The year 2009 is marked as the year of elections for us Indonesians. In the early April, we voted for our legislative members, and shortly afterwards the big presidential election will follow closely. This blog is of course not about politics, and will never talk about it, I presume. That’s why I’m not going to contribute to the wildly-crowded, but lively, discussions about Indonesian politics.

What is indeed interesting to be slightly touched is the role of CTO ( Chief of Technology Officer ) in any government’s administration. This issue was brought to the surface by Barack Obama when he announced that he will appoint USA’s first CTO with the following purpose in mind :

“to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.”

As we speak, we know that he is still yet to make good of that promise. America is still waiting to see who’s going to have the first seat as her CTO. Political issues aside, I think that’s one good strategy to adopt for whoever going to run as presidential candidates here in Indonesia. Of course, speaking locally, he / she then will be called a Minister of Technology or something similar.

The job of being a CTO is surely not an easy one, let alone being a CTO for a whole nation. In the corporate world of business, a CTO job will closely reflect or overlap with the more familiar job of CIO ( Chief Information Officer ). An excellent article I read discussed about this and mentioned that :

“the CIO is responsible for ensuring that the company’s information technology investments are aligned with its strategic business objectives. To this end, the CIO has emerged as the key executive for information assets, operations, and policy…… In addition, most CIO responsibilities have expanded beyond the traditional role to include both strategic and tactical duties, as well as corporate policy direction.”

Now take that definition and apply it into a nation, – in this case Indonesia. Cross out the words “company” and “corporate”, and change it with “country” or “national”. You will then get an accurate picture of a very complicated, but challenging, job a CTO would have in our country. This position would demand an individual with a very specific set of skills and educated and experienced in such fields as information technology, electrical engineering, or computer science. He or she must also be a positive leader, an effective communicator (skilled in both listening and speaking), a persuasive negotiator, and a customer-orientated individual.

Again, I am not going to argue about whether such a capable individual exists in our country or not. Instead, I’m going to propose that every presidential candidate of Indonesia will do well to include the role of CTO in his / her planned platform. It is an undeniable truth that nobody’s perfect. So why not incorporate it into your program ? At best, – that is if you’re elected, it would help to work at technology-related issues in Indonesia. There is simply a yearning need for that cannot be ignored. At worst, – if you lose the vote; well, at least it would make your campaign sexy. Think about it.

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.