Why didn't Apple just use a 2.5mm headphone jack?
It's both thinner and shallower, with easy backwards compatibility.
Why didn't Apple just use a 2.5mm headphone jack?
Because it's not about making it thinner or shallower you stupid goy
it's to support DRM and sell marked up headphones
COURAGE
O
U
R
A
G
E
>thinner
iFAGS BTFO
Because Apple charges a $4 royalty for every Lightning peripheral.
Congrats, your old earphones that cost $0.50 to manufacture now have an additional $0.10 DAC in them and will now cost an additional $10 minimum.
Thanks, Tim C(r)ook!
>support DRM
Not OP but how does removing the port support DRM?
Well I think he means it supports their proprietary port.
because DRM can't be enforced on an analog signal
it used to be that you could plug your phone into an audio recorder and re-record your audio to strip DRM but that is no longer possible since the encryption can be locked to "apple-approved" DACs (like the ones in their headphones)
>it used to be that you could plug your phone into an audio recorder and re-record your audio to strip DRM but that is no longer possible since the encryption can be locked to "apple-approved" DACs (like the ones in their headphones)
Did people actually do that?
yes that's how a lot of music is leaked
also, Apple can now enforce time bombs on media content so that their external devices (adapters and headphones) will refuse to play media after a certain amount of time
To enforce digital output, which can be drm'd. It's false though, lightning output is analog.
To leave space for barometer! What, you use 3.5 more often than the barometer? You're using iPhone wrong then. It's already pain in the ass to use iPhone as a music player, they just took it a step further.
You know there's a standard 3.5mm adaptor right? There's nothing they can do once it leaves that.
>lightning output is analog.
No it's not, that's why the DACs are in the headphones and adapters
So they could make space for a well engineered empty plastic space
jesus christ why is this so hard for you to grasp
The 'standard 3.5mm adapter' you are talking about has a DAC inside it that can be programatically controlled by the digital signal
>DACs are in the headphones
Only the bluetooth ones, which makes sense.
Lightning to 3.5 adapter is completely passive. Lightning CAN be used for digital output, but so can usb.
Proof?
bullshit, citation needed
there's no fucking way those tiny connectors are passing analog signals
You can still encrypt/decrypt analog signals.
>Embed a signature in your analog output from the Apple-Approved DAC that identifies the phone any audio was recorded from via a 45Khz analog signal that repeats your phone ID numbers every 3 seconds.
>Send digital audio back for Content ID matching
Now we can sue you for downloading music illegally!
I can't tell if you're some snarky pedant talking about old lo-fi WW2 shit or just a fucking moron.
Welp, I was wrong about it then.
fucking lying apple shills GET OUT
you are a fucking moron, just use your fucking brain for a second and quit drinking the apple kool-aid
did you really think that some tiny ass 28awg wire connectors that are like 0.1mm away from one another could carry analog signals, analog AUDIO signals no less?
I mean c'mon think about it for a second at least
I don't understand why they would go to this effort when itunes purchases haven't had DRM for years?
because it's something they will implement sooner or later and allows them to charge music companies even higher rates since they "can allow them to control their content distribution" or some bullshit
This is business 101, you establish a customer base and then you start raping them because it is much easier to keep a customer than to get one in the first place
But the example in
Could not only be done on the old 3.5mm jack but easily gotten rid of. Is there a way that apple could do it that would actually work?
they could do it in software, which would easily be bypassed, now they can do it in hardware
if you start to understand what they are doing you will recognize that every active accessory they are peddling are literal trojan horses
But how? I'm asking how you add DRM to a file once it becomes analogue that isn't just info embedded at a certain frequency (which can be wiped)
Embed it into existing frequencies in the music so that it cannot be removed without destroying the music.
>what are psychoacoustics
>we can protect your file but we have to place noise within the audible frequency range, altering the final product
I don't think that would fly
Not relevant to the discussion?
Sorry that's not fair, it is relevant but it still falls within the realm of the same problems surely?
jesus you're a moron
psychoacoustics allow us to add and subtract data from an audio signal without making a perceptible difference
Yes I am a moron, help me out here by being more than a little vague. So we have data encoded in our audio file through the codec, it becomes analogue and is recorded, I use a waveform interpolator on it and the DRM is still there?
the idea is that the original file has no fingerprint/drm
the Apple DAC adds device fingerprinting to the analog signal that is completely imperceptible
the drm is there, it's encoded into the audio but you, as a human with shit hearing and detection (relatively speaking to a computer) would have no idea
would you see it in a waveform? only if you knew what you were looking for. it could be so complex that only a special detector could identify it
Right, that's interesting. I'd be impressed to see how they could do it in a way which was not noticeable in the waveform (i.e. within the used frequency range) and also able to be decoded by them without errors (not being accidentally perceived as a DRM bit when it is actually music). I guess you would have very specific points at which a bit of info is stored but that would have to be universal across all audio, making it easier to notice and bypass (simply play 4'33" and instantly spot the DRM for example).
Still thanks for the info, very interesting.
you are severely underestimating the amount of data that can be stored in an audio signal and overestimating human hearing
do some research on how lossy codecs work and you'll understand why we can take a 100MB redbook audio file and reduce it to 1/20 of its size with no perceptible data loss using double-blind ABX
good question krillin
Human hearing has got nothing to do with what I'm asking, I don't doubt that the DRM can be imperceptible. I'm asking about DRM specifically and how it might be encoded in a way which can't be beaten by filtration/interpolation/simple waveform examination yet still decoded by apple.
>implying thickness was ever a problem for apple
I understand what your saying but my point still stands...there is SO much bandwidth to take advantage of it that it would be impossible to stop since it could be obfuscated in so many ways, the simplest of which would be some type of analog->digital encryption
jesus
Because millions of people will buy adapters now.
It's not as if most people actually have decent quality headphones already user. Most people use whatever earbuds come with their gear.
Also girls will judge you if you're a poor freak (or if you work for Jewgle or Pooinloocrosoft and have to eat your own dog food) and can't afford to get wireless headphones.