authentication - Gizmodo

posts about #authentication more →
Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
World of Warcraft Getting a Hardware Authenticator Tool
Internet Explorer 7 Marketshare Lagging, WGA Check Going Away
Dynahand Software Complicates Logins Without Adding Security
UPEK Eikon Fingerprint Reader Hands-On (It Works With Firefox!)
Pen-One Fingerprint Pen Steals Your Identity
Snappy Face Recognizer For Computer Authentication
Jiris Iris Scanner

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Monty
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
A philosophical question: If no one buys the Shuffle, does it matter?
Reply

Monty was starred Monty was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
I've decided that if I want a small flash-based accessory player for more rigorous outdoor activity, I will get a Sony Walkman, which sells for $50 for 2GB, and is a solid little device overall. I played with one of them at the Sony store on Madison, and it's quite nice.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

Jrsy Devil's Advocate®
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
Hmmm, the Kool-Aid tastes a bit sour apple flavor now.

Perhaps it's losing some of its potency...
Reply

Hyman Decent
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function

[O]nly people who Apple "like" are going to get this tech and make compatible headphones-but it's likely that Apple likes almost anybody with the money to pay for licensing.

Isn't the Display Port on the unibody MacBook and MacBook Pro a creation of Apple which they gave away for free so that it could become a standard? So who says they're charging a fee for the license to use this chip?
Reply

Hyman Decent was starred Hyman Decent was unstarred

Jason Chen
03/16/09

@Hyman Decent: It is, but this isn't a standard in the way the DisplayPort is.
Reply

Jason Chen was starred Jason Chen was unstarred

Kaiser-Machead
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
Beware, Apple, for this sort of behavior will eventually have even the most enthuzed of fanbois raging. You can lock the docks, you can wall your app garden, you can arbitrarily reject applications with impunity, but locking headphones is a bad bad path to go down, far worse than the former.
Reply

Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred

vladdybear
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
lol its prolly GPS chip that let Apple know where all the shuffles are being shuffled.
Reply

vladdybear was starred vladdybear was unstarred

EGBTMagus
03/16/09

@vladdybear:

lmao

Shuffle this, Apple!
Reply

EGBTMagus was starred EGBTMagus was unstarred

Serolf Divad
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
OK, now that's evil. Holding the line on .99 cent music doesn't give you a license to spread evil in all other areas, Mr. Jobs.
Reply

Serolf Divad was starred Serolf Divad was unstarred

danger the pirate
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
headline should read:

Confirmed: iPod shuffle blows.
Reply

danger the pirate was starred

GitEmSteveDave_ForgotNametag
03/16/09

@danger the pirate ★ finally got rid of the long name: Correction. CURRENT iPod Shuffle blows. Ol' Whitey of mine is still a champ.
Reply

kakarotthemonkey
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
That's very shady. I wonder how all the Apple fanboys will twist this around and make it look cool and hip.
Reply

kakarotthemonkey was starred kakarotthemonkey was unstarred

pettiblay
03/16/09

@kakarotthemonkey: Couldn't care less. Screw the shuffle. If you wanna have the smallest MP3 player ever you just have to pay the price to have the "custom" earphones for it. Otherwise just get a regular iPod.
Reply

pettiblay was starred pettiblay was unstarred

something_unique_and_descriptive
03/16/09

@pettiblay: You don't think this bullshit is going to make it's way into the larger iPods?
Reply

Gann
03/16/09

@kakarotthemonkey: I'm not a fanboy, but I think this is going to look cool when apple takes it to it's inevitable conclusion: Non-removable headphones. Once they shrink the nano down to the sized of an inline mic, removable headphones no longer make sense. Shrink it a little further, and you no longer need a cable. You'll plug the nano directly into your ear like a hearing aid.
Reply

Gann was starred Gann was unstarred

OMG! Ponies!
03/16/09

In reply to Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
Somewhere in the EU, a bureaucrat is drafting an antitrust complaint to send to Cupertino.
Reply

OMG! Ponies! was starred OMG! Ponies! was unstarred

Dane Bendixen
03/16/09

@OMG! Ponies!: Yes, yes they are. And if this country keeps up the way it's going, you'll see this kind of socialist crap coming out of the US of A.
Reply

Dane Bendixen was starred Dane Bendixen was unstarred

Voyou_Charmant
03/16/09

@OMG! Ponies!: I certainly hope so.

