ones. and I believe the "made for iPod" is the best thing, because there are some scam products that would make it like as the article states Microsoft, who doesn't give a shit if their products work with third party accessories.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:45 am Comment from: Mel Gross

Apple doesn't need this license crap except to make more money. They can do what all other companies do, release the specs.

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.

Truth is truth. Wake up.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:47 am Comment from: jjjj

Sadly, this iPod shuffle will be the most unfortunate Apple product since Newton.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:49 am Comment from: twilightmoon

MDN does not "mindlessly support" everything that Apple does. They certainly did not support Safari 4.0 "tabs on top" or "no blue progress bar" and repeatedly posted a command to revert those settings.

That said the new Shuffle is not for everyone. But it does come with headphones, and requires controls on connected headphones to control it. Most consumers use Apple's headphones so if there is money to be made off licensing here, it's from a very small subset of shuffle customers.

Sorry, MacDailyNews, but you've got your DMCA mixed up with your trademark law. Apple doesn't need an authentication chip to run the "Made for iPod" certification program, any more than Toyota needs a chip for a "Genuine Toyota Parts" program. I've got no problem with Apple certifying certain products. The problem is that the authentication chip (Apple will argue) makes it **illegal under the DMCA** to make compatible devices.

So ask yourself, would you mind if your next car were designed to prevent you from using anything but "certified" replacement parts? Your next laser printer only "genuine" toner cartridges?

This isn't just about Apple -- this is about a law intended to "prevent piracy" (the DMCA) being used for anticompetitive lock-in instead.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:52 am Comment from: twilightmoon

@Mel Gross

Apple wants to make money?

That's news, I always thought they were a charity.

It seems to me that there are no other headphones out there that support the voice over feature yet? Am I wrong?

Mar 14, 09 - 11:53 am Comment from: twilightmoon

Fred von Lohmann,

Got any evidence that this is the case?

"Why have so many of the reviews of iPods failed to notice the proliferation of these Apple 'authentication chips?"

Because when people take it out of the box, plug in the headphones and press play..... things work like they're supposed to. And, if you go out to buy a set of Made for iPod headphones.... things work like they're supposed to. And if you connect it to your computer with iTunes.... songs transfer like they're supposed to. If the function of the device was hindered by this, we'd se a LOT of stories.

If you LOOK for a conspiracy, there's ALWAYS enough information to support what you want to see. Every Mac currently sold has an "Authentication" button and you CAN'T turn it on without that... sure, some people call it "Power" but it's just Apple's POWER over it's sheepish users... CAN'T YOU SEE THE TRUTH!!!

Tilting at windmills anyone?

Apple doesn't need this license crap except to make more money.

They can do what all other companies do, release the specs.

Mar 14, 09 - 11:59 am Comment from: Mel Gross

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.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:00 pm Comment from: coolfactor

This is about limiting your choices. Regular headphones will work just fine for listening to music coming out of the iPod shuffle. Use whatever headphones you want. But when it comes to sending control instructions back to the iPod, wouldn't you want to know that the 3rd-party headphones are doing it properly? That's what this is about. I support it.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:03 pm Comment from: coolfactor

This is "not" about limiting you choices.

"I still feel that it's stupid to have a $79 device that requires an optional $50 headphones to even make it work, in case their headphones are not suitable."

You mean like a $79 DVD player that requires an optional $50 purchase if you want to watch more than 5 different movies?

"I feel that's it's stupid to spend money after you've spent money"

There, fixed it for you.

I smell a conspiracy.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:07 pm Comment from: Mel Gross

Twilightmoon, you're missing the point. It's going to cost Apple's customers money for no benefit. Any product Apple licenses to isn't automatically better in performance or function to one that might not be licensed, if no licensing took place.

I don't mind Apple charging for the privilege of giving companies a logo and phrase to use if they think it will help their own sales. 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.

If Apple's products in this area weren't so popular, it might not matter. Companies could always figure they don't need the hassle or expense. But they are almost forced to go along as the products sell in such a large percentage. Apple knows this, and is taking advantage. That's not right.

Apple can afford to not do this, they are making good profits without it.

We are the ones to suffer, because not only would we pay more for something, but small companies with good products may feel that they can't afford to pay the fees.

You were right the first time, coolfactor.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:09 pm Comment from: coolfactor

@Mel Gross

It seems to me that Apple's App Store review process is slow because they are making sure that apps will work and won't cause confusion or problems for end-users or their business model. But what does that have to do with the iPod shuffle and this authentication chip? The chip is there to address a growing problem in our world... knock-offs and companies trying to ride the coat-tails of Apple by selling cheap products. If you were in Apple's shoes, wouldn't you take similar measures to protect your customers?

