Showing posts with label iPod. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPod. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Disabling an iPod's headphone volume alerts

No comments:
This is a cross-posting of a thread I started on TidBITS Talk

Yesterday, while taking a short road trip, my iPod Touch (running iOS 15.8.1) stared giving me "headphone safety" notifications, complaining that I’m subjecting myself to dangerous volume levels for an extended period of time.

Yes, the iPod was running at maximum volume for three hours. But not into headphones. The headphone jack was connected to a cable to the car’s AUX audio input, for playback over the car's speakers.

I’ve been doing this for years, but something must have changed recently because I never got these warnings before today. (And they even propagated through iCloud into my phone’s Health app - just to rub it in, apparently).

I eventually found the location to disable this, but contrary to expectation, it’s not located in the "Sounds → Headphone Safety" page of system settings (where the option to "Reduce Loud Sounds" is located), but is instead, in the Accesibility section, for some strange reason. Accessibility → Hearing → Audio/Visual → Headphone Notifications.

I've turned it off. I’ll see if it does anything on my next road trip, where I'll be playing music at 100% volume out the headphone jack into the car stereo for six hours.

h/t: iPhone Life: How to Turn Off Headphone Safety Notifications on iPhone (iOS 17)

Friday, September 11, 2009

Comments on "iTunes and Cocoa"

No comments:
This week, John Gruber wrote an article commenting on the fact that the latest version of iTunes is still a 32-bit application using Apple's Carbon APIs (vs. the newer Cocoa APIs Apple encourages developers to use today.

John makes many good points and discusses the subject very thoroughly. If the question interests you, I highly recommend you jump through the above link and read the article. I'll wait for you to come back here when you're done reading.

Done reading? Great.

During the article, John writes:

Cocoa was not magic pixie dust that inherently made the Finder radically better. But so why did Apple bother? Because Cocoa and 64-bit are the future of Mac OS X. And, for many new APIs, they are the present.

This is a very plausible explanation for why Apple chose to port nearly all of the system applications to the 64-bit Cocoa libraries. It is also really good marketing PR - what better way to encourage others to use your new libraries than to point our that you yourself are using them everywhere.

But there's another possible reason that I think may make even more sense: the need to test all those new libraries.

The 64-bit Cocoa APIs are brand new. As such, they need to be thoroughly tested. What better way to test them than to use them in as many applications as possible? Since the outside world doesn't have the new libraries, there won't be any third-party applications using them, and real-world applications almost always provide better testing than contrived test cases.

With all the system apps using the 64-bit Cocoa libraries, it means developers and testers will be exercising these new libraries with every app they run. Additionally, it guarantees that the application code is portable to both 32- and 64-bit environments, since Apple will still have to ship and test 32-bit versions of them. (Some of the early-model Intel-based Macs only have 32-bit processors.)

If they didn't port all this code to 64-bit Cocoa, then the 64-bit Cocoa libraries would end up shipping with a lot less testing. This would result in bugs being discovered post-release, as third-party apps are developed. That's something no developer ever wants to have to deal with. Aside from the embarrassment, sometimes you find bugs where the best fix is to change the API in a way that breaks applications. This isn't a problem if the API hasn't been released and the only apps are your own. It is difficult, often impossible, and always embarrassing to do this after you have shipped those APIs to customers. Once an API is shipped to customers, its published interface can't change, forcing you to fix the bug in other ways, which may be awkward, less efficient, or downright hack-ish.

As for why Apple didn't port iTunes to 64-bit Cocoa? My guess is that iTunes 9 was under development for quite some time, while the new APIs were still in a state of flux. If you've got a release schedule to meet (and iTunes 9 had to ship on the same day as the new iPod announcements) then you don't want to attempt porting to a potentially unstable platform. Far better to ship on-time and then begin your porting effort afterwards.

