Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 350 posts

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#281

Post by jshevek »

astrodust wrote: post #242
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how I see all the Cory Doctorow/BoingBoing fear mongering. He's made a career out of scaring people and being as disingenious as possible, but because he picks on "the man" the typical college/highschool types praise him as some sort of freedom fighter. Internet fandom really deserves better heroes. The EFF itself is almost as bad and is run by seemingly the most paranoid and reactionary people out there. I i…

What would Cory do without Apple to hate on? I worry about the guy. Nobody's forcing you to buy an iPhone 7. Nobody's taking away all your analog ports. It's like the NRA here getting all up in arms because someone had the audacity to declare a gun free zone in a school which impinges on their freedoms . Seriously, get a grip Cory. You're free to criticize Apple's decisions but don't make it out like Apple's destroyi…

This reads like an effort to invalidate someone else's ideas, concerns, and criticisms by trivializing them and presupposing their motives.

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#282

Post by usaphp »

catdog wrote: post #218
usaphp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Apple iPhone more overpriced than other flagship devices from say Samsung? Last I heard the note 7 costs more than the iPhone.

Most other manufacturers in contrast to Apple do not only sell these overpriced "flagship devices" which few people really need these days but also offer devices in a more reasonable price range. The biggest problem is that others often copy stupid or customer unfriendly decisions Apple makes, leading to a lot less choice if you want to avoid it.

I absolutely don't understand your logic.

> "which few people really need these days"

According to sales figures people do need/want them.

> "The biggest problem is that others often copy stupid or customer unfriendly decisions Apple makes"

And how is that Apple's fault that other companies try to copy what works for them?

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#283

Post by k-mcgrady »

jshevek wrote: post #276
k-mcgrady wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only has Apple stated this isn't about DRM but throughout their recent history they've tended to back up their anti-DRM stance be getting the music labels to drop it at a time when that was pretty controversial. Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best.

> Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best. Those are two separate issues. Whether or not the "whole debate is conspiracy theory at best" has no bearing on whether a statement like this from apple should hold any weight. Apple's claim may or may not be true, but we should look to other sources of evidence to evaluate this, and completely disregard 'b…

My previous sentence explains why their statement should hold weight. They have backed it up with previous actions.

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#284

Post by BinaryIdiot »

makomk wrote: post #252
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely; the audio had to be converted from digital to analog on the phone previously so now that's being moved to a dongle so it's still the same process (roughly). If it does add latency I would bet it's very unnoticeable (like sub milliseconds when compared to the built-in solution).

Entirely possible. Onboard DACs use I2S which adds basically zero latency; one of the ways of getting audio out over Lightning is to use USB which requires additional latency-causing buffering. It's possible that there's another lower-latency way of getting audio out over Lighting but only Apple knows.

Fair enough. Now I'm interested in this topic but am not an electrical engineer so I've skimmed through about 5 wikipedia articles semi related heh

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#285

Post by otterley »

bluegene wrote: post #228
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #178

> When you plug an audio cable into a smartphone, it just works. No, hardware-wise you're still going through a DAC, and the complex audio subsystem of the OS is still deciding, upon receiving the connection signal, to re-route the application audio through that headphone DAC. Or not. Jack or Lightning doesn't change this. > Apple can choose which manufacturers get to create Lightning-compatible audio devices. Sure.…

> Sure. Or you can use the included lightning-jack adapter and just use normal, un-DRM'd headphones. What prevents Apple from obsoleting the adapter in the future and making analog jack incompatible with lightning jack?

Well, if that happens (and it's unlikely), then it'll be time to express such concerns. But not now.

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#286

Post by otterley »

calebgilbert wrote: post #132
azinman2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So use the dongle?

Yeah, use the dongle unless you need to charge it at the same time.

Wait a month, or maybe even a week (manufacturers are pretty quick these days). There will be an adapter that lets you do both.

If there's one thing to be said about Apple products, it's that there's no shortage of doohickeys that connect to them.

