My last post pointed out the existence of a DRM chip within the earphone of the newest model of Apple’s iPod Shuffle. Shortly afterwards, Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing wrote a short piece of news that in fact, it was an incorrect piece of news. Well, if more accurate findings were made, I’ll be the first to admit that I was wrong too. Let’s check the facts.

Doctorow quote a post of BB Gadgets where the writer and his team members actually dissected the said earphone and found that the chip inside is not actually a DRM chip but instead :

“However, it’s described as a “transmission” chip, suggesting that its role is not authentication or digital rights management, even if the result is to encourage manufacturers to pay an “Apple Tax” to license technology that allows their products to be used with iPod equipment.

This partially corroborates iLounge’s original report. iLounge noted that the new included headphones with in-line controls use an “authorization chip” to communicate with the iPod, a part available only from Apple. (Apple uses a similar chip inside the latest iPods to prevent video output from working with unlicensed iPod docks and other accessories.)”

In layman terms this means that the chip did not prevent any other earphones to be used with the new iPod Shuffle, but it will make it illegal to manufacture third-party headphones unless you have a trademark license from Apple in order to claim “Made for iPod Certification”. The chip will then act to constitute the trademark license itself. Thus, any other earphone maker can produce their own official earphone for iPod as long as they include the chip in their product.

Now to the confession. As I said before, I’ll readily admit that I was wrong when I reported that the chip was one which prevent any user from using other brand of earphones. However, I still find it sad that this piece of technology is being used NOT to prevent privacy or other criminal acts, but to deter a completely valid business competition. I’m aware that one can still officially produce an iPod earphone ( provided that it has the necessary chip inside, bought from Apple ); but ultimately, the customer will be the one who suffer the most here. Because in the end, the cost of the said chip can only mean one thing : higher prices. iLounge put it excellently with this quotations :

“From what we were told, Apple offered to sell developers the chip for $1 in a bundle with a $2 microphone, costs which are then multiplied and passed on to consumers. The component costs are now apparently lower. There are also authentication chips inside the new Apple Earphones with Remote and Mic, and the In-Ear Headphones with Remote and Mic—the ones that you may recall were delayed last year for mysterious reasons.”

Enough said.. !

Just when I thought that the topic that I blogged about was obsolete, I stumbled along the piece of news that Apple has inserted a DRM chip into its new iPod Shuffle, – thus effectively stopped any user who wants to use his / her own preferred brand of earphones. At first, I was skeptical, as I know that Apple is a successful brand and certainly has its own band of haters who are ready to say anything to taint its reputation.

But today, Techcrunch has posted an article where someone actually has dissected the said model of iPod and found an unidentified chip, “that appears to be some sort of proprietary digital control that prevents unauthorized transmission of commands to the Shuffle without an official Apple adapter.” Now, this may well be the evidence that we need that the Shuffle does indeed contain a DRM chip.

Which is just very sad and hypocritical. Sad, because the DRM technology which was first invented to stop any piracy to intellectual properties, is now being used to defer what is actually a fair business competition. Hypocritical, because Apple’s own Steve Jobs has been reported before to state his position that he is ( or should we say was? ) anti-DRM. Granted, Jobs is not currently on the helm of Apple due to health issues, but as David Rothman of Teleread excellently put it, “the Shuffle was probably planned long before the back-off, and second, I doubt that his people would take this radical step without consulting with him.” People may actually leave iPod as their own preferred brand of MP3 player after this.

As for me, I now find myself simply lamenting the day DRM was invented. Period. The way things are going, if big companies keep on using it, the only one being victimized is us : the valid customer. As for the piracy, I do feel that you can now conveniently use it as an excuse if you want to use DRM in your product to force people to use its own peripherals ( another of your products ). The customer is then left with no choice. Let’s just pray that somebody, somewhere will again do something about this. At the very least, we can say our opinion about this abuse of our technology.

As I write this post, one of my colleagues told me that DRM is not popular anymore. In a lot of ways, he’s right. Which is precisely why it bothered me to no end when I read a piece in Slashdot where someone found that DRM technology is still embedded in Windows 7. Further research on this topic lead me to a more worrying finding. Vista, with its wider user base, also contains a DRM system called the Protected Media Path. It will try to stop DRM-restricted content from playing while unsigned software is running in order to prevent the unsigned software from accessing the content, – sometimes even causing the computer to crash under some certain scenarios.

Like a lot of other things in life, DRM technology was created for a good cause. Basically, it is there to protect any kind of intellectual properties from being pirated for someone else’s gain. Taken from Wikipedia, it refers to any technology that attempt to control use of digital media by preventing access, copying or conversion to other formats by end users. It ranges from something as simple as a watermark on an image file to a protected audio file in a certain format like AAC or WMA.

In the recent times, it has been proven again and again that the implementation of DRM technologies more often than not resulted in unwanted consequences. In 2005, Sony BMG introduced new DRM technology which installed DRM software on users’ computers without clearly notifying the user or requiring confirmation. The plan backfired in the form of outraged customers and even class actions against Sony when it was later found that the installed software included a rootkit, which created a severe security vulnerability others could exploit. More recently, last year Spore became the most pirated game in 2008 just because it used a DRM technology called Securom.

Nowadays, ( correct me if I’m wrong on this ) the practice on using DRM technologies is frowned upon by most of everyday computer users. Steve Jobs himself has called on the music industry to eliminate DRM in an open letter titled Thoughts on Music. Since then, iTunes has started to sell DRM-free 256 kbit/s (up from 128 kbit/s) AAC encoded music from EMI.

This brings us to the big issue : Why did Microsoft still chose to include DRM in its Windows 7 ? There are two possible answers here : first, that they have some certain agreements with other software publishers to protect their Windows-based software from being tinkered on; or second, that it was an honest mistake by the Slashdot writer, – that his problem was somehow started by some other issue other than DRM ( as suggested by some of the post’s comments ). For their own benefits, I do hope that it’s the second answer.

If you are someone who use computer extensively like me to work, let’s hope that this will end soon.  But if you are someone who is planning to publish your work with DRM, I urge you to think carefully before you proceed.  Do the research, and decide whether it will be good for your business or not.