- iLounge exposes DRM(?) “authentication” chip required to enable remote control signals to iPod/iPhone headphones. *
- Apple blocks iLounge from its iPhone event tomorrow.
So, thanks to our refusal to be leashed by Apple, you won’t see us at the iPhone software event tomorrow; we’re being “punished” for not sugar-coating our words enough. That’s not our style. Like most of our readers, we’re just customers, albeit pretty serious customers—every time you see an iPod or iPhone reviewed on iLounge, we’ve bought it (or, say, eleven of it) ourselves. Our writers hold no Apple stock or interest in how that stock performs; we’re just here to provide you with facts and our informed opinions. And Apple’s upset because we’ve been telling our readers too much—and constantly taking your side, rather than Apple’s, whenever the company is in the wrong. We do this proudly. And we’re not going to apologize for it.
Various sites are now discussing whether this is DRM and whether it is authentication. It hasn’t been proven that encryption happens anywhere in the chain, but a handshake between the chip and the iPod (no iPhone currently ships that has this scheme built-in) is evidently needed to enable any sent remote control signals to work, and the chip is only available to “Made for iPod” licensees. I’d call this both DRM and authentication in a second, although the malicious effect attempts to block out third-party vendors instead of customers.
I’d stop short of calling the chip either DRM or authentication. The simplest explanation is just that, when Apple was looking into how to expand on the clicker/mic functionality from their iPhone headphones, they decided that the most cost-effective method was to embed a microcontroller than to futz about with varying resistance levels further. This has the advantage of being backwards-compatible with older devices.
/2¢
By Alex Reid · 2009.03.16 22:26
It is authentication but it is not DRM. DRM only applies to encryption/decryption/protection of copyright material. Just a terminology point — the underlying protectionist strategy is still highly suspect.
Besides, I expect industrious Chinese engineers have already cracked it.
By Matt Gallagher · 2009.03.16 23:36
According to who? If you define “R” to mean “Rights”, that means rights, including trademarks, ownership and patents beyond copyright. If you define “R” to mean “Restrictions”, as I do, that certainly goes here.
But let’s say you’re both right: the chip is a pragmatic solution to solve a technical issue, designed to allow general purpose headphones. This raises a few other questions:
Why not simply handle the remote controls with an extra ring on the connector? (This is probably how the commands themselves, minus the handshake, are sent already.) This is how the old Radio Remote and the iPhone headset worked. To allow for new metadata, simply use unused frequencies in between the old commands. Old headphones won’t send the new commands and won’t clash.
Why not license the chip separately?
Why bar iLounge from the upcoming Apple event? They’ve been invited to every music or iPhone-related Apple event for the past few years, and Jeremy Horwitz calls out a correlation in reception with this type of reporting.
As you note, Matt, maybe Chinese engineers have already cracked it. A deciding factor will be whether the chip serves to enable Apple to sue anyone who copies it or anyone who owns an infringing copy under that wonderful US DMCA.
By Jesper · 2009.03.16 23:54
we’re being “punished” for not sugar-coating our words enough. That’s not our style… we’re just here to provide you with facts and our informed opinions.
Update: No DRM In New iPod Shuffle. You have to be cautious when talking about stuff you don’t know for sure.
By Val · 2009.03.17 10:35
Huh?
By Jesper · 2009.03.17 20:26