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#287

Post by soundwave106 »

ohitsdom wrote: post #176
exabrial wrote: post #106

Other people getting screwed: Custom IEM wearers. I had a $300 set of Alclair Audio IEMs made so I can use an in-ear audio system on stage while making live music. These use impressions that an audiologist takes of your ear canals for an _exact_ fit that completely seals your ear. There's not a snow-balls chance in hell I would have these be wireless, or a proprietary standard: 1) Latency. Anything over 2ms is not ac…

> Anything over 2ms is not acceptable for live music. That's the difference between a band sounding "in-time" to "needs practice" Obviously you want your in-ear sound to be as exact as possible, but a 2 ms difference will not make a band sound bad. I remember hearing 9 ms was the threshold for live music, but I can't find any references. If it truly is lower I would love to read some source material. There are very f…

The problem is Bluetooth audio, from all sources, is far higher than 2ms latency. The best codecs seem to be (per sources like this -- http://stereos.about.com/od/glossary/fl/What-is-aptX.htm) 40ms or so. "Typical" Bluetooth audio seems to have a latency of 150ms-200ms.

Musicians can compensate to some degree of latency, but not when your audio is delayed by approx. an 1/8th note at 140bpm. (1/8th note at 140bpm = 214ms). Even 40ms isn't terribly tight.

So rule Bluetooth audio out for this.

The dongle is an option, of course, but it probably is not as robust as a soldered-in 3.5mm jack.

I'm sure in-ear monitoring with an iPhone is unfortunately too much of a niche application for Apple to care much, though...

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#288

Post by CaptSpify »

otterley wrote: post #285
bluegene wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure. Or you can use the included lightning-jack adapter and just use normal, un-DRM'd headphones. What prevents Apple from obsoleting the adapter in the future and making analog jack incompatible with lightning jack?

Well, if that happens (and it's unlikely), then it'll be time to express such concerns. But not now.

Yeah, why should we assume that a company that has a history of making unnecessarily proprietary equipment would do so again in the future? that'd be absurd, right?

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#289

Post by bluehazed »

Longhanks wrote: post #142
cryptoz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and if it doesn't appeal to you, don't buy it This kind of attitude isn't logical and is in fact extremely dangerous. It's the same argument as "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you mind being spied on by corporations and governments?" It is entirely reasonable and in fact GOOD that people have strong opinions about things even if they do not personally interact or care about the actual thing. When an inc…

I'm definitely not trying to shut down opinions. It's perfectly fine to dislike the removal of the headphone jack. However, I'm sick of people calling out Apple for being what it is: A capitalistic enterprise. Ultimately, of course they want to make more money. But they have clearly explained reasons other than "sell adapters" (which itself is kind of stupid, since they ship a free one with every iPhone). And after a…

It's not OK to criticize capitalistic/user harmful practices anymore?

Re: The End of Headphone Jacks, the Rise of DRM

#290

Post by jshevek »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #283
jshevek wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any statement from them should hold some weight considering this whole debate is a conspiracy theory at best. Those are two separate issues. Whether or not the "whole debate is conspiracy theory at best" has no bearing on whether a statement like this from apple should hold any weight. Apple's claim may or may not be true, but we should look to other sources of evidence to evaluate this, and completely disregard 'b…

My previous sentence explains why their statement should hold weight. They have backed it up with previous actions.

I took "A considering B" to mean "The truth of B strengthens the claim A."

Regarding Apple's history with DRM, that's not something to completely ignore but its not very compelling, either. I see no evidence that Apple (especially as it exists today) has a true, sustained ideological position against DRM. Apple explicitly positions themselves as the platform with the least regard for empowering their users to use their (mobile) devices as they see fit (because being seen as 'more secure' is marketing gold). If the situation arose in which Apple's leadership believed they would make more money (on the whole, and long term) by embracing DRM in more places, they would do so.

Post reply on HN