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

61–70 of 350 posts

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

#61

Post by jowiar »

electic wrote: post #48
Anechoic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might buy the argument if Apple didn't include an adapter with the phone.

Which is a hassle. If you are making headphones now in 2016 and beyond, you are going to have to deal with the lightening port to be competitive in the iPhone accessory market.

This wasn't a push to use the lightning port -- it was a push for accessory makers to ask "First, can we make this wireless?". Lightning isn't really long for this world, either -- (not sure if it goes in 2 or 4 years, but I'd bet pretty heavily against it surviving for 6).

The next iteration of the watch is probably self-sufficient, no phone needed, and will require BT accessories.

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

#62

Post by Klathmon »

javajosh wrote: post #32

Isn't this tacitly assuming that Apple will be able to single-handedly eliminate the headphone jack? I think it is quite likely that post-Jobs Apple has finally overstepped it's bounds, and despite it's good qualities the iPhone 7 will be a relative dud. In which case the iPhone 8 will (reluctantly) put the jack back.

I just don't see that happening.

To be completely honest, literally 0 of the people I know with iphones have anything other than official Apple headphones. Even when they break, they go into an apple store and buy new ones.

There will be lots of complaining, but for most people this won't change anything except the annoyance of not being able to charge while using the headphones without an adapter (which is the only reason I see the average joe complaining about this change).

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

#63

Post by trhway »

aluhut wrote: post #55

I don't get it. The customer base of Apple has no problems spending huge amounts of money. Why should they need to be controlled in such a way?

>The customer base of Apple has no problems spending huge amounts of money.

exactly, and thus it is probably to control other manufacturers' access to that customer base. With digital non-public interface to headphones, you'd have to buy a license to produce such headphones. Basically extending "in-app purchase" 30% house cut to hardware accessories. Or another example from history - PC architecture vs. PS2.

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

#64

Post by Sephiroth87 »

Elrac wrote: post #54
zepto wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also not true - the analog jack is bidirectional, so there is no reason that devices should not be required to handshake when plugged in.

I believe you're wrong about that. A headphone socket can report whether there's a jack plugged in or not - that one bit of information is the total extent of traffic in the reverse direction. There is no electronic standard for back talk from analog audio devices, and it would be pointless for Apple to try, because no analog device currently on the market would comply with it.

Not really, considering it's the same port used for microphone input, playback controls, and third party devices use it for communication already...

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

#65

Post by 0x0 »

Elrac wrote: post #54
zepto wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also not true - the analog jack is bidirectional, so there is no reason that devices should not be required to handshake when plugged in.

I believe you're wrong about that. A headphone socket can report whether there's a jack plugged in or not - that one bit of information is the total extent of traffic in the reverse direction. There is no electronic standard for back talk from analog audio devices, and it would be pointless for Apple to try, because no analog device currently on the market would comply with it.

Pretty sure the old iphone jack works both ways as you can use it to connect a microphone.

That's how those stripe card readers work, sending "modem noise" into the phone: http://www.instructables.com/id/Read-any-magnetic-strip-card...

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

#66

Post by bwindels »

Anechoic wrote: post #46
electic wrote: post #41

The real issue here is this might be anti-competitive, and go as far as being an anti-trust issue. Apple can now limit who makes headphones for the iPhone and the ones that are "allowed" could end up seeing their headphones far more expensive than the Apple and Beats brands. This is all because 3rd party brands will have to pay licensing fees to Apple to use the port. So we could end up seeing headphones that are 20%…

I might buy the argument if Apple didn't include an adapter with the phone.

Also, like mentioned in the article and here before, some applications on iOS that want to implement DRM could identify and block the jack adapter with their audio. "Please use lightning headphones to play this content". Apps from streaming services could be pressured into this by the labels they license their content from.

Not tomorrow, but in a few years when lightning headphones have spread a bit.

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

#67

Post by 6stringmerc »

audunw wrote: post #35

I'm not convinced. The record industry has already given up on DRM except for streaming. A lot has to happen before DRM is applied to headphones. Audio is not like video, where it's hard to get a decent copy from the screen. With audio you can always just hook up to the analog output to the speakers themselves and get a copy indistinguishable from the original Fighting for DRM on headphones would be an uphill battle…

Agreed; Apple has a very cozy relationship with the major music industry (see also: paying for exclusive content to best its market-competition) and while yes, this proprietary lock-in does have genuine DRM concerns, I don't think it's nearly as overwhelming as portrayed. I appreciate staying 'concerned' with DRM creep and issues of ownership vs. licensing (something the EFF loves to conflate when convenient for their arguments), but going "Chicken Little" is a bit much. They've already got their DMCA 1201 case in progress to kill DRM.

Back to the headphone lock-in: Is it profiteering from customers who really like the Apple ecosystem? For sure! Is it just another instance of using music to sell something else with even higher profit margins? Sure! Will it result in a doom-and-gloom future where thousands of music fans are rounded up, sued, and punished for finding a work-around on their own? Seems very unlikely.

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

#68

Post by dazmax »

sigmar wrote: post #53
mead5432 wrote: post #20

I understand the argument that forcing content through a proprietary jack opens the door for controlling said content and has huge implications for hardware manufacturers and the way people use their stuff. What I am having a hard time understanding is why is that any different than the OS influencing what gets sent to the 3.5mm jack? It isn't like apps running in iOS had to interact with APIs to do all the other thi…

>why is that any different than the OS influencing what gets sent to the 3.5mm jack? Their issue seems to be that it is not analog. The lightening port and bluetooth connection are two-way data connections, and the phone will be able to identify what is attached (rather than just outputing an analog signal). Here's the quotes that make that clear- > But intentionally or not, by removing the analog port, Apple is givi…

But if a manufacturer wanted to only play audio to their device, they could have already made it a lightning-connected device.

If they do give the ability to distinguish the lightning-to-3.5mm adapter from other lightning headphones, that isn't any greater than the ability to distinguish between the 3.5mm jack and the lightning port is it?

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

#69

Post by electic »

jowiar wrote: post #61
electic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a hassle. If you are making headphones now in 2016 and beyond, you are going to have to deal with the lightening port to be competitive in the iPhone accessory market.

This wasn't a push to use the lightning port -- it was a push for accessory makers to ask "First, can we make this wireless?". Lightning isn't really long for this world, either -- (not sure if it goes in 2 or 4 years, but I'd bet pretty heavily against it surviving for 6). The next iteration of the watch is probably self-sufficient, no phone needed, and will require BT accessories.

Well again, that is another problem. BT headphones have proven to be a pain to deal with in the past. Pairing especially is a huge issue. Instead of working with the industry on that, they went with a proprietary solution which is implemented in the W1 chip. If you want to use that...you have to pay licensing fees.
Post reply on HN