Will iTunes be ported to 64-bit Cocoa in the future? It wouldn't surprise me, but there may not be an overriding need to do so at this point. Now that the 64-bit Cocoa libraries have shipped, the "libraries need testing" argument no longer applies, so we're back to the "how will it improve the iTunes app itself" argument. John's article discusses this at length and provides a good explanation, so I won't repeat his arguments here.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

New iPod shuffle, now without any controls!

1 comment:
Update 3/17/2009: New information about the controls (seven operations on the middle button, not five), fixed a typo, and added a little more commentary.


This week, Apple released the third generation iPod Shuffle.

This unit is even smaller than before, if you can believe it. 1.8" x 0.7" x 0.3".

So how'd they get it this small? Simple, they removed all the controls.

Well, not really, but it seems that way. On the iPod itself, there is only a slider switch (off, sequential play, shuffle play) and the headphone jack. It is charged and attached to computers via the headphone jack and a proprietary USB cable.

So how do you actually control the thing? It uses a special set of headphones, with three buttons on the cord. This is the same kinds of headphones introduced for the iPhone, for "hands free" operation. On the cord, the "+" and "-" buttons control the volume. Between the two is a big flat button, whose behavior will depend on how you push it:

  • Click once to play/pause
  • Double-click to skip forward a track
  • Double-click and hold to skip forward within a track
  • Triple-click to skip backward a track
  • Triple-click and hold to skip backward within a track
  • Press and hold and a voice synthesizer will say the title and artist of the track currently playing
  • Press and hold until you hear a beep tone to skip to have your list of playlists recited to you. Click to select the playlist last-announced.
If you think this seems unusually complicated for an Apple product, then we're in agreement. It may be sleek and "kewl" to eliminate all the buttons, but when that design forces you to cram seven distinct features onto a single button, it's a bad design. Sure, it's documented, but let's be honest - how many iPod owners have ever read the documentation?

And, of course, there's the problem of what to do if you don't want to use Apple's headphones. Maybe you've got better-sounding ones, or you want to plug your shuffle into your car stereo or something. Without the proprietary earphones, the shuffle starts playing when you turn it on and stops when you turn it off, and that's all you can do. Not at all acceptable unless someone starts selling a set of controls you can attach in-line with a generic headphone/line cord.

My prediction is that this iPod is going to be quickly replaced with something more like the second-gen model, that has actual controls. Or there will be a new accessory to provide a more proper set of controls for those people who don't like the Apple headphone buttons and/or want to use a different set of headphones.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Why my next PDA will be an iPod

No comments:
Today, at the Macworld expo, Apple announced a software update for the iPod Touch. This adds several key applications, giving it almost all of the capabilities that I have in my Palm PDA. Given the fact that Palm will soon stop making PDAs (focusing entirely on smartphones), this is very good news for me.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Discrete Track Recording hard drives

No comments:
Apple's newest iPods use a 1.8" hard drive with a capacity of 80GB per platter. This results in two different capacities - a single-platter 80GB drive and a slightly-thicker 2-platter 160GB drive.

Not content with that, Toshiba has invented a new hard drive technology, known as Discrete Track Recording (DTR). DTR promises to increase capacity by 50% (when combined with existing perpendicular recording technologies). They have already announced a 1.8" drive with 120GB per platter (and therefore 240GB on a 2-platter drive.) They expect to ship these drives in 2009. Expect Apple to ship iPods with this a week later.

They have not yet announced drives with this technology in other form factors, but we can probably expect to find 50% storage increases across the board - meaning 2.5" laptop drives at 480GB. (They did say that the process "is most easily applied to small form factor HDDs", so we may not find 3.5" drives using this until the process matures, but when it does, it would not be unreasonable to expect a 1.5TB drive.)

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Steve Jobs: Apple would embrace DRM-free music downloads

No comments:
In an unusual open letter, Steve Jobs (founder and CEO of Apple, Inc.) writes about the current state of legal music download services.

