Shuffle's new hardware DRM taxes 3rd-party vendors

ipodnncom ^ | 03/14/2009, 8:20pm, EDT

[martin_fierro]

Shuffle's new hardware DRM taxes 3rd-party vendors

Apple's new iPod Shuffle has added a new layer of hardware DRM, possibly preventing third-party companies from reverse-engineering the Shuffle technology in order to build headphones. Electronic Frontier and iLounge have discovered an Apple authentication chip DRM (Digital Right Management) requirement that will mean third-party headphone makers will have to pay fees for the authentication chip and design headphones with the chip included. The authentication chip provides a legal means to prevent headphone makers from reverse-engineering the Shuffle output to create a set of headphones that work with the new iPod. Apple could sue any companies that attempted such an effort for DCMA violations.

iLounge< takes Apple to task for draconian controls of all pieces of hardware in the iPod ecosystem. The taxes Apple applies increase prices for the consumer and stifle both innovation and competition. In addition to the new Shuffle, Apple has used DRM on numerous products, including the iPhone, locking the device to AT&T's network, and iPods, preventing them from syncing with software other than iTunes. The company also uses software DRM on video and audiobook files from the iTunes Store.

[Star Traveler]

Here’s an article in reference to the issue here, and a direct quote from Apple on the issue, denying any DRM or other authentication...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343217,00.asp

[Swordmaker]

. . . direct quote from Apple on the issue, denying any DRM or other authentication. . .

Thought so.

[RayChuang88]

I don’t care what Apply denies, but if we see this same stunt happen when the iPod nano and classic are replaced this September they are going to run the risk of a lawsuit charging violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act—and it will be brought by a long list of third-party headphone manufacturers!

[Star Traveler]

Well..., can’t tell you about any prospects for lawsuits. Of course, I’ve heard about supposed lawsuits and other countries charging Apple with some violation of one kind or another. I just haven’t seen anything happen... :-)

[Swordmaker]

I don’t care what Apply denies, but if we see this same stunt happen when the iPod nano and classic are replaced this September they are going to run the risk of a lawsuit charging violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act—and it will be brought by a long list of third-party headphone manufacturers!

There is absolutely no evidence that this chip is a DRM or Authentication system. The only source for this hoopla is a single blogger with no technical expertise at all. Perhaps a factual statement that would be actionable if it turns out that Lee is lying means nothing to you, but I think it means that there is no "stunt" to be exercised about. It's a NON-ISSUE.