Mar 14, 09 - 12:12 pm Comment from: DogGone

I can see that it would be important to ensure that the headphones operate properly since they will control the ipod.

The only concern I have is that the cost of implementing the chip will make it uneconomically for the third party producer. As with all new innovations from Apple it will be a while before third party options become available.

One other thing to consider is that most buyers of the new shuffle will be using the supplied headphones. I would be surprised if 1% opt to buy an alternative set. I also think it unlikely that many people use shuffles for playing in their car etc. Apple always focus on the main application for their products and not try to please everyone. That is why they are so successful.

I would argue that the main advantage of removing the controls from the unit will allow one to tuck the player away and not have to fumble around to change settings. That in itself is sufficient to warrant the change and leave legacy accessories out. Again Apple always do this rather than trying to please everyone.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:12 pm Comment from: Mel Gross

@Mel Gross, and by the way, that's a pretty stupid way to give yourself a name. Pick something intelligent that doesn't use mine, or are you a coward too?

You obviously don't know much about business, or customer relations, or much else.

Sure, use used a big word, "fiduciary", but learn what it means.

There is no reason why Apple had to do this.

There is no evidence that Apple will even test these third party devices.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:14 pm Comment from: coolfactor

People, please tell Apple your thoughts directly:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipodshuffle.html

Discussing here will only go so far.

The made for iPod program is a good idea as a way of making sure products work together well, of course if it's overly restrictive of expensive to be a part of then it would be bad, as far as I can tell Made for iPod hasn't causes any real problems for manufacturers so I have no problem. It could be argued that if Microsoft has instituted something similar for hardware in terms of making it work for windows they wouldn't have to have as many problems as they do now having to try and support every combination of devices under the sun.

Like it or not, the headphones for the new shuffle are not just regular headphones, they add extra functionality (play, pause, skip, volume, etc), functionality which unlike with other devices that also support similar functions (iPhone for one) is required because those functions are not replicated on the hardware itself. I have no problem with ensuring that accessories work properly with the shuffle since otherwise you have something that doesn't work. It's like saying that all controllers for all video games consoles should work with each, they don't because they generally have extra functionality to them. It just so happens that the headphones for the iPod are fundamentally similar to plain old speaker only headphones.

What would be good is if they came up with some new standard (maybe with a new connector) for headphones in the future, one that allows for a mic, various controls and so on as devices get smaller there may become more need for an extra component in between the player and speakers.

Frak me, I honestly agree with Zune Tang for once.

BTW, my source for the "authentication chip" is <http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipod-shuffle-third-generation/P6>iLounge</a>, as well as
<http://blog.philipgbaker.com/my_weblog/2009/03/apple-introduces-2-new-products-a-new-shuffle-for-us-and-a-new-chip-for-headphone-makers.html> Phil Baker</a>.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:29 pm Comment from: Spark

Has anyone actually confirmed the claim? Obviously the plug is different, so you can't just plug in any old headset and say, "see, it doesn't work." I've read reports of testers being able to listen via old 3rd party headsets. It's the control that that needs to be addressed, and to the best of my knowledge, no one has attempted to replicate Apple's controller as manifested on the shuffle. I'd like to see some confirmation that it cannot be done without Apple's authentication chip. Apple claims you need it to be part of the Made for iPod program. I've seen no evidence that it is required to otherwise replicate operability.

Mar 14, 09 - 12:40 pm Comment from: neomonkey

So I guess mandatory auto insurance is okay? Shut up, you sheep.

If any headphones are allowed to work with the iPod, how will users play the music? All of the "custom" headphones you all brag about don't have volume control, let alone a play button.

You think you're al righteous and independent for complaining about something that is necessary to use the device. If apple didn't do this, people would complain about how they can't get their iPod to play and go apeshit.

"But they are almost forced to go along as the products sell in such a large percentage. Apple knows this, and is taking advantage. That's not right."

Ask Mattel about licensing Barbie accessories. A Barbie sells every 3 seconds. A friend of mine is in licensing with Mattel and they will stomp on you if you create a Barbie product without licensing it.
Ask George Lucas about licensing. Licensing is where the money is with any brand or product. A company's goal is to make a profit through the sale and licensing of their product.

For those that think this unfair, go make a successful product, when people rush in to make a buck off your work, open the door and show them your specs. I'm sure you'll be happy to watch the dollars flow into someone else's pocket.