Apple's New iPod shuffle Garners EFF Criticism

When Apple introduced the new iPod shuffle a few days ago, I noted that ehey had (somewhat amazingly) reduced its size (again). But as iLounge noted, it also has a new Apple authentication chip, and that got the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stewing.

Apple purportedly uses these chips to assure that products used with the iPod meet the "Made for iPod" standard and will work properly with the device. If you read MacDailyNews, you'll even hear that the "iPod shuffle has ‘authentication chip’ on headphone interface because Apple cares about customers" as their article's title cloyingly states.

Oh, come on.

iLounge says it well:

There is, however, something that many users will care about: the new shuffle doesn’t fully work with any headphones except Apple’s. Because of what Apple has done here—something sneaky and arguably terrible for consumers, especially if it continues with other iPod and iPhone products in 2009—if you plug your old third-party headphones of any sort into the new shuffle, you’ll find that you can’t do anything with the device other than have it continuously play music, without volume controls or interruption, unless of course of you turn it off. Surprise: the only third-party headphones that will work are ones that haven’t even entered manufacturing yet, because they’ll need to contain yet another new Apple authentication chip, which will add to their price. Your only alternatives will be third-party remote control adapters—also not yet available, as Apple’s not even making one—and using Apple’s earphones. The prices for the third-party adapters will be no less than $19, and quite possibly more like $29; compatible headphones announced thus far start at $49.

This is, in short, a nightmare scenario for long-time iPod fans: are we entering a world in which Apple controls and taxes literally every piece of the iPod purchase from headphones to chargers, jacking up their prices, forcing customers to re-purchase things they already own, while making only marginal improvements in their functionality? It’s a shame, and one that consumers should feel empowered to fight.

EFF adds:

One final thought: why have so many of the reviews of iPods failed to notice the proliferation of these Apple "authentication chips"? If it were Microsoft demanding that computer peripherals all include Microsoft "authentication chips" in order to work with Windows (or Toyota or Ford doing the same for replacement parts), I'd think reviewers would be screaming about it.

Now, it's nice that MDN thinks Apple cares about we consumers, but realistically, what Apple (and any corporation) really cares about is the bottom line. As iLounge notes, not only does this new chip prevent third-party HW from working with the shuffle, it prevents older Apple HW from working with it.

Forced obsolescence, AKA, a forced need to upgrade = more $ for Apple.

Now, by its definition a coporation must try to make money for its shareholders. But lets not cloyingly state they are doing so to because "they care."

Hello, you don't need a chip to make sure something works properly with your product. Despite the fact we are talking Apple here, no one can dispute that the "tech product" that has to work with more variations of third-party SW and HW than any other is Windows.

In terms of HW, neither does Intel, or any motherboard manufacturer. They build their HW to standards (e.g., PCI-X) and everything built to meet that standard just works.

In terms of Microsoft doesn't charge for a chip to ensure HW compatibility. No, what they do is charge a one-time fee for WHQL certification. One time testing and certification, not a chip you need in each and every product.

Heck, you can even ship drivers without WHQL certification. So, big deal, you get a warning message in Windows, they still work.

Here's the real reason for the chip, according to the EFF:

Normally, of course, independent headphone makers could simply reverse engineer the interface. The "authentication chip" is there so that Apple's lawyers can invoke the DMCA to block those efforts. So this shows us, yet again, what DRM is for -- not stopping piracy, but rather impeding competition and innovation.

They leave out the dollar angle, but you get the drift, don't you?