He starts off by explaining why music download services (including Apple's own iTunes Store) apply digital rights management (DRM) data to downloaded music. As you are probably aware, this isn't because Apple wants to be mean, but because the record companies (that hold the copyrights on the music) demand it. He says that Apple's contract requires strong DRM, and that if the DRM is broke, Apple must quickly fix it or the record labels can withdraw their entire catalog from the store.

This was news to me. I know the record labels require strong DRM, but it hadn't occurred to me that Apple's store can be completely shut down if a third party breaks the DRM in a way that Apple can't fix. I wonder if other music stores (like Microsoft's Zune store, or the numerous WMA-download stores) have similar terms on their licenses.

Jobs then proceeds to explain three possible futures for DRM content.

The first possible future, is to leave everything as it is. While many critics claim that this is a "lock-in", forcing iTunes Store customers to buy iPods, and forcing iPod customers to buy from the iTunes Store, Jobs points out several facts that contradict this:

  • iPods can play several non-protected formats, including MP3 and AAC.
  • The overwhelming majority of music on iPods is not purchased from the iTunes store. (Most is ripped from legally-purchased CDs.) It's hardly a lock-in if the majority of music on iPods is not restricted, and only a small percentage is restricted.
Jobs doesn't mention a third fact - that Apple's DRM allows customers to burn CDs with the purchased music. These CDs can be ripped into a non-DRM format, which can be played on any computer or portable player. So even iTunes purchases can be made portable, although with some degradation in quality.

The second possible future Jobs describes is an open-DRM standard. Specifically, he addresses those critics that want Apple's "FairPlay" DRM to become an open standard. So multiple stores can sell FairPlay tracks, and so non-Apple music players can play those tracks.

Jobs points out that Apple has a difficult time right now, meeting their contractual obligations to the record companies. FairPlay DRM has been broken a few times. Apple has repaired the damage by simultaneously updating the iTunes Store, the iTunes client software, and the iPod firmware. This coordinated effort is not easy to get right. It would be virtually impossible to coordinate this across dozens of music stores and dozens of music player manufacturers.

On top of all this, DRM systems all use secrets (encryption algorithms, encryption keys, etc.) When these secrets are shared among dozens of corporations, leaks to the outside world will be inevitable, undermining the entire concept.

Either of these scenarios (undermining DRM, or failure to quickly distribute updates) would result in the record labels shutting down music stores, which definitely would not be in the public interest. (Jobs also points out how even Microsoft is moving from an open DRM standard, "plays for sure" to a closed one on the Zune.)

Finally, Jobs proposes the third solution - eliminate DRM altogether. I am a proponent of this, and I know a lot of other people who are too. I was, however, shocked and awed that the CEO of Apple proposed it as a serious alternative.

He points out several facts that are well known, but seem to be ignored by the record labels that demand DRM from on-line services:

  • 90% of music purchased is on CD, which has no DRM. Putting DRM on the 10% that is downloaded does nothing to prevent piracy, because the pirates can simply buy CDs.
  • DRM is expensive and difficult to develop, implement, and maintain.
  • DRM restricts consumer freedom
  • DRM makes it hard for new players to enter the music-player and music-reseller markets.

Jobs then points out that most of the clamor for Apple to open up FairPlay is coming from Europe. Most of the record industry (the ones demanding DRM) are European (Universal/Vivendi is French, EMI is British, Sony/BMG is 50% German). Jobs suggests that European governments direct their pressure at the record labels, to eliminate DRM requirements altogether.

Finally, Jobs states that if the record companies will support DRM-free music downloads, "Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly." This still amazes me.

I don't know if the record companies will ever wise up and realize that DRM is a waste of time and money (the way the software industry briefly understood the same about copy protection), but if anybody can convince them, it is Steve Jobs. Let's hope he can pull it off.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Now this is a great invention

2 comments:
A tie, with built-in in attachment points for an iPod nano.

Unfortunately, I don't own a nano (a mini would be too heavy for a tie) and I don't wear ties. Otherwise, it's a wonderful invention.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

I got mentioned in an AP article

1 comment:
Stephanie Hoo, of the AP wrote this article about how personal electronic devices (specifically, those with hard drives) don't work at high altitudes (like in Tibet).

In trying to figure out why, she ran across some blog posts of mine and contacted me for additional information, which was cited in the article.

Friday, January 13, 2006

iTunes Music Store now selling karaoke tracks

No comments:
It's true. iTunes is now selling instrumental versions of lots of songs, courtesy of a wide variety of karaoke publishers, like Sound Choice. You can find them here.

The interesting thing, however, is that these are audio tracks. As anybody who sings karaoke knows, it is much easier to sing when you have the lyrics in front of you, which is what you get when playing a CD+G karaoke disc on a compatible player.

Hopefully, this will be the start of a bigger trend. Since Apple sells videos through iTMS, they should start selling graphical karaoke tracks as videos. So when played, you get the graphics you'd see on a CD+G release. I think these would be very popular, especially if they're priced at the same $0.99 that audio tracks are sold at.

Of course, it would be even nicer if iTunes could play CD+G discs, ripping them to H.264 video files. But that may end up being too good to be true.

Monday, August 29, 2005

... and so it begins ...

No comments:
Remember the Rio? The first commercial MP3 player? Originally made by Diamond Multimedia, most recently made by D&M Holdings.

Well, D&M has decided to drop the Rio line of music players. Apparently they decided that they could not profitably compete against Apple's iPod.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

I got an iPod. Yippie!

No comments:
OK, so maybe this is of no importance to anybody else, but I'm thrilled over this newest arrival to my collection of tech-toys.

I've been wanting an iPod since they were first invented, but various factors prevented me from getting one. At first, it was the small capacity (my music collection is around 40GB. That's what happens when you've been buying CDs for over 15 years and rip them all into your computer.) Then it was the high price for the models large enough. Then (after figuring out how to load a random subset of music into it) it was indecision over what model to buy.

Well, fate made the decision for me this month. Earlier this year, Exabyte (makers of tape drives) ran a "VXA Saved The Day" promotion. You were asked to send in your stories about how their tape drive averted disaster. I told them about how an aberrant disk utility trashed my Mac's hard drive, and how I was able to recover in a few hours thanks to a full system backup on my Exabyte VXA-1 tape drive.

Well, they liked my story and I won an iPod mini (silver color). It arrived in the mail yesterday, and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. This is the previous generation mini, which means a shorter battery life (8 hours instead of 18), but with more bundled accessories. Mine came with both USB and FireWire cables, and an AC adapter. (The current model only includes a USB cable.)

I spent a few hours last night hand-picking songs to load into it (in the future, I'll set up iTunes to load stuff randomly, but right now, it's a new toy and I'm playing with it.) A simple audio cable to connect it to the car stereo, and I'm all set to take a road trip without bringing along a box of CDs.

I also noticed a feature in it that I requested from Apple a few years ago, and that hasn't gotten much publicity. The iPod supports a sleep timer. You can configure it to play for a fixed amount of time (15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1.5 hours, or 2 hours), after which it will turn itself off. Which means I can attach it to the stereo in my bedroom and have it play me to sleep.

At this point, the only question I have (which I'm sure will be answered soon) is how long the batteries will really last on a charge. Apple says that this model will run for up to 8 hours on a charge. Hopefully, they will be right.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

iPod Shuffle RAID

No comments:
What do you do if you come into posession of several iPod shuffles? That's right, make a RAID array from them!

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Apple Merges iPod & iPod photo Lines

No comments:
I was wondering when this was going to happen.

Apple has finally brought color screens (and photo capabilities) to all of their full-sized iPods, including the U2 edition.

Pricing is now 20G for $300, and 60G for $400. The 20G U2 edition is $330.

Now all we need is an 80G model to assume the now-empty $500 price point.