Too bad our legislators don't care at all.
Reply

Voyou_Charmant was starred Voyou_Charmant was unstarred

Voyou_Charmant
03/16/09

@Dane Bendixen: Anti trust legislation is socialism? You mean people like Benjamin Harrison and Theodore Roosevelt, Howard Taft, were all Marxist? How did I miss this in my American History class?

Oh wait. You're just an idiot on the internet who will spout any ol' thing that comes to mind. Logic and reason be damned.
Reply

Voyou_Charmant was starred Voyou_Charmant was unstarred

HonusWScruggs
03/16/09

@Voyou_Charmant: @KingSnakeX4: I'm no Dane Bendixen, but it could be he meant that as a shortcut to say that socialist leanings tend to lead people to make unjustified attacks on industry out of some dubious conception of the public good (anti-trust complaints being one oft used tool for doing so). That's just one possible explanation that involves his being a bit too unclear for your tastes, instead of his being an idiot. It's not my personal feeling.

My personal feeling is this: there's nothing anti-trusty about what Apple is doing, although I would say they've, rightfully, got a civil suit headed their way if they don't make it clear on the packaging (and possibly advertising materials) that the Shuffle only works with certain headphones.
Reply

HonusWScruggs was starred HonusWScruggs was unstarred

OMG! Ponies!
03/16/09

@HonusWScruggs: For the record, I'm not making any statements about antitrust or socialism in general.

Apple, however, is not on the best terms with the EU - especially France. In fact, the iPod/iTMS ecosystem has been repeatedly looked at by the EU as being anti-competitive.

The EU takes a harsher stance against potential monopolies than does the US - perhaps to the consumer's benefit. This, however, doesn't really rise to the actual level of an abusive practice. Back in 2005 and 2006, Apple was much more aggressive in making FairPlay incompatible with other players and in locking down the iPod. And that practice put them on the EU's radar with France threatening to take action against Apple unless Apple loosened its restrictions.

Antitrust law, in general, is far from socialist. In order to protect consumers, legal action by the government is sometimes necessary. Corporations are legal fictions whose existence is derived from the law. There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral, or antibusiness in requiring corporations to compete fairly. Antitrust protects innovation.

Right now, this is Apple's run-of-the-mill douchebaggery. It does show a rather nasty anti-consumer tendency on Apple's part though.
Reply

OMG! Ponies! was starred OMG! Ponies! was unstarred

HonusWScruggs
03/16/09

@OMG! Ponies!: Ponies, I appreciate your thoughts. I do. But I'm not really sure what in my comment you're responding to, there.

Bearing in mind that most of what I said was just an attempt at interpreting another commenter, do you have any specific criticisms?
Reply

HonusWScruggs was starred HonusWScruggs was unstarred

Caidence
03/16/09

@Voyou_Charmant:

You know, there are options besides "buy Apple's shit" and "legislators punish Apple for being stupid".

Like, remember that Apple is for morons with too much money, and hop a plane to Dublin for a weekend of getting pissed.

Seriously: just ignore them. Don't write new laws.
Reply

Caidence was starred Caidence was unstarred

OMG! Ponies!
03/16/09

@HonusWScruggs: Just to keep it in this thread. Nothing against you at all.
Reply

OMG! Ponies! was starred OMG! Ponies! was unstarred

Voyou_Charmant
03/16/09

@Caidence: It's not a new law. Antitrust laws have been in place (though not always enforced) since the 1800s.

I'm really not worried about Apple cornering rich art-snob market through unfair practices; my statement was directed at the stupidity of his statement and the larger need for this sort of legislation.
Reply

Voyou_Charmant was starred Voyou_Charmant was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Gizmodo Team

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment