3 ms·

I'm surprised the article didn't mention DRM, which is almost certainly one of the main reasons behind this push.

Theizestooke 10y ago
I'm not surprised, since PR material was probably the source of the information.
Vexs 10y ago
That doesn't make sense. If you're recording off the 3.5mm jack, then you can record the output of the external dac just as well. Moving the dac out of the phone doesn't make piracy harder.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  DRM isn't about protection it's about inconvenience. Think about a streaming service which would play songs but some songs could only be decoded using Beats or Skullcandy...
  - dzhiurgis 10y ago
    Or serves higher quality audio for specific manufacturers.
  - Vexs 10y ago
    Yeah, I suppose that's possible, but it doesn't make sense for the artists, the publishers, or the streaming service, who make money by having people listen to their songs.
    - 1_2__3 10y ago
      ...No, they make money by people paying to listen to (or play) their songs.
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      Does it makes sense for an artist to make their music available to only one streaming service? Some would say no, and yet they still do it.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      They already do this, they limit which streaming services have their content, and do time/exclusive releases for specific services. Apple bought Beats for the app and the user base, it's not impossible to already do promotion like some headphones give you 20$ worth of iTunes credit, now it's even easier get Beats and get access to additional exclusive content, or like some one else suggested better quality content. Seems like a good way of pushing people to pay 300$ for 30$ worth of hardware, or more precisely helping people to justify their purchase because their headphones can actually now sound better than even entry quality studio/recording headphones. DRM can rarely be used as a protection against mass copying and pretty much never when you cannot control the analog output of the protected content, it's only real use it to restrict how lawfull consumers can access and use the content. External DAC's have existed for Android devices for quite a while (BT/USB DAC's), and even for iOS (you could connect a DAC to an iPhone/iPad since they switched to the Lighting cable). The streaming industry has almost hit a dead end with monetization, having a digital interface that can be controlled gives them a whole new avenue of value added services and while it's unlikely that they'll jump on it immediately I would bet my money on the likes of Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Music capitalizing on this within the next 2 years.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  The DAC will be hard wired into the headphones, there won't be a jack between the headphones and the DAC that you can plug into. At the start, you'd need to modify headphones to be able to record the signal, but I doubt this will work in the long term. At some point it's highly likely the DACs will come with DRM so that only approved headphones work with a device.
  - nine_k 10y ago
    This very much depends on the design of the headphones. Look at bluetooth headphones: there are models with a transciever built into the headphones, and separate transcievers where you can plug whatever headphones you want. The same can be the case with type-C.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    Nothing preventing someone from making a DAC with a 3.5mm jack instead of a set of headphones. In fact they already exist...
    - pjc50 10y ago
      In a DRM scenario, there would be an audio equivalent to HDCP in place, so you'd need a piece of technology which it's illegal to clone and only available if you sign a restrictive licensing agreement. Mind you, you'd still be able to cannibalise an existing set for this.
      - Vexs 10y ago
        Given how "successful" HDCP has been, I'd give it a month or two of survivablity. And yeah, as you mentioned, anyone with basic electronics skills (or for that matter, could follow a youtube video) could simply mod their hardware to plug whatever they want in.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Unless the DAC is very tightly integrated into the actual speaker (literally fused, so it's hard to connect to the coil), there always will be an analog loophole. DRM is not about preventing this, though. It's about making ordinary consumers surrender to whatever media dictates, not preventing absolutely everyone from ripping the content.
6stringmerc 10y ago
The air gap will always exist, just a matter of the tools being ubiquitous enough for it to be worth the effort.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Why do you assume that's why phone manufacturers would want to switch to Type-C for audio? Phones are getting slimmer, and the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective. Now, sure, you theoretically could use USB-C for DRM, but until someone actually implements this, I'll apply Occam's razor. Consider that iTunes and the like have been selling DRM-free music for years now. And that, even though Blu-ray players require HDCP DRM in order to play back video, they don't require it for audio.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  Why do we need thinner phones? They aren't bricks right now.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    Some people prefer thinner and lighter devices. Do we need them? No, but product decisions are not made based on needs alone.
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      I realize this is anecdotal, but I never hear[0] anyone say the iPhone needs to be thinner. I hear it needs to lose the bezels. I hear it needs a larger battery. I never hear it needs to be thinner. [0] Nor do I read about many people wanting it thinner.
  - Someone1234 10y ago
    I don't get it either. Thinner means lower structural integrity (remember "bendgate"), smaller batteries, and in this case lower functionality. Phones are thin enough. Plus people buy these thin phones then slap thick $5 rubber covers on them, what is even the point anymore? If people really want a thin phone then ditch the accessories, they're thin already.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective." Here's the problem with that perspective... 1. The 3.5mm jack isn't the thickest part of modern smartphones. To give one example, the camera module tends to be thicker. 2. As far as I've seen pretty much nobody is looking for phones to get any slimmer, especially as slimmer phones = smaller batteries. If you can find me any comments online from other people stating that the current top of the line smartphones are too thick, I'll be very surprised.

I'm not surprised, since PR material was probably the source of the information.

Vexs 10y ago

That doesn't make sense. If you're recording off the 3.5mm jack, then you can record the output of the external dac just as well. Moving the dac out of the phone doesn't make piracy harder.

dogma1138 10y ago
DRM isn't about protection it's about inconvenience. Think about a streaming service which would play songs but some songs could only be decoded using Beats or Skullcandy...
- dzhiurgis 10y ago
  Or serves higher quality audio for specific manufacturers.
- Vexs 10y ago
  Yeah, I suppose that's possible, but it doesn't make sense for the artists, the publishers, or the streaming service, who make money by having people listen to their songs.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    ...No, they make money by people paying to listen to (or play) their songs.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    Does it makes sense for an artist to make their music available to only one streaming service? Some would say no, and yet they still do it.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    They already do this, they limit which streaming services have their content, and do time/exclusive releases for specific services. Apple bought Beats for the app and the user base, it's not impossible to already do promotion like some headphones give you 20$ worth of iTunes credit, now it's even easier get Beats and get access to additional exclusive content, or like some one else suggested better quality content. Seems like a good way of pushing people to pay 300$ for 30$ worth of hardware, or more precisely helping people to justify their purchase because their headphones can actually now sound better than even entry quality studio/recording headphones. DRM can rarely be used as a protection against mass copying and pretty much never when you cannot control the analog output of the protected content, it's only real use it to restrict how lawfull consumers can access and use the content. External DAC's have existed for Android devices for quite a while (BT/USB DAC's), and even for iOS (you could connect a DAC to an iPhone/iPad since they switched to the Lighting cable). The streaming industry has almost hit a dead end with monetization, having a digital interface that can be controlled gives them a whole new avenue of value added services and while it's unlikely that they'll jump on it immediately I would bet my money on the likes of Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Music capitalizing on this within the next 2 years.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ZenoArrow 10y ago
The DAC will be hard wired into the headphones, there won't be a jack between the headphones and the DAC that you can plug into. At the start, you'd need to modify headphones to be able to record the signal, but I doubt this will work in the long term. At some point it's highly likely the DACs will come with DRM so that only approved headphones work with a device.
- nine_k 10y ago
  This very much depends on the design of the headphones. Look at bluetooth headphones: there are models with a transciever built into the headphones, and separate transcievers where you can plug whatever headphones you want. The same can be the case with type-C.
- djrogers 10y ago
  Nothing preventing someone from making a DAC with a 3.5mm jack instead of a set of headphones. In fact they already exist...
  - pjc50 10y ago
    In a DRM scenario, there would be an audio equivalent to HDCP in place, so you'd need a piece of technology which it's illegal to clone and only available if you sign a restrictive licensing agreement. Mind you, you'd still be able to cannibalise an existing set for this.
    - Vexs 10y ago
      Given how "successful" HDCP has been, I'd give it a month or two of survivablity. And yeah, as you mentioned, anyone with basic electronics skills (or for that matter, could follow a youtube video) could simply mod their hardware to plug whatever they want in.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Unless the DAC is very tightly integrated into the actual speaker (literally fused, so it's hard to connect to the coil), there always will be an analog loophole. DRM is not about preventing this, though. It's about making ordinary consumers surrender to whatever media dictates, not preventing absolutely everyone from ripping the content.

6stringmerc 10y ago

The air gap will always exist, just a matter of the tools being ubiquitous enough for it to be worth the effort.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

Why do you assume that's why phone manufacturers would want to switch to Type-C for audio? Phones are getting slimmer, and the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective. Now, sure, you theoretically could use USB-C for DRM, but until someone actually implements this, I'll apply Occam's razor. Consider that iTunes and the like have been selling DRM-free music for years now. And that, even though Blu-ray players require HDCP DRM in order to play back video, they don't require it for audio.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Why do we need thinner phones? They aren't bricks right now.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Some people prefer thinner and lighter devices. Do we need them? No, but product decisions are not made based on needs alone.
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    I realize this is anecdotal, but I never hear[0] anyone say the iPhone needs to be thinner. I hear it needs to lose the bezels. I hear it needs a larger battery. I never hear it needs to be thinner. [0] Nor do I read about many people wanting it thinner.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  I don't get it either. Thinner means lower structural integrity (remember "bendgate"), smaller batteries, and in this case lower functionality. Phones are thin enough. Plus people buy these thin phones then slap thick $5 rubber covers on them, what is even the point anymore? If people really want a thin phone then ditch the accessories, they're thin already.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "the 3.5mm jack is the single thickest component in the phone. Removing it makes sense from this perspective." Here's the problem with that perspective... 1. The 3.5mm jack isn't the thickest part of modern smartphones. To give one example, the camera module tends to be thicker. 2. As far as I've seen pretty much nobody is looking for phones to get any slimmer, especially as slimmer phones = smaller batteries. If you can find me any comments online from other people stating that the current top of the line smartphones are too thick, I'll be